It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jackson County budget leaves out dogs, cats

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Jackson County, Missouri is a metropolitan portion of of the Greater Kansas City Metro area. It is the hub of much violent crime, drug trafficking, gang activity, and poverty. There are numerous social service agencies there, some dating back to the 1800s, and a large number of those are "non-profits", which provide necessary aid to thousands of people.

The county commissioners have recently drawn up their line items for next year's budget. This article gives an indication of where their priorities lie. I have real problems with this decision to omit funding for the spay/neuter programs that assist with limiting the number of unwanted cats and dogs in the urban core. Kansas City was recently recognized as being a no-kill community, with multiple shelters and spay/neuter programs, adoption centers, and PR that emphasized the improved attitude toward domestic companion animals' wellbeing.


Dogs and cats were the only big losers when the Jackson County Legislature approved its 2012 budget Wednesday.

Legislators declined to fund two agencies that have provided spay and neutering services and education for poor and low-income pet owners in Kansas City’s inner city the past five years. Instead, those funds are being shifted to social service programs aimed at helping people, such as those aimed at providing food to poor seniors and helping victims of domestic violence.

There was a sentiment among some legislators that people should be put ahead of pets in such a tough economy. But that debate happened behind the scenes. The measure passed without explanation or comment as the legislators largely rubber-stamped the $308.7 million budget that County Executive Mike Sanders submitted a month ago.

However, when they learned of the decision, representatives of the animal welfare agencies were vocal in their disappointment.


Read more: www.kansascity.com...

I worry that this decision will result in increased unwanted litters and resuming the senseless murder of many, many animals. It makes me sick. I just wondered what ATS thinks of this decision. Below the article, there are comments from readers. I for one am in agreement with "kcpeacenick", who says:

Everybody is missing a very important point. Pet animals are more than "just" dogs and cats. They are the only family many people have, and comfort to countless children and adults who have sadness and difficulty in their lives. Children who grow up with pets in the home are more likely to be kind to others and have better social skills. Failure to fund animal services is a direct endorsement of increased animal abuse -- and by extension abusive behavior among people -- and a decrease in the social health of an entire community. Shame on Jackson County.


Read more: www.kansascity.com...

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. While I am not a PETA member, I am a pet-friendly homeowner, and have had dogs and cats all of my life. I make a habit of adopting animals that have been abandoned, gone stray, or are being given away. Anyone else here find this a sad situation?

edit on 8-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Why should the tax payers be responsible for irresponsible pet owners?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
how many decades had bob hope been reminded delusional Americans to spay/neuters

face it, even the free/low cost programs dont work.

i'm sick and tired of my prize perrenials being killed off by feral cats toxic pee-pee galore!

americans waste too much and are sloppy and are irresponsible and all the feral cats in most backyards nationwide is one proof of it.

karma's a female dog, sometimes. too many



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mileysubet
 


For the same reason we are responsible for irresponsible parenting, irresponsible life choices & irresponsible sex with no condoms



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
They are spending money on needy people instead of stray animals?

The nerve!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
They are spending money on needy people instead of stray animals?

The nerve!


Yeah! Right?? The most innocent of our citizens, who are truly and really unable to lie, cheat, steal, shoot up meth, hold down a job, carjack, or practice birth control!!

Think your clever, eh? If I had a choice (which I do), I would prefer working with animals and animal rescue operations ANY DAY to spending wasted time throwing money at people who are too lazy or crazy to get their own act together. But then again, I don't trust people who don't like animals and don't see a reason to be responsible overseers of their well-being.

It's the arrogant, callous sociopaths that think animals are meant to be subjugated, and the Michael Vicks who take delight in watching them fight, after having trained them to be the equivalent of a gang leader... THOSE are the people who should be getting taxpayer support -- whether in homeless shelters or prisons. Right? WRONG.

Oh well. I didn't think it through before posting. Should have known better. But then again, if it were up to some people, the gangs would be shunned instead -- and given guns and everything they need, actually, knowing that they would eventually destroy themselves to a man if not for the "guardians". Vermin.

