[The Brazil Times nameplate] A Few Clouds ~ 62°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 54°F
Friday, Apr. 29, 2016

Council looking into animal control options

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Chrystll Owens
The City of Brazil is wasting no time in trying to find another option for animal control.

In a special meeting Tuesday, the Common Council of the City of Brazil had a discussion with an individual interested in the $12,500 contract the Clay County Humane Society turned down Dec. 31.

Chrystll Owens and husband, John, provided the council with details about the Clay County Animal Rescue, Inc., 763 S. State Road 59, Center Point, which the couple owns.

"We work well with the police and sheriff's departments and also have the capability to begin a spay/neuter program," Chrystll, who had previously served as shelter manager for the Humane Society, said. "We also have two vans, along with my personal vehicle, that we can use for pick ups and rescues."

She also said her personal vehicle has been fitted with a pet cage which will help protect the animals during transport.

Council President Bill Lovett said he recalled working with Chrystll when she worked for the Humane Society and was confident in her abilities.

"I've seen her respond to calls before and she knows what she is doing," he said.

Owens informed the council the rescue center can hold up to 50 dogs at the current time and plans to add another building on the property in the spring.

"We also work with Mary Vanhorn in Jasonville who runs (Animal Angels Rescue)," she said. "Together we can tackle the stray population."

Council member Sam Glover expressed concern about the rescue center being able to find funding and was curious to hear if they would provide financial reports, something the Humane Society never did.

"There is an accountability to the taxpayers to ensure that money is spent the way it is supposed to," he said.

However, John assured the council they have other funding sources and would provide reports on a regular basis.

"We get a lot of help from citizens donating their time and do have other funding that comes in," he said. "We are also applying for the Hill's Science food donation program where our only cost would be for shipping. But we would also have the option of picking up the food ourselves to eliminate the shipping costs as well."

Chrystll followed up on John's comments by explaining their center also has the capabilities to pick up animals other than just dogs and cats.

"We do have the ability to pick up larger farm animals like pigs and horses if need be," she said. "I like animals and don't like seeing any of them hurt."

As a whole, the council was impressed with the setup of the Clay County Animal Rescue, Inc., but did not extend a contract offer during the meeting because they need to make sure they are in line with state statutes and whether or not they need to go through the process of requesting bids for services.

However, the council did rescind the outstanding offer to the Humane Society so they would have the ability to make an offer to another organization.

If the contract does not need to go through the bidding process, the council may offer the contract during their regular meeting Jan. 13, at 7 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Sounds like a great plan!

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Wed, Jan 7, 2009, at 11:01 PM

I am glad to see the council and mayor are working together on this in the best interest of the animals and citizens of clay county. They should get together with the county council and have the countyput its contract up for bid.

-- Posted by george1 on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 5:37 AM


I live in another town but have worked with the Clay County Shelter in the past. I have been involved in animal rescue/foster/fundraising/awareness for about 10 years.

I have seen such caring at the Clay County shelter. They really do care about the animals. I know a lady who has volunteered at the Clay County Shelter for so many years, photographing the animals, to put their photos up on www.petfinder.com She has driven to other states where spay neuter laws are stricter and the overpopulation problem does not exist as much to take our unwanted strays, so they can have a second chance at a good home. Reputable rescues are sometimes several states away,making it a long, tiring day.

Please let cool heads prevail and take some time to research the offers that are being made? The animals are caught in the middle and have already been victims once. The group offering to take the strays needs to be accountable for every dollar spent, so records should be thoroughly checked, as well as success of placing animals in good homes, and especially spay neuter and veterinary records. There are many breeders who will profit from an un-altered animal and the animal lives a life of misery. Also, is the group certified in euthanasia techniques? Are they licenced to buy the drug used to kill the animals? All these facts need to be known.

I ask, please, that Mayor Bradshaw and the Council study the offers before making a committment. Our state director for the Humane Society of the United States is Anne Sterling. She might be able to offer some guidelines to ensure that the animals are going to the best place. Her information is:

Anne Sterling

Indiana State Director

The Humane Society of the United States

P.O. Box 1171

Bloomington, Indiana 47402

812.606.7649 (cell)

812.339.3562 (office)

812.339.3663 (fax)


Thank you, Animal helper

-- Posted by animalhelper on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 6:11 AM

I am sorry... correct me if I am wrong. Was she an employee of the shelter in the past and let go??? If Bill had worked with her in the past and was happy, why does she not work there now???

Has anyone checked into her background????

-- Posted by sassypants on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 6:51 AM

Mission Statement for Clay County Animal Rescue, Inc.

To Prevent cruelty to animals, To induce others by education and suggestion to treat animals in a kind and humane manner, To aid in the prosecution of those who violate the laws of the state, To operate and maintain an animal shelter in accordance with the foregoing purposes.

