MaryJae
FixAustin 'Fixated' on Fighting New Shelter
RECEIVED Thu., March 5, 2009
Dear Editor,
As this story demonstrates ["City Rejects FixAustin Charges," News, March 6], FixAustin is "fixated" on fighting the new shelter location instead of putting all that effort, time, and money where it could be doing something that would make a real difference. If FixAustin's goal truly is lowering the euthanasia rate, the best way to do that is to lower the number of animals entering the shelter. It's freshman economics 101, and it isn't too hard to figure out. Less dogs and cats coming into the shelter means less work for already overworked and overstretched rescue groups, less dogs and cats looking for good homes, and less dogs and cats being euthanized.
Secret memos detailing secret plans for incinerators? Most of us involved in animal rescue were aware that there might be an incinerator at the new location years ago. I am a rescuer and someone who is very actively involved in trying to lower the intake numbers through the only time-proven method of spay/neuter. I am also a taxpayer and someone who is concerned about the environment. If that incinerator will help lower the $377,000 that Austin taxpayers spent for Austin's Solid Waste Services to dispose of 190 tons and if it will help lower the 380,000 pounds of dead dogs and dead cats that were dumped in our landfill last year, I fully support the city using an incinerator. That said, I hope that we can move away from the issue of shelter location and get on with the real problem of lowering the number of stray, sick, and unwanted cats and dogs that find their way into our animal shelter each year.
Come on, FixAustin, let's work on "fixing" the source of the problem instead of quibbling about shelter location.
As this story demonstrates ["City Rejects FixAustin Charges," News, March 6], FixAustin is "fixated" on fighting the new shelter location instead of putting all that effort, time, and money where it could be doing something that would make a real difference. If FixAustin's goal truly is lowering the euthanasia rate, the best way to do that is to lower the number of animals entering the shelter. It's freshman economics 101, and it isn't too hard to figure out. Less dogs and cats coming into the shelter means less work for already overworked and overstretched rescue groups, less dogs and cats looking for good homes, and less dogs and cats being euthanized.
Secret memos detailing secret plans for incinerators? Most of us involved in animal rescue were aware that there might be an incinerator at the new location years ago. I am a rescuer and someone who is very actively involved in trying to lower the intake numbers through the only time-proven method of spay/neuter. I am also a taxpayer and someone who is concerned about the environment. If that incinerator will help lower the $377,000 that Austin taxpayers spent for Austin's Solid Waste Services to dispose of 190 tons and if it will help lower the 380,000 pounds of dead dogs and dead cats that were dumped in our landfill last year, I fully support the city using an incinerator. That said, I hope that we can move away from the issue of shelter location and get on with the real problem of lowering the number of stray, sick, and unwanted cats and dogs that find their way into our animal shelter each year.
Come on, FixAustin, let's work on "fixing" the source of the problem instead of quibbling about shelter location.
Sincerely,
Delwin Goss
Delwin Goss