Oh yeah, we have that. Prison.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I love animals. I have 3 cats, that were ALL strays before we adopted them. In fact, all of my cats have always been strays that we adopted, and we have them spayed/neutered immediately.

However, tough times call for tough choices. Governments choosing PEOPLE over animals...that is exactly what they should do.

I'd guess that there are many, many people who love animals, like yourself, that will voluntarily step in and help these animals. I have several close friends who are extremely active in fostering animals, helping to find homes for these animals, etc. People LOVE animals, and will be there to step in.

Let's allow the government to get back to what it is supposed to do. And solving ALL of the problems in the world is NOT the role of government.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


You are right. While I am not a vehement supporter of "Nannyism", there are, of course, helpless victims of poverty and crime who warrant care. The problem is finding a balance, which I feel the county commissioners did not accomplish.

Thanks for your thoughtful response!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Face it there is already so much intrusion and red tape to tap into all of the public aid to the poor and needy that unless you are part of that welfare system you cannot access help even from a local church anymore.

Think about the poor Mom who felt so helpless she killed herself and tried to kill her children.

As for the animals this is a very sad day indeed. These programs while unaccessible to everyone did help to keep the pet population much lower. Without it I fear it will end up being like the whole abortion issue with billions of unwanted lives that have come in at a time when life will be a living hell for them.

There is already so much abuse, this is just one step closer to a hellish nightmare of monumental proportions.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Agreed. And if one has a chance to venture into the hellish nightmares that are all too real in portions of Jackson County already, it's not a far cry from our worst dreams.

I appreciate your response, antar. Unfortunately, too, even unneutered domestic companions can be kept INDOORS while in heat, or on a leash to be walked, or in a secured fenced area to prevent mating with viable wanderers. It can be annoying, but people STILL have options, even if they can't afford to spay/neuter.

Equally sad, to me, is that so many of those dwelling in the "neediest" parts of the city allow their animals to be abused, roam free, become pregnant or impregnate indiscriminately. ALL of which are actually preventable.

People like that should NOT be allowed to have domestic animals. (Or children, for that matter, but that is another thread). While pet adoption agencies are often not free, with some of them actually charging over $100 to cover expenses for temporary shelter, medical care, microchips, neuter/spay, vaccinations, worming, and licensing, they also SCREEN potential adopters, which is commendable.

The last "free to good home" I adopted was this February. I had been looking for a dog, having an "opening" after our beloved lab died and a grieving canine survivor whose best bud wasn't coming home; I spent days and days looking for a good fit. The one we adopted was found on craigslist, with a photo and a "personal ad" style...ending with "I promise if you take me home I will make you happy. Love, (name here)"

The family was a military one living on post, and were being shipped out overseas. My husband and I exchanged emails with them for a couple of days, and the then-owner decided to cancel the other "freebie takers" she had invited over to allow us to adopt her pup. I had taken the time to describe our home, our yard, our experience, and our attitude. She said she would not have considered anyone better, and everyone was better off for the agreement. We spent $103 on supplies before heading to the Fort to pick up our new "kid".

I am glad we were chosen; and while we have not YET had the extra money to neuter, we have kept the dog a virgin with no major problems.

My "tastes" would have been better pleased if it were a longer haired dog, but the personality on this one, and its unique mixture of breeds, make for a dog x 2.5! What a hilarious little thing!

It makes me sick to think of all the "free to good home" animals who actually wind up being neglected, abused, abandoned, or worse. People who accept "free" stuff will not care for it as would people who have invested money and time in a decision to do so. To me, that is sad.

Getting pregnant or impregnating someone IS free. And there are no screening questionairres or home inspections prior to conception in far too many cases. When those "free" babies don't wind up in good homes, and start costing financially and interfering with the parent(s)' "freedom".. well...nuff said.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


far too many sub-poverty people take pets when they are little and cute, they then buy a bag of cheap dogfood often when the little one really needs a puppy formula, and feed only when they remember or feel like it. water is something they hardly acknowledge and the 'pets' are often either chained up in all types of weather extremes and neglected the majority of the time.