Currently, there is no requirement for spay neuter either before or after adoption. If spay neuter is not first priority, then the purpose of saving the animals is simply creating more unwanted litters. Please click on link below for adoption contract for Clay County Animal Rescue, Inc. THEY MUST HAVE SPAY NEUTER or this is not a solution.


-- Posted by animalhelper on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 7:00 AM

All I ask is that thorough research is done for the animals that will have to live with the decision made, please? If this decision is made lightly, more problems will happen in the future.

Indiana citizens are becoming more and more aware of the wrongs committed to our companion animals. Anyone who wants to attend, we are headed to the Stathouse to speak with our Senators and State Representatives Feb. 10th for "Humane Lobby Day"

See below to RSVP and speak for the animals.

Humane Lobby Day is an opportunity for you to meet with your legislators to voice your support for our animal-related legislation. Last year was the first Humane Lobby Day for animals ever in Indiana, and we had the fourth highest turnout for this nation-wide event! We have several excellent bills that will be introduced in January and the animals of Indiana could use your help!

Please follow the link below for more information and to register.


And, of course, please feel free to forward this email to any other Indiana residents who would like to speak out for animals!

-- Posted by animalhelper on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 7:40 AM

In the Clay County Adoption Contract it does not say anything about spay and neutering the animals before adoption either it is talked about when a person comes to adopt the animal. and i have adopted from this shelter before and i know for fact she spay/neuters all animals before they are spent home. Also i have been to the human shelter and it does not have the spay/neuter in its contract either when you adopt it is included in the fee so are clay county animal rescue. It is good to have an private rescue to agree to come in and take care of the unwanted and homeless animals out of Brazil only god knows there alot of them.From what i know if the humane shelter was so into spay/neuter then why do they send 10-20 animals to another state unaltered every week is that not making problems for another state or do people just do not look at it because it is out of here and somewhere else. So why start attacking someone before you know them. And sassypants i asked her that my self and she just says she wanted to rescue on her own it was a conflict and rescuing animals takes alot of time and you really can not have a full time job and rescue full time she said nothing bad about anyone. So why would don't the people of Brazil would be happy for someone as caring as this rescue is for them to come in and is willing to take your unwanted animals and get them a good wanted home. But i guess some people just can not be happy. Think about what you say before you write it. At least it is not costing the people a arm and leg for services. The people of Brazil pay city and county taxes but the shelter will not come in and get the animals even when you pay the county tax they think Brazil is not apart of the county, i think the county seat is in Brazil so yes Brazil is apart of the county but yet the shelter will not pick up in the city. So what is wrong there instead of mouthing a rescue for wanting to do the right thing look in your own back yard first.

-- Posted by whathappen on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 8:31 AM

I adopted a pet from the Humane Society and I paid $50.00 extra and I would get that 50 back if I took the voucher to the vet and had the animal altered within a certain number of days. There was no where in a contract that I signed that said I would have the animal altered or had to have the animal altered. My opinion is the cost for altering an animal is too expensive. I took my two cats to get altered and it cost an arm and a leg. Had I known the cost up front to be honest I would not have had it done. With that overwhelming cost if a stray came to my house I would not take it and get shots or get it altered. Some shelters have the animals altered before they leave the facility. You might pay a little more for the animal but the problem is taken care of and it is now not their responsibility. I like animals, don't get me wrong, but we have abused kids living in Brazil that not too many of you are this concerned over them.

-- Posted by beautiful978 on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 9:10 AM

She may have worked for the humane shelter in the past, but look at how changing the shelters board has been. Who would work for them? They can't provide financial records. There have been donations given, and what do you see done with them? What would make it better is if they could provide accurate financial records. Since it is a non-profit organization they should be entitled to show them and account for all money given.

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 9:56 AM

According to the Clay County Humane Shelter's website: Spay Neuter is required. See below.

Dog adoptions are $85.00 which includes alter and all shots. Cat adoptions are $65.00 which includes alter, all shots, and microchip. In the event that the animal is too young for a Rabies shot, the fees are reduced $6.00. ALL animals are to be altered before leaving the shelter.

In the event that the adoptee has driven a distance to adopt a pet and does not wish to make the drive back for the animal after alter, there will be a $50.00 deposit required in addition to the adoption fee. When proof of alter is returned to the shelter's director, the deposit will be reimbursed. The alter is the responsibility of the adoptee and must be done within 90 days from the date of adoption as stated in the contract.

No animals should be taken from Clay County into Greene County. Greene County has its own long history of animal problems and an almost non-existent spay neuter program, not to mention puppymills and neglectful backyard breeders.

