Cats, cats and more cats

Our farm neighbor Wayne had a German shepherd for a pet. Wayne also kept a pack of greyhounds for hunting coyotes. Well the German shepherd could whip any of the coyote hounds one on one. However, greyhounds are pack animals and every time the shepherd would forget and attack one of the hounds the whole pack would fight him. Wayne had to step in and rescue the shepherd or the pack would have killed him just as surely as they killed any coyote they caught. The shepherd had a poor memory though and after a period of time he would "forget" and snap back at one of the hounds and the fight would be on.

I think that McCook's city council is a lot like Wayne's shepherd -- they forget. Years ago city manager George Bang decided that the citizens of this fair City needed a cat leash law. Oh yes George quickly learned that "Hell hath no fury like a cat owner scorned"! (Apologies to Bill) The public response was glorious and the council eventually backed out and prudently decided that requiring dogs to be leashed was fine but that cats should not suffer such an indignity.

The subject before the council last Monday evening was a proposed ordinance to license and control the domestic cat population in town in addition to long standing dog control provisions. The pack of cat sympathizers present at the meeting objected vociferously and the discussion (Is that what you call a sometimes shouting match?) went long and loud. Constitutional rights was a big theme but somehow I've missed the "right to keep one or many cats" mentioned in the constitution. Other citizens had police barging into homes to count animals harbored there and all sorts of other dreamed up horror stories. Oh it was a regular circus and like Boyer's pack of coyote hounds the good guys, the public, won. What I heard was that the people don't like city government telling them what to do with their pets and they don't like the idea of additional taxes -- yes pet licensing fees are just another form of taxes! Limiting the number of legal cats was struck from the proposed ordinance and for dogs the magic number is still three.

This whole dog/cat ordinance has been aided and abetted by Police Chief Ike. I suspect Ike saw it as a chance to build his "blue empire." As a guideline to government I was taught that one uniformed police officer was adequate for each 1000 persons. McCook has 16 sworn officers protecting our 8300 population for a ratio near 1:500. So commissioning a dog catcher is a chance to add one more to Ike's police force. But wait, an employee can only be expected to work 40 hours and the good Lord apportioned 168 hours in each week. So it seems that for 128 hours each week the police on patrol will have to do dog catcher duty just as they do full time now. The council should have listened to fellow council member, retired city policeman, Lonnie who prudently voted against the whole ordinance on second reading.

Actually I think that the ordinance is a good idea in that it provides for licensing fees for pets. However I'd like to see all those fees go to the Humane Society to do their good work rather than expanding Chief Ike's empire. The City's proposed budget projects $77,000 to fund the new dog catcher position, remember 40 hours out of a 168 per week. Additionally the budget includes a "donation" to the Humane Society of $25,000. If the Humane Society could receive all the fees from the pet licensing ordinance then pet owners would be supporting the society's good works instead of every taxpayer as the system is presently set up.

For nearly eight years Ann and I cleaned cages every Saturday and Monday morning at the Humane Society. Our volunteer experience caused us to develop a strong distaste for irresponsible pet owners. Chuck and I also euthanized excess animals probably numbering in the hundreds. Too many of those excess animals were from pet owners that were too inconsiderate, or cheap, to have their pets, both dogs and cats, neutered. The careless owners let them breed and then dumped the excess offspring which most often found their way to the Humane Society.

What we hated the most were the people who would deliver an old dog to the facility to be euthanized rather than paying a vet to do the deed. We felt sorry and tenderly treated those old fellows on their way to a better place. Sad, a loyal friend abandoned by the one they most loved.

We also harbored great distaste for the commercial breeders who dumped their used up breeding stock on the society for disposal. Therefore we think the city should also include all the animals within two miles of the city limits to be licensed with a hefty fee imposed on all the intact animals.

Actually there is a more economical solution used by some residents living outside the city limits. All the council has to do is strike from the books their ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms within the city limits. A 22 caliber rifle cartridge retails for about twenty cents and is a quick and easy solution to an overrunning feral cat population. If you don't want your pet shot either keep it inside, as most responsible cat owners already do, or at least put a collar on it to show your neighbor that it belongs to someone who cares.

That is the way I saw it.