Eventually these neglected pets get parasites and become full time outdoor dogs and carriers of fleas, ticks and worms.

I have seen this so many times and cannot 'adopt' or save any more than I already have and to have pets dumped off on me is something which does happen regularly, it was at one time pretty easy to find good homes but with the economy as it is and the over abundance of throw away pets on the rise, people just cant take it on as they once did.

So one solution is to pump any federal money into the killing business rather than taking the necessary steps to have spay and neuter programs available.

The problem with this is that the monies funneled will not be going into the no-kill-type shelters where the abandoned and often abused pets get a small chance at adoption and compassionate care, but instead to the major animal cruelty shelters where they often get sprayed with bleach into their eyes every morning during sanitation even when the temps are below zero and it causes animals to get sick.

another practice in the state/gov funded shelters is to give just enough serum to knock out the pet but not really enough to put them down, and then they get tossed into freezers still alive and fully aware but unable to move or make any protest against their handlers.

I think this is all part of the evil which walks among us and is only going to get worse on not only this issue but others in the near future as earth and all living and sentient beings are herded into a very dark and fruitless future.

I understand you misery, your pain, If I could give you a cyber hug I would.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with a program that was run in my city. They would trap ferral cats, spay or neuter them, give them a Rabies shot AND THEN RELEASE THEM where they were trapped. We have had six small children in the last two years, who have had to have Rabies shots, because there was no way to tell if the cats that bit them have had their Rabies shots. These clowns won't even put a tag in the ear of the cat so we can tell that it has had it's shots.

Every dog in the State has to have a license, which requires a Rabies shot, why shouldn't the same be for cats? I have shot at least six cats that have had Rabies, I turn the carcasses in for testing. I have also returned over twenty cats to their owners, because, they have had collars with ID tags.
edit on 8-12-2011 by JIMC5499 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


What you describe is appalling. I would have a huge problem with that as well.

EDIT TO ADD: You did not state what it is you have "no problem with". The bleach in the eyes? The near-death freezing? Or the reduction in funds to prevent cruelty and torture of animals who are VICTIMS?

Regarding your anecdote, however:

I applaud you for returning the 20, and cringe at the thought of having to shoot the others. My kitten was shot about two years ago and nearly died. He was nine months old, glossy, cared for, neutered, and vaccinated. He was shot by some jerk with a pellet one night, and fortunately made it home and inside. We awoke to him lying near the water bowl, his face and front paws soaked, unable to stand up and barely able to squeak to us (this is a very vocal and loud kitty)...

we took him to emergency care on that Sunday morning. He was in critical condition, but overnight they stabilized him enough to confirm he had been shot, and also had a bladder blockage. He went to our regular vet the next day, had a lengthy surgery, and the vet described what they found in his abdomen as rotten tomato soup, acute peritonitis due to a perforated colon.

He pulled through. To this day, if we ever find out who shot him, senselessly and cruelly, a KITTEN who was cared for and loved, and out to do his potty business, that evil individual will be growing a pellet hole in his own gut.

We filed a police report. And just to let you know -- in my state (not Missouri), it is a FELONY OFFENSE to injure a domestic pet. An investigation was ineffective, however, and the case remains unsolved. Animal control and the desk-jockey who took the report were ignorant of this law, but I confirmed it with the Attorney General's office.

That's all I have to say about that. The absolute-horror-of-a-human-being who did that to an animal that I love, who loves me back, is bound one day for a lonesome journey into his or her earned karmic justice, and it's gonna smell like rotten tomato soup. And you know who he or she might just bump into there? Michael Vick. Animal thug. Anti-hero, and False Idol. sickening.

edit on 8-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Seems like there should be enough concerned individuals that would take matters into their own hands instead of relying on government to do it.