Their shelter in Greene County clearly adopts out unaltered animals based on this price list from

their website www.greenecountyhumanesociety.org


Canine / Unaltered / Mix Breed $75.00

Canine / Altered / Mix Breed $65.00

Canine / Unaltered / Pure Breed $125.00

Canine / Altered / Pure Breed $100.00

Feline / Unaltered $50.00

Feline / Altered $40.00

Birds, Rabbits, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs / With Cages $25.00

If you are adopting more than one dog or cat i.e. 2 dogs or 2 cats you are charged full price for the first animal and a reduced price for the second.

-- Posted by animalhelper on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 9:57 AM

As citizens of Brazil Why are we still talking about the humane shelter when this story posted was in Reference to a contract with the clay county animal rescue and not the humane shelter......To my knowledge The clay county animal rescue is in no way affiliated with the clay county humane shelter, and the city of Brazil stated in the story that they rescinded the offer to the humane shelter. For reasons to most citizens that are obvious. Everyone has their opinions but, opinions are not helping resolve the animal control problem of the city of Brazil. Now if there are other agencies that have a better solution at the current $ offer that the city is making then let them stand forward, otherwise I believe that what the clay county animal rescue has offered to the city of Brazil sounds like it may be a good change to what Brazilians have been accustomed to in the past.

-- Posted by whathappen on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 10:35 AM

I wish there was this kind of concern on the important topics that plague this county. I dont understand why everyone is up in arms about this. The humane society in Brazil has been awful for years. Im glad they didnt accept the contract. They shot themselves in the foot. Lets move forward with a better solution. If everyone just kept their animals under control we wouldnt have to worry about the spay and nueter policy. Dogs running loose is the problem not what they are carrying between their legs. That only poses a problem when they are running free. Why dont we send them home with a stake and a chain or an undergound fence. Its simple people, take responsiblity for your pets and your actions. My 120lb "unaltered" lab stays in his yard because I have gone the extra step and taken responsiblity for him. I just hope he has sent a few free roaming females home with a litter of bastard pups to her irresponsible owner as a token of my gratitude for not securing your pet.

-- Posted by WhateversClever on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM

I think before another agency is awarded this contract more info needs to be released.

I think it is funny that the shelter board shot themselves in the foot with this one. But the ones that will suffer because of this are the animals and the people who are trying to do the right thing.

I just don't get why someone that has been fired two times would be awarded a contract to do the same kind of work..

-- Posted by sassypants on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 11:27 AM


You "don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this" because you don't have empathy for animals. There are countless programs that help humans. Humans take and take and the animals get last priority. For anyone who has ever worked in animal welfare, they know that. The animals get abandoned through no fault of their own and still can love humans, despite their mistreatment.

Anyone who would want to put their animal on "stake and a chain" will never understand.

-- Posted by animalhelper on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM

The following comment was previously posted tagging another issue back in April 2008:

the humane shelter gets 52,000$ a year from the city and the county. and the shelter does put animals down at one time a number of cat was being put down at one time the county needs to take control of the shelter and run it and then maybe something well be done. the cats do no harm.the board members of the shelter are blind and act like they care. i dont see where they do. someone needs to investigate where all the money is going.. for the animals

-- Posted by whathappened on Fri, Apr 11, 2008, at 4:40 PM

Now I have two questions:

1. If this is true, then $52,000 minus $12,500 equals $39,500. If the city would have contributed $25,000 (as they have in the past) and now they are contributing $0, then $52,000 minus $25,000 equals $27,000. So shouldn't job descriptions be re-evaluated due to the reduction of income in addition to the fact that they (CCHS) will have lesser duties and/or responsibilities?

2. My main concern is that THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE ANIMALS, SO having said that; Can the citizens of the City of Brazil still call on the CCHS and can the city and county both count on and call on them to provide a low cost spay/neuter program/clinic, and a vaccination opportunity as it has in the past as well, twice a year?

Us as tax paying citizens DESERVE to know EXACTLY where are ALL THE funds are going to. We deserve to know the whole truth and nothing short of it. It shouldn't be so difficult to understand this if the issue was all about the animals and just exactly where our priorities are (especially the ones in particular whose hands actually get on these monies).

Can someone of caliber who KNOWS please answer these questions and address these concerns?

-- Posted by catlady on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 1:41 PM

AMEN to animal lover last comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by whathappen on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 4:31 PM

AMEN animal help animals roamed this earth before humane was ever thought of !!!!!!!!!!!!The animals have the right to be happy.

-- Posted by whathappen on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 4:33 PM

John & Chrystall way to go I will be stopping in to see if you all need help. Might have a couple rabbit cages for you. The Owens are very good People. But no matter what no one will ever please everyone.

-- Posted by kd323 on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, at 8:45 PM

To all the posters who dont kow what they are talking about....here you go!

