This morning we report both sides of an issue worth MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and countless cute pet lives . . .
To wit . . .
KANSAS CITY ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS SEND EXCLUSIVE WORD TO TKC READERS CHALLENGING CRITICS OF QUESTION #3 AND THE NEW ANIMAL SHELTER UP FOR A VOTE IN THE APRIL 4TH ELECTION!!!
Background . . .
Remember that tax fighter and maybe one of the only guys in Kansas City looking to save you money, Dan Coffey recently asked:
Does Kansas City, MO need a totally new Animal Shelter???
Here is the retort . . .
Teresa Johnson is executive director of The KC Pet Project and she shares these comments and a bit of data in support of Question . . .
"It was brought to my attention that some inaccurate information about animal sheltering has been distributed by Dan Coffey at Citizens for Responsible Government. Inaccurate statements by Mr. Coffey are not new, as he regularly releases misinformation in an effort to attack virtually all measures related to improving Kansas City. While Mr Coffey may be earnest in his opposition to the bond plan to build a new shelter, he has spoken out of his wheel house when it comes to the state of animal sheltering in our Metro . . .
"It's completely unrealistic that any of them could provide free services to the city -- and even more unrealistic that any of them would be in a position to handle more than 10,000 animals per year for the city of Kansas City without significant financing by the city . . .
"Kansas City is a leader in the metropolitan area. KC Pet Project is a shining example of a positive public/private partnership in animal welfare. And animal health services are an economic engine for this city.The city's residents should expect Kansas City to be able to provide an adequate, modern facility for the care of the city's homeless pets. Voting YES on Question 3 will make that happen."
Read her comments in full after the jump . . . And you decide the fate of cute doggies on Kansas City streets in the upcoming April 4th Question #3 vote. Developing . . .
Teresa Johnson Of The KC Pet Project
It was brought to my attention that some inaccurate information about animal sheltering has been distributed by Dan Coffey at Citizens for Responsible Government. Inaccurate statements by Mr. Coffey are not new, as he regularly releases misinformation in an effort to attack virtually all measures related to improving Kansas City. While Mr Coffey may be earnest in his opposition to the bond plan to build a new shelter, he has spoken out of his wheel house when it comes to the state of animal sheltering in our Metro.
KC Pet Project is nationally recognized as a the THIRD largest, open-admission No Kill Shelter in the country - meaning no pet from Kansas City, MO is turned away. "No Kill" is often used for limited admission shelters that close admission when they are full, but commit to providing the animals in their care a live outcome. Also, the 4400 Raytown Rd is the only facility that accepts stray, lost or abused animals from Kansas City. And while other organizations could in theory accept owner relinquishments from KCMO residents, they are under no obligation to do so. KC Pet Projects other locations and staffing are paid for by donor dollars and cannot accept animal control intake or owner relinquishments.
In addition to his misunderstanding of the differences between open-admission and limited admissions shelters Mr Coffey inaccurately notes that the other shelters in the area "Get No Federal, State or City Funds." However, he is wrong in his claims as all of them receive some level of city or county funding.
The Animal Rescue League of Iowa, in Des Moines, receives more than $700,000 per year from the City of Des Moines for their contracted services for Animal Control Field Services and to operate their animal shelter.
Wayside Waifs has agreements with the cities of Riverside, Grandview and Belton for the animal sheltering services and receives payment from all three for the services they provide to those communities.
The Humane Society of Greater Kansas City has a contractual agreement with the Unified Government of Wyandotte County for veterinary care for the shelter animals in that community.
And the Great Plains SPCA also receives annual funding from the city of Independence and from Jackson County taxpayers.
Actually, Great Plains SPCA shelter in Independence is a great comparison as the services they provide the city of Independence most directly mirror the relationship KC Pet Project has with Kansas City. The animal shelter in Independence was built entirely with taxpayer dollars from Jackson County, and each year, the Great Plains SPCA receives $435,000 from the city of Independence and Jackson County contributes $130,000 to the cost of operation. http://fox4kc.com/2013/02/12/new-jackson-county-animal-shelter-to-open-in-april/
Question 3 on the April ballot would provide the same for Kansas City residents as it would provide a new facility for KCMO to replace aging, dilapidated building and then continue to contract the sheltering services to KC Pet Project.
I also want to clarify the reported numbers of pets "handled" in Mr. Coffey's note. Animal welfare organizations fill a variety of purposes, including intaking animals from the public and animal control, providing low cost veterinary services, or providing basic vaccinations and city licenses. While all are important functions, the cost difference between providing a round of vaccinations (which takes 15 minutes) is different that providing for the cost and care of rehoming an animal which may take weeks or even months. So several of the organizations have very large animals "Handled" numbers due to public veterinary services provided -- which KC Pet Project does not do in large part due to the inadequacies of the shelter facility in which they are currently using a double-wide trailer as a veterinary clinic.
Pointing out these contracts and differences isn't meant to to disparage any of these organizations who all do fine work in the capacities they serve.It is, however, unrealistic to believe that any not-for-profit group would be able to provide an important government service such as animal care and sheltering services without government spending for these services with the cost based on the size and scope of the relationship.
Working with not-for-profits is beneficial for cities, as in each of these cases, the not-for-profits are providing services far beyond the value of their respective contracts. However, it's completely unrealistic that any of them could provide free services to the city -- and even more unrealistic that any of them would be in a position to handle more than 10,000 animals per year for the city of Kansas City without significant financing by the city.
Even if it were possible, it wouldn't negate the fact that all of these facilities are quite a distance from the majority of Kansas Citians. This long distance would drive up costs and inefficiencies for the animal control officers who bring in the majority of animals to the shelter and also be a disservice to KCMO residents who might need to visit the shelter looking for a lost pet. Many residents already struggle with this due to lack of transportation options to the current shelter, but putting the shelter in another city would make this incrementally challenging for the city's residents.
Kansas City is a leader in the metropolitan area. KC Pet Project is a shining example of a positive public/private partnership in animal welfare. And animal health services are an economic engine for this city.The city's residents should expect Kansas City to be able to provide an adequate, modern facility for the care of the city's homeless pets. Voting YES on Question 3 will make that happen.
##################
No comments:
Post a Comment