Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
REPORTING · 6th March 2012
Walter McFarlane
Councillor Mary Murphy made a pair of motions regarding the Animal Shelter at the regular Council Meeting on February 20th. Her first motion was to look into the cost of a crematorium for pets at the Humane Society and to look into available grants. Her second motion was to look into a mandatory spay neuter program.

She explained herself and Mayor Joanne Monaghan had a discussion at the shelter.

“Animals are transported to Terrace for incineration and this is not available in town. This is an added benefit for the Humane Society and gives them some bargaining power for other resources in town. They already offer different services to try and offset the cost and this would give them an added benefit and value,” said Murphy.

She explained this would give them an advantage to bargain with the vet since animals are picked up from the vet or in town. If an animal is euthanized, they are dumped at the landfill. This is uncomfortable for the employees who work at the shelter because animals are being dumped along side garbage.

Murphy stated there was room in the society building.

Councillor Mario Feldhoff wanted to know how much a crematorium would cost. Monaghan stated she talked to Municipal Manager Ron Poole about it. He could not come up with the numbers off the top of his head but he stated he would reflect on a study which was done a few years ago.

Murphy said there has been research done and they would be looking at $30,000 for the system.

Councillor Rob Goffinet ensured the investigation would be done with the Humane Society. The motion was carried.

The motion for the Mandatory Spay / Neutering Bylaw was placed before previous Council’s and she hoped Council would return to this issue.

“It would allow the community to manage the pet population more effectively. Every year, hundreds of cats are being euthanized because they are over populating communities and only so many good homes can be found. There is little or no chance of transferring them to other communities to find homes as these communities are facing the same problems. It’s stressful for the staff to euthanize animals and still more and more animals are coming in the door,” said Murphy.

She said breeders would be able to apply for a Business License or Kennel License. There would have to pay a licensing fee for un-altered animals in the community. Right now a fixed animal costs $7 and $30 for an unfixed animal. Murphy suggested a cost of $100 per year for each unfixed animal.

She added there are grants for people to fix their pets. Once this is in place, she recommended heavy fines for failure to comply.

Feldhoff suggested tabling the motion until they can contact the Humane Society. He said he supported the direction but he said the mandatory chipping program was more important because it lead into the spay / neuter program.

Murphy said she talked to the Humane Society first and there are not enough homes for the animals being bred in the community. Goffinet wanted to know what the timeline was to return because he did not wish to delay.

Feldhoff said he does not want to harm the good animal owners. He wanted the chipping first because it would identify the owner. They can not do this at the moment.

The motion was tabled.
yes!
Comment by kelly on 13th March 2012
It's about time! Responsible pet owners DON"T add to the pet overpopulation problem. Good pet owners WANT to find lost pets quickly. I'm happy to let the people who add to the numbers of animals in the shelters pay more money for licensing. Everybody else is paying for THEIR pets now.
Thumbs up to council if they pass these motions!
Kelly Aitken
Waiting too long
Comment by LindaM on 7th March 2012
I think a mandatory spay /neuter program is far more important and urgent than a chip program. Cut the pet population first, worry about chipping later. And lets not study the problem to death first.
Council knows what needs to be done, so do it. Or at least make a start of something.
GOOD ANIMAL OWNERS
Comment by LINDA HALYK on 6th March 2012
Hurt the good animal owners???? The good animal owners all ready have there animals spayed & neutered. So why would this law harm them, I don't understand your reasoning?

This motion keeps being brought up and tabled.
Good grief if you can't make a simple decision like this then how are you going to make a decision on the pipeline.

Who is running this town? It seems Councilor Feldhoff makes all the decisions.