1. If you have ever been to a meeting, which is open to the public, you would have been given a monthly financial statement. Statements are always given to each person in attendance.

2. Past comments have been made about the shelter useing Hills Science Diet. Did Clay County Animal Rescue also say they were going to be applying for the same thing? NO Hills Science Diet does not let you pick it up to defrey shipping costs, you MUST also be registered with the IRS as a 501c3 NON PROFIT organization to receive the food.

3. Has anyone from the council looked at the property where the animals will be? Probably not since it is OUT of the city and not their problem. Will this rescue have proper insurance in case these animals escape? Im sure the neighbors wont be too crazy about this.

4. Was Mrs Owens not fired from the Clay County Humane Society for her inability to do the job? I believe she refused to pick animals up and also had the shelter shut down for a month or so due to her inability to control disease. Im sure all these issues are on record at the Brazil City Police Department and Clay County Justice Center. I just dont see this being the solution to a ongoing problem in Brazil. The council needs to reconsider.

-- Posted by WhyInBrazil on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 8:32 AM


Animals don't have RIGHTS as with rights come responsibilities. Humans have the RESPONSIBILITY for animal's WELFARE. There is a difference.

People have rights as Americans so long as they are responsible and obey laws. Animals have no ability to be responsible which is why we must protect their welfare. Just as a child's welfare has to be taken care of when they are young and don't know the meaning of responsibility. Only when they have proven that they can be responsible are more rights afforded to them. This is something that animal rights activists are confused about. I would no more hold a dog responsible for coming into my yard and digging up my garden as I would a two year child if they did so. It is the responsibility of the adult in charge of them to control their behavior. If we remove that right of parenthood we should be able to remove the right of pet ownership and that is why licensing makes sense and covers the cost of those being irresponsible.

If an animal's welfare is provided for they will then be, as you say, "happy".

I do believe that extensive research needs to be done to make sure the Owens are really ready to take on the magnitude of a contract. I thought that their main building was not yet ready and I don't believe that they contacted their ancillary partners to see if they were prepared to take on the additional numbers of animals. I spoke to one of them this morning and they indicated that they had only taken about ten cats total in the past and that Ms Owens was premature in taking it for granted that a larger number was possible. there is also the issue I believe of dead animal disposal yet to be dealt with. Burial has to be 6 feet deep or permission from the landfill to dispose of carcasses. There is a lot more to consider than the love of animals. One of the types of situations where neglect of animal cases happens is where someone who is not prepared "rescues" animals and then they themselves are not able to care for them properly. This "hoarding" effect is not accusatory but just an example of what COULD happen if someone were to become overwhelmed. I have witnessed this type of situation in the past when I was working as a veterinary technician and it is heartbreaking.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 8:44 AM

This sounds like a good alternative. I remember the old shelter, before the City gave the humane society the property to build the building they are in now. It was basically in the same area but the facility was pretty run down. It seems there has been so much turmoil with boards, finances, and managers of the shelter. The City council made some excellent points in the paper about how the shelter was receiving funds from County taxpayers and also from City. Costing those that lived in the city more for the same service that those who lived outside the city receive. As long as we have some competent and humane way of taking care of stray and unwanted animals everyone should be happy.

-- Posted by spiritof56 on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 11:08 AM

HUMMMMMM No Matt AKA WHYINBRAZIL as you and i know that way not the reason i was let go the first time i have a clean back ground record and i was let go b/c they brought in another manager and you know it. you was there and the second time i was get go is because of conflict with my rescue they wanted to bring in another manager so they did. To respond to all of your as the public questions. I am a private rescue as is every other rescue in the US i am here for the animals to find them new better homes. and if anyone has questions they are more then welcome to email me @clay-county@hotmail.com and i will answer them. I am not here to bash or be bashed i was called to the mayors office i did not ask them they asked me, So please stop with all the remarks and just find a solution for the animals. If it is me or another does not matter as long as it is taken care of is the not RIGHT.

-- Posted by chrystll on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 12:01 PM


There are many different levels of humane ways of "taking care of stray and unwanted animals" these days. Progressive, hard working and caring shelters go the extra mile and seek out reputable rescues, spend countless hours figuring out transports, give veterinary care to sick and injured animals, spay and neuter, foster unsocialized and special needs animals until they are emotionally and physically healthy enough to go to a new home... a second chance at a loving home, and the list goes on and on. This is what the Clay County Shelter has been doing. I am sure they can provide statistics that show the reduced euthanasia over the years, due to hard work. This is the wave of the future in animal welfare.

Gone are the days of accepting the idea that holding animals for 7 days, regardless of health or how wonderful they are and euthanzing (humanely killing) them, is OK. MANY FACILITIES STILL DO THIS, but thanks to the millions of animal lovers in the USA, that terrible trend is SLOWLY becoming not-acceptable.