There are many so-called animal rights groups that raise tons of money, that should be able to help out also.

Leave the government out of this.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499



I do have a problem with a program that was run in my city. They would trap ferral cats, spay or neuter them, give them a Rabies shot AND THEN RELEASE THEM where they were trapped.


Prove it.


We have had six small children in the last two years, who have had to have Rabies shots, because there was no way to tell if the cats that bit them have had their Rabies shots.


Prove it. and who is "We"? As feral cats do not just make cozy with any human being let alone a mass build up of alleged children. Sounds like propaganda to me...


These clowns won't even put a tag in the ear of the cat so we can tell that it has had it's shots.


If there is such a program out there which I doubt then those who are trying to keep and reduce the feral population down are to be commended and called clowns for their efforts.


Every dog in the State has to have a license, which requires a Rabies shot, why shouldn't the same be for cats?


What state is that? Do you mean your city?



I have shot at least six cats that have had Rabies, I turn the carcasses in for testing.


So you admit to animal cruelty? this is punishable by law you know right? Admitting that you take pot shots at defenseless animals and then take their bodies for testing is also something you will have to prove to me because I think your action stops or stoops at shooting any animal that has the misfortune to cross your deadly path.


I have also returned over twenty cats to their owners, because, they have had collars with ID tags.


Is this before or after you shoot them?

You are a masochist and an animal hater, torturer, what next? children?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I have no problem with the reduction in funds. Let PETA or some other group come up with the money. In 1991 Pittsburgh had a serial rapist. There was a reward of $1500 for information that led to an arrest. A few weeks after the reward was offered, a cat was found that had been shot by somebody several times with a paintball gun. Within twenty-four hours there was a $15,000 reward for the person who shot the cat. I can't complain about the catch and release program wasting tax dollars because it was paid for by a woman who left her estate to the animal group that did it.

If this city collects fees for dog and / or cat licenses, this money should be used. If they don't, then start a licensing program and use the revenue from it to pay for this.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
As much as animals are very cute, very innocent, and oftentimes very helpless, I do think that it devalues humanity as a whole to place some humans lives as less important than the lives of animals.

Also, a big reason why so many animals are abused and neglected is precisely because there are cycles of poverty which keep people impoverished and uneducated in this country. Spaying and neutering animals only scratches the surface of the problem, which is that many impoverished people simply do not have the time or leisure to focus on animals when it's 50/50 whether they themselves are going to eat that night. We need to address the horrific ways that human beings are living and find ways to help end cycles of poverty which ensure that people are raised in an environment where they are not capable of taking care of pets, either because they are uneducated and therefore treat pets horribly or do not have spare time or money to take care of them.

Human beings should always come first, because if human beings themselves are not addressed, pets will continue to live in horrible conditions and so will human beings. It as a whole will badly affect both sides of the equation if pet services are valued over human dignity.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Well now aren't you just the judge jury and executioner all wrapped into one loving bundle of hate.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


Do you really think that the same people making these cuts are doing it for the benefit of human aid? no. These funds will not be allocated to social programs they are just trying to cut every corner they can for continuity of government as the country tanks.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 



As much as animals are very cute, very innocent, and oftentimes very helpless, I do think that it devalues humanity as a whole to place some humans lives as less important than the lives of animals.


I didn't say that. I agree with your post in its entirety EXCEPT I protest your paraphrasing in that first sentence. You got it backwards. Animals are not less important than humanity as a whole. They are EQUALLY important, and MORE VULNERABLE. But yes, in fact, those humans who DO abuse animals for their own sick entertainment or out of lack of compassion and education and pure ignorance ARE less important.

Otherwise, in my opinion you are correct. It is far better to educate and teach nurturing to human beings, who are the stewards of the rest of nature. It is incumbent on humans to respect, value, and care for the lives around us that are non-human. Without them, humanity would be nothing. Empty shells with wagging tongues on a desolate, ugly, joyless planet.
edit on 8-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join