Discover rewarding casino experiences. 
Please Don't Quote Me If it had been the twenty-first century, Mary Melugin would have been bopping across the prairie with ear buds plugged into her head while lengthily texting or twittering more than the birds in the grove of trees she’d just passed. But it was only a few decades into the nineteenth century with little technology in everyday life. |
Pet Population Control Fund Policy: (Still) No Cats Allowed?By Mick Parsons For The Prairie Advocate NewsMOUNT CARROLL – The Animal Control and Highway Committee, after having its last recommendation on the county’s Pet Population Control Fund Policy kicked back to committee by the county board, has developed another draft that it intends to present this Thursday for consideration. This draft, done in no small part to alleviate the concerns and questions revolving around “the cat question” that has been a passionate issue for some and a distraction for others, carries specific language designed to allow the county to spend the PPCF money on registered dogs only – while leaving a small window in the event that the county decides to start registering cats. Specifically, the policy states “To be eligible, the dog or cat must be subject to registration under Carroll County Code at the time of application.” It goes on to say in the first paragraph that the fund is not applicable to feral cats as defined in section 510 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, which defines ferals as “a cat that (i) is born in the wild or is the offspring of an owned or feral cat and is not socialized, (ii) is a formerly owned cat that has been abandoned and is no longer socialized, or (iii) lives on a farm.” While this does answer some of the concerns of people on the committee like Joe Payette who stated at one point that he didn’t think it was fair to spend “dog money on cats” – and who, coincidentally, worked closely with Animal Control Officer Joe Grim in formulating the language of this current policy draft – it still seems that the county’s proposed language and the language of Public Act 094-0639, otherwise known as Anna’s Law, is dissonant, if not outright contradictory. Anna’s Law states that in addition to low income dog and cat owners who qualify for public assistance that a “resident of this State who is managing a feral cat colony and who humanely traps feral cats for spaying or neutering and return is eligible to participate in the program provided the trap, sterilize, and return program is recognized by the municipality.” This linguistic loophole in the county’s current policy draft means that organizations like Adrienne’s Angels in Mount Carroll, Fleet Run Pet Rescue in Lanark, and Heartland Pet Welfare in Savanna do not qualify to receive any part of the funds and places the responsibility for dispersing the funds in the hands of Joe Grim. In order to qualify for the voucher, an applicant has to fill out the form, which will be available through the Animal Control Department, and provide proof of residency in Carroll County, proof that they own the dog in question, and documentation that “either the adoption was from a pound, animal shelter, or humane society” or “owned by a low income county resident who is eligible for the Food Stamp Program.” The other sticking point in the discussion deals with the $10 differential added to dog registration fees. Owners can go to Animal Control or to local veterinarians to register their dogs if that is more convenient. Currently, the vets keep $1 of that $10 as a convenience fee, which means that only $9 actually goes into the Pet Population Control Fund. While Grim said he was unsure if that meant that the county was technically being non-compliant with the law, he suggested that the best way to ensure that the county isn’t non-compliant is to simply raise the registration fee by a dollar. Both Shawn Picolotti and Annette Rahn suggested leaving it up to the individual veterinarians to charge whatever convenience fee they feel is appropriate. Grim maintained that the CCACD should stay in the loop. Simply raising it a dollar would allow the veterinarians to continue holding their dollar back and forwarding the rest to the Pet Population Control Fund; anything else would add another level of complication, or might unintentionally encourage one or all of the veterinarians in the county to increase the amount of the fee. The merits of a voucher over a staggered fee schedule was also discussed; and this also pretty much boiled down to keeping things as simple as possible. One of the reasons they are going with a voucher system, said Grim, was to avoid creating a situation where any or all of the participating veterinarians would raise their rates simply because they could get more money from the county. Another advantage for the county in this latest round of verbal maneuvering in regards to the PPCF Policy that it once again alleviates the county from any responsibility in dealing with the feral cat population. With limited space, sparse funding, and a county board that seems more interesting in covering their collective conscious with the letter of the law, they are once again side-stepping a question they have stated repeatedly they prefer not to answer. If there is an advantage – or maybe it ought to be more of a concern – to the residents of Carroll County, it would be that, in the half-joking words of Chairman Rod Fritz that the PPCF Policy “is probably one of the most thought out policies we’ve ever had.”
Loading
|