You write....

"As long as we have some competent and humane way of taking care of stray and unwanted animals everyone should be happy."

It is terribly sad and wrong to euthanize unwanted animals. "Taking care" of them can be interpreted many different ways, but killing them and throwing them away like trash, while more are born is wrong. The animals have feelings and want to live happy lives.

-- Posted by animalhelper on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 12:11 PM

Animalhelper.....I wasn't insinuating killing unwanted animals. Euthanizing was not on my mind when I said "taking care". After re-reading it, I can see where you might be confused by my comment. I am not an expert, or do I claim to be, on running an animal shelter. I do know there has been a great deal of turmoil surrounding our local shelter.

-- Posted by spiritof56 on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 1:42 PM

Animalhelper: Though I have no doubt that your heart is in the right place where it comes to animal welfare,and though it is sad for us humans to have to euthanize an animal due to the history of our bond with them, the judgment that it is wrong to euthanize an animal is an opinion and not a fact. Otherwise we would not euthanize hogs or cattle, chickens or fish. The animal only knows what is going on in its life during the present. He does not worry about what is going to happen in the future, therefore does not know to dread euthanasia as we do with our ability to anticipate what is to come. Killing an animal as humanely as possible, whether it is via euthanasia solution or well placed bullet is not being cruel to an animal. Even when we have a well loved pet die after a long well cared for life, it is our loss. Even when a 4H'er has raised a lamb and it's time to butcher it, it is that person's loss, not cruelty to the animal as it doesn't know what's coming.

I would rather see an animal have a short, well cared for life than a long one in which it suffers from lack of food, health care, and shelter.

Various animal shelters set up different protocols depending upon funds available and decisions made on how to spend available funds. It's the same as when a farmer makes a decision about which animals he keeps over the winter and which go into the freezer. A good husbandryman acknowledges the "gift" the animal provides to him and is grateful for it, whether it be food or companionship but to fulfill his obligation to properly care for his herd and family welfare he must make the decision to butcher some so he can take care of the others properly.

The species aren't that different except that we are more emotionally attached to what we call our pet species. Those organizations who work hard and spend many hours rehabilitating animals and trying to get them adopted many times do it as a labor of love and ought to be commended. When choices that involve accounting for cost of labor, facilities, and supplies are taken into account, sometimes the choice to eliminate some of the animals in order for the rest to be taken care of properly is not only necessary, but more human as well than the alternative.

For an example of misguided animal rescue just look at the recent law that prohibits the legal slaughter of horses in the United States. The act of killing a horse is no less humane than doing the same to a cow but the method in which horses were hauled to slaughter facilities in vehicles designed for cattle where they could not lift their heads and had no protection for their legs which are a lot more fragile than those of cattle was what was inhumane. But nothing was done about changing the way in which a horse could be transported. Only that they could not be slaughtered for meat. Now horses bring a much lower price at the sale barns as it purchased for meat they have to be hauled to Canada or Mexico...yes in those same trailers designed for cattle. Moreover due to low prices, more people are not making the decision to sell a few horses when they cannot afford to feed them so neglect cases have risen and horse rescue facilities are more overwhelmed than ever.

This is how misguided emotions actually harm the animals more than help them. We need to remember to see things from the animal's point of view and not the humans. Euthanasia causes a loss for us, but is not something an animal dreads nor does it reduce his quality of life.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 1:58 PM


I do understand euthanasia. I have been around it for many years.

I also know all about the horse slaughter that you mention. I donated to the Mother's Day Horse Rescue when Happy Trails Farm Animal Rescue attended the Sugarcreek Auction in Ohio where over 25 horses were spared from that dreadful trip to the slaughterhouse.

We will have to disagree on some things.

I know there are cases for euthanasia, but the euthanasia of sound dogs, cats, kittens and puppies that never should have been born in the first place is wrong.

-- Posted by animalhelper on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 2:07 PM

-- Posted by Icareaboutbrazil on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 2:15 PM

Why don't we just have the county pick up all animals because we all live in the county we in the city pay county taxes to we 2 taxes 1 city and 1 county so we pay the county for animal control so why don't we just leaves things alone and let the humane shelter pick up the animals from Brazil, when Brazil is a part of the county to.And that will save all of this going back and forth over animal control when a person was just trying to help us out but no one will let that happen will they !!!!!!!! This is just getting out of hand people just caring about who might be coming in to help then the poor animals being outside in the cold right now jesussssssssss!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by whathappen on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 3:47 PM

Im thinking Chrystll and Whathappen are the same person. You might look at the bad grammer, punctuation, and spelling.

