Defending Animal Charity

Defending Animal Charity

EDITOR:

Animal Charity wrote a letter to the editor Dec. 13 stating its need for public support, and Jason Whitehead’s letter a week later was the city’s response? From reading his letter, I see nothing but criticism. I have read countless articles about Animal Charity doing good work and saving abused and neglected animals. Nowhere did the letter state how the city helps Animal Charity or any other animal organization other than the once-a-year donation.

I thought Mr. Whitehead’s letter might have portrayed how the city partners with animal organization groups or maybe even statistics on the number of animal calls the city responds to in comparison to Animal Charity. All I read was criticism. Does the mayor’s office really believe that $17,000 a year formulates the major funding for Animal Charity? Most likely Animal Charity’s calls are 80 to 90 percent from the city. It seems to me that the city is getting off pretty cheap.

The city alleges there have been three mistakes by Animal Charity over the last four years. Instead of embracing what that organization has done, the city points fingers. The city should take a look at itself first. I can recall through various Vindicator articles when the city police department has killed seemingly innocent animals. Police killed a 7-month-old puppy not too long ago inside its home. According to The Vindicator, police shot and killed two dogs in October on one night. As if that weren’t enough, police shot one of the dogs 17 times while the dog tried to protect its puppies, apparently because someone claimed the dog bit someone. Where is the outcry by the mayor’s office to that?

I think 17 bullets by two policemen is animal abuse, incompetency, or both. The standard police response that the city hides behind is that they were vicious dogs. Is it possible the police are ill-equipped and untrained to handle animal calls? I cannot ever remember reading where a humane agent from Animal Charity had to shoot and kill an animal.

Instead of addressing these issues, Mr. Whitehead wants to point out that Animal Charity is falsely claiming that it is the only agency legally able to handle these cases and he cites an obscure law that states how if the dog warden has reason to believe an animal is being inhumanely treated, it can apply for a court order from the county in which the premises are located and then seize the animal. If that is the case, why didn’t the city use the dog warden and that law in the cases it cited against Animal Charity?

Based on that obscure law that he cited, Animal Charity should rethink the statement that they are the only agency who can legally handle abuse calls. What Animal Charity should say is that it is the only agency that handles abuse calls because it is the only agency that cares.

DEBBIE GODDARD

Calcutta

Short and sweet

EDITOR:

Please save the polar bears.

CHRISTINE HALMOS

Poland