-- Posted by WhyInBrazil on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 7:35 PM

The council and mayor are absolutely correct in trying to find a way to help the strays in Brazil. The HS said they would not help the city even though the tax payers in Brazil pay taxes for the Human Shelter and this really is a puzzling situation. Why can the county have services but the city can't? City folks are part of Clay County are they not? Signed puzzled.

-- Posted by Tracy Jones on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, at 8:12 PM

It's too bad they won't pick the animals up anyway, since Brazil is in Clay County. What about the towns such as Clay City, Harmony, Staunton, and all the other towns. Do they have to have a contract? Clay City has a police department, i'm sure they have to utilize the Humane Shelter.

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, at 9:31 AM

Jenny Moore makes some good points in her post from the previous article. My additional comments are that many shelters do not have the staff to go out and get animals. If the CCHS has been doing that for the Brazil animals, that really is above and beyond what most shelters can do.

I feel that people should not be willing to accept euthanasia of healthy adoptable animals. It desensitizes people to the killing if it is seen as a solution. The PEOPLE need to be held responsible for spay neuter.

Jenny's comments are below and she brings up some excellent suggestions for raising needed funds. Put the responsibilty on the humans.

By Jenny

The fact is if we who have pets are not willing to pay what it costs to care for them and be responsible for what they do [damage in addition to making other unwanted animals], it's going to cost everyone more and as a community some are not able or willing to spend money on them.

The public also has to remember that those who work at the Humane Society are not dog officers so they have no authority when it comes to loose dogs and other livestock. Until our county hires a "dog catcher", we must put that responsibility on top of all the others our law enforcement carry. That is why the separation between county and city human society costs. It would seem that the human society has to respond more to the calls of city officers where dogs/cats are concerned than to the county officers [as I said, some in county take care of roaming animals on their own, like it or not. Loose dogs do far more damage to livestock and property than do coyotes. Feral young cats spread toxoplasmosis in livestock feeds and cause abortions in valuable livestock. Sometimes one can't catch or trap the animals so to protect their property, some are shot. Not pretty but necessary sometimes]. That is likely the main reson for a difference in county and city expenses at human shelter.

Choices as I see it:

1] Make pet ownership require a yearly license fee that is high enough to make it worthwhile to send reminders and go after if they fail to pay. Make fines for not licensing or immunizing pet sting enough to make people get licenses to avoid the fine. Make the un neutered license fee high enough that one would end up paying what it would cost to surgically neuter the pet within a couple of years so more would get neutered. On top of that, each animal brought into the shelter as a stray could not be picked up until a fine for letting it be loose is paid. Further enforcing the STATE law already on the books.

2]Raise city and county taxes so landowners [and renters as cost will be passed to them as well in higher rental costs] carry more of the cost associated with irresponsible pet ownership.

3] Realize that there are many un adoptable animals taken to the shelter and that more animals will have to be euthanized due to people's irresponsible behavior as the shelter cannot afford to keep so many for so long a time period.

Everything costs more now. A bag of feed that cost $7 a year ago is now $13...Not to mention immunizations, cleaning supplies, record keeping time due to regulations. I am an animal lover. I am a licensed/registered veterinary technician. I have two neutered dogs and two neutered cats. The cats were adopted as adults from someone who fostered them for a shelter.

When we moved here from Virginia 14 years ago I was paying $8 per neutered dog for a license. Here it was $2. A joke. We should be up around $10-15 now at least to meet shelter and leash law costs. Higher for intact animals. Nothing is free. It's time those who chose to have pets started paying for it. Don't tell me that someone can't afford it. It's a matter of choices. Choose the six pack, choose the cigarettes, choose the cable tv. IF you don't choose the pet, you shouldn't have to pay for it. If you have a pet and CHOOSE not to care for it any longer YOU find a home for it and if it's not adoptable, CHOOSE to pay for it to be euthanized at your vet's so it doesn't cause others to pay for it. I know it's hard line but I have seen damage stray dogs can do and also seen them starve to death. They cannot live on their own in the woods. That's a fairy tale for those who dump animals and a nightmare for the dumped animal and those it is dumped upon.

-- Posted by animalhelper on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, at 2:26 PM


I think we agree on far many more things than we disagree. However what is the difference between killing a sound healthy puppy or kitten and killing a sound young healthy steer? The difference is how our society views them. Same with the horse. Some are considered pets by humans and members of the family and others are considered sources of food. The thing is their welfare are our responsibility and while they are alive they should be afforded the best care possible. When we as a society cannot or are unwilling to provide that care, it is our responsibility to end their suffering by giving over custody to an individual or an organization who can and will. If there is no one able to, it takes equal amount of thought for the welfare of the animal to end their lack of welfare via death as they have no hopes as we do for a better life in the future. They only are aware of the present so are unable perceive hope.

One must remember to have the animal's welfare in mind at all times, not just our perception of what the animal means to us as that would be unfair to the animal at times as well as too those with different cultural backgrounds who might look upon different species as a source of protein. We eat goats at our house though some might consider them only as companion animals. I have eaten horse while in France while my brother ate dog with natives of Alaska. The dog was chosen for dinner because it was eating the chickens that could provide eggs for the family on a long term basis so in fact it was for the welfare of the chickens and their own children. So long as these animals were taken care of properly while alive, there is no difference between what they deserve as care and what a cat might deserve. This is why the horse issue has backfired. Now the poor horse has to suffer even more because they have to be hauled inhumanely for longer distances before they can have the relief via death as people were looking at the issue as a loss to humans instead of from the position of the horse.

Locally the issue falls on the city and the county and the voters. We find a way to fund the animal situation whether through taxation of all equally or by those who choose to have animals. We send the message that the county and city are to enforce existing leash laws in order to earn money to pay for animals who run free just as we pay for speeding when we don't follow speed limits.

Some don't like the leash laws and think they are not written for them. I have had a former neighbor argue this point with me when I complained about his roaming dog bothering my animals and my yard. His remark was that I should shoot it with a BB gun. Boy that showed a lot of responsibility. Shoot his ignorant dog because HE wasn't being responsible and was breaking the law. I had opinions of who really needed the BB in the rear end but all I did was quote him the state law and built a fence because I could not hurt a dog who didn't know better and it was also against the law to shoot a person who WAS responsible.

People need to know there is going to be a consequence to breaking the law but currently there isn't because law enforcement is stretched enough with worse offenses...Bring into effect a better way of taxing dog/cat ownership and we can pay for an animal control officer as link between police and shelter. An animal control officer is a law enforcement officer and can wander around looking for strays and go out to document unlicensed pets as well as those not vaccinated if we make revenue from same high enough to pay for his employment. Rabies is an entire other issue that isn't being dealt with effectively as without enforcement some don't protect the rest of us from this human health risk. Rabies is all over the east coast and it was thought that it would never get over the Appalachian mountain chain but several years ago it got into Ohio where an all out attack was put into play to stomp it out. It can happen again and without sufficient vaccinations and documentation we could be in real trouble here from both dogs and cats. The cost in dollars alone would be staggering.

Well this is more than long enough but I think it should give plenty to think about about tackling this as a long term solution instead of putting a bandaid on it year after year.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, at 1:37 PM

i think this is out of control. the problem would be fixed quickly if we used the money we are saving from the contract and use it for a bounty on the strays. 5.00 a cat and 10.00 a dog.

-- Posted by IIVIIy Name Is on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, at 3:20 AM

Instead of attending Humane Society meetings [or in addition to attending them] how about City and County Gov meetings to try to get them to instate licensing of pets so there is money to care for strays?

The human Society has a right to turn down an offer if it feels it doesn't cover the cost of taking cares of the strays from a specific location. It's the city's and county's job respectively to come up with a way to pay for the service.

There is no reason why there can't be a city license and a clay county license. One from County court house and the other from City hall. Fee should be commensurate with cost of animal control. It's time that people started to pay for the things they want in this country. For too long have we lived above the level at which we can afford and made poor choices as far as spending. That goes for individuals as well as government. Things cost money. If we want things we have to pay for them. If we choose not to have them, we shouldn't be expected to pay for them. "We" as a community have to pay for animal control but we can shift some of the cost to animal owners as owning them is a choice. I contend that the cost associated with a properly cared for and licensed pet [including neutering] is by far lower than one who is roaming and intact. It's just that the owner isn't always paying that cost. It's time that fines balanced that out. In order to have the man hours to enforce existing laws and potential licensing, the fees have to be high enough to pay for initial man hour investment and fines have to have enough sting to them to convince people that compliance is the way to go.

I know I sound like a broken record here but people make choices every day with regard to spending. I for one would rather have my dogs than to have cable or satellite TV, beer, or cigarettes. I would rather eat beans and have my cats than eat steak and give them up.

The decision to take on the responsibility of a pet is almost like taking on anohter family member in your household. It's a big responsibility that people take too lightly. It's a commitment to a helpless, "dumb" animal to care for it for it's lifespan, up to about 15 years in the case of some cats. All need to think harder than they do about pet ownership as many treat them as disposable and don't realize what it takes to be a responsible pet owner.

Those who let their dogs roam, not only are begging for high vet bills from hit by cars, fight wounds, and gunshot wounds and poisonings from angry landowners, they are liable for damages if it can be proven that it was their dog who did the damage. Not to mention subject to fines.

For example there was the classic case of a sheep farmer shooting a person's dog. The dog owner sued the sheep owner for killing his dog. During the dog's postmortum exam, the pathologist found wool wrapped around the dog's canine teeth and in his GI tract. The dog owner had to pay for a flock of dead and injured sheep, vet bills and court costs on top of loosing his dog.

That said, if my dog were to get lost or loose somehow, the first place I would look would be the human society and I would GLADLY pay their board and a fine in order to get my dog back. Having them here is a blessing for pet owners as they know if this should happen there is a place of refuge for their lost pets until they are found. Too many times they are looked upon as the bad guys as our law enforcement people are while they are there to aid us and our pets. Many of them even have microchip readers so they can get pets back to their owners even if they are miles away from home in other states. They are so much more than a dog pound as some think they are.

I do not know much about this other organization to know whether or not they can provide the same service and networking as the Humane Society but it is something that needs to be looked into very carefully. It might be that the two would work in tandem in the future, each complimenting the other with more specialized services. As the economy continues to tank, I'll wager more large animals will be given up and I don't believe at their present facility, the Humane Shelter has a place to house livestock to any great extent. Livestock also may have to be housed under different arrangement due to it's final destination and falling under livestock location ID legislature [premise ID].

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, at 6:35 AM

Please be kind when referring to a person's personal life and by this I mean the statement made by sassypants when she ask about a former employee's background record who worked for the Human Shelter. Let's not attack anyone's personal life. Stay on the subject matter and nothing should be printed unless one has personally seen and heard it with their own eyes and ears and even then, "why share it?" Once something is said that is incorrect and the error is corrected, it still hangs in the air and always leaves room for doubt thus possibly causing problems for a person who is trying to do what is right. Please do not make personal attacks, only your opinions as you feel are worthy of sharing. God bless.

-- Posted by Tracy Jones on Mon, Jan 12, 2009, at 9:56 AM

I agree with 1*35. I love dogs, lets make it $10.00 per cat!

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Tue, Jan 13, 2009, at 12:06 PM

Thanks Criminology08

-- Posted by IIVIIy Name Is on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, at 12:26 AM

let's put our welfare recipiants to work helping the shelter, at least we'd get a return on our investment.

-- Posted by reddevil on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, at 4:32 AM

I've been told Jasonville pays about $5,000. I am not sure about the other communities. I'm sure it would be something the humane society can tell you.

If what I've been told is accurate, it seems like comparing the size of Brazil to Jasonville, 12k is a little low. ??

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, at 6:45 AM

Would the animal lovers in Brazil be interested in holding a big fundraiser? There are some that we do in Terre Haute that really help out our shelter. The Shadow Asylum Haunted House presented a check in 2008 over $50,000.00.

The Harley Ride is also one of our biggest fundraisers.

The Exotic Feline Rescue Center is having their Silent Auction this Saturday in Carmel.

Does anyone have any good ideas?

-- Posted by animalhelper on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, at 7:38 AM

Truthfully Animalhelper and respectfully, many of us feel "fundraisered" out. At least I do. Fundraisers are a stop gap measure and do not solve problems. Sort of like the saying, give a person a fish and he will eat for a day but teach him to fish and he can eat for a lifetime.

The answer to the animal issue is to get money from those who choose to own animals to pay for the right and get those who choose not to pay for the right of owning the animal to pay a fine that is more.

My vote is for a long term solution, not a bandaid. Have a good day

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, at 12:32 PM

Yeah, I would digress about welfare... but I better not that's off topic. Quick, someone do an article on the welfare system!

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, at 3:14 PM

-- Posted by Icareaboutbrazil on Thu, Jan 15, 2009, at 9:46 AM

What is the final status of this plan?? I've personally seen 1 of these 'rescue's' mentioned and it was a disaster. Now, with this severe weather, would be a good time for someone with authority to go inspect both of these places for how they care for animals. There is no way private individuals can take in and properly care for every single animal they find or are asked to take. It simply can't be done. It takes a TEAM of PROFESSIONALS and VOLUNTEERS to do the job with any level of integrity.

The idea of contracting out to a private individual to provide 'animal control' is asking for trouble in SO many ways. Neither of these 'places' to my knowledge are REGISTERED non profits with accountability in place. How will you feel if you find out your tax dollars are simply paying for bullets and the rest going into someones pockets?

How are they going to handle spay/neuters, vet care, and more importantly EUTH (i.e.having to "put to sleep" , or more accurately 'kill' animals? A very unfortunate fact of life while people are not spay and neutering their pets). Does anyone think that doing this job and doing it PROPERLY can be done on the cheap? No, it can't.

There ARE state laws pertaining to this, but without a proper shelter in place handling documentation, taxpayers will never know if laws are being followed.

I don't know what the problems are between the city council and the shelter, but start fresh and deal with them and utilize a great asset to the community!

-- Posted by STILLHOPEFUL on Thu, Jan 15, 2009, at 8:34 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: