 |
|
EXPLANATION OF CODES:
BLUE FONT: Original post.
RED FONT: Response to post.
GREEN FONT: Editorial comment.
POST HC-(**number**): Post identification number in this topic. Posts listed in reverse chronological order. Please refer to this post number, when replying to a post.
| The following entries, submitted by area constituents, are distributed by me in this blog as a public service to increase dialog about issues of importance to Blount and Sevier County residents. I do not necessarily agree with or endorse any statement made herein. Our form of government works best, when many, differing viewpoints are heard and considered. The process is often "messy." Read, think, and offer your opinions. Most importantly, though, make up your own mind.
State Senator Raymond Finney |
POST MS-4: RECOGNITION OF IMPORTANCE OF ANIMAL CONTROL ISSUES.
Received: January 8, 2007. Added: January 11, 2007.
Toni, Maryville
POST MS-3: ANIMAL CONTROL AND CHILD SAFETY.
Received: January 3, 2007. Added: January 4, 2007.
I heard yesterday on the television news that Blount County no longer has animal control. I think there should be state legislation to require each county to have animal control at all times. If possible, could the state offer grants for establishing and maintaining animal control? It seems that the only budgetary priorities in Blount County are schools and building schools. (Could that be because the Blount couty has sold the older school buildings?) This causes other areas of the county budget (like having convenience centers and animal control)to be lacking. Legislation requiring animal control in each county would assure that all counties take care of this problem. Without animal control, those with dangerous dogs can and will let them run loose in the community; however, if I shoot, club or poison one of them, I would be arrested-- probably for animal cruelty. The only reason some Blount Countians are keeping their animals restrained is because animal control threatened to take the animal(s) away if not securely restrained. Without animal control, animals who have bitten humans can run loose in the community and there is no number to call. Some of these dogs are a real danger to children, who might be playing outside. (A big dog could seriously injure a child, possibly an adult.) On the TV news, I did hear the
sheriff say that his department would only deal with animals in life threatening situations. We should not have to let it get to that point. If counties cannot set priorities, I think the state should do it for them. I think animal control is just as important as homeland security or pre-school programs. Animal control is related to personal and community safety. Are kids really a priority when we spend so much on schools? (A very large percentage of the money spent on education goes to administration-- not the classroom.) Yet, Blount County does not protect the child from big dogs that could attack the child at the bus stop or walking to/from the bus stop as well as when playing in his/her yard. Also, a biting dog could attack a student on the school playground. Isn't the child's basic safety as important as the child's education? Let's get our priorities in order. Every county needs animal control.
Betty, Maryville
RESPONSE TO MS-3.
Received: January 26, 2007. Added: January 27, 2007.
A citizen asked for the state of TN to establish a grant to help aid Blount County with animal control. This is completely the wrong way to approach this problem. Instead of creating more bureaucracy that is only transfering the problem, why not create a state law requiring each county to maintain animal control and implement a daily fine by the state for each day that a county is noncompliant. In a time where government spending is ludicrous and unfathomable, government officials should be held accountable on all levels. Laws should also include provisions to hold county officals personally responsible for neglecting this essential matter. Despite having a $140 million budget, some county officials feel that more money is needed to maintain an animal shelter. As always the tendency is to flog the plow horse by adding a tax on all those who take good care of their animals. The problem of over population of pets is a dire consquence of uncontrolled breeding. Animal breeders are the ones filling our shelter and they are the ones that should be taxed heavily for the misery of over breeding. Instead of flogging the plow horse pet owners that care, studs (breeders) should be the ones that incur any future taxation.
Tona, Greenback
POST MS-2: ANIMAL CONTROL IN BLOUNT COUNTY.
Received: January 3, 2007. Added: January 4, 2007.
In June 2006, it was announced by the Blount County Commission that they would not renew the current contract with the
City of Maryville for Animal Control or Animal Shelter Services. This was after the City of Maryville almost doubled the annual fee for these services. At this time a group of Blount County residents, made up of animal rescue groups, animal business owners, and other concerned citizens, formed Citizens United for a Better Blount County (CUBBC) to investigate
the animal control and animal shelter problem. In the meantime, the Blount County Commission arranged for the City of Maryville to continue serving the county on a month to month basis for six months. This ran out December 31, 2006. As of January 1, 2007, all parts of the county not in a Blount County town, will have no animal control, no animal pick up, and no shelter facility. This means that if you live in the county, even if you take an animal into the Maryville Shelter, the animal will not be accepted. Starting in July, 2006, CUBBC took a hard look at the City of Maryville Shelter. They found a building that was built in 1991 just for the City of Maryville. It was currently serving Maryville, Alcoa, Rockford, and
all of the county that was outside any other towns. The shelter only had 20 kennels with outside runs, 20 small upper kennels that were not used because they had plywood floors and no outside runs, and 20 cat kennels. This was just not adequate for the number of animals in Blount County. It was also noted that the Maryville Shelter adopted out animals that were not neutered. The people adopting the animals were supposed to [have] them... neutered, but there was no follow-up to see if this was done. Although the shelter workers were too few to adequately patrol a county of this size, plus answer calls, keep the kennels clean, and show people the animals that were up for adoption, they could not accept assistance from different groups, like rescue groups or Girl and Boy Scouts. These kinds of groups could have led to a non-profit
organization to be a "friend of the shelter," to assist in beneficial programs for all of the Blount County citizens and their pets. After viewing the City of Maryville Shelter and its procedures, it was decided by CUBBC that Blount County would be better served to build its own shelter and have its own animal control. Plans were moving along very rapidly with the combined work of CUBBC members using a couple of suggestions from a commissioner. CUBBC hoped to break ground before the end of 2006 and have the first stage of the new shelter built by the spring of 2007. The shelter would have been
expanded as donations came in. This came to an abrupt stop with the August Blount County elections. The outgoing commissioners did not want to take any actions on any new proposals. But when the new commissioners were seated, the suggestions made by the past commission, like county property being available, and a bond issue being used to build the first stage, became unobtainable. However CUBBC is still moving forward with plans now to build a new private shelter. It is hoped that Blount County will contract with this new full facility shelter, even though it will now take much longer to
complete without the county’s help. Still, state law states that animal control must be done by an official officer of the state. So although the new shelter can provide kennel facilities, Blount County will have to provide police officers for animal control. (Right now, the officers for the county are hired by the City of Maryville, but their salaries come from the contracted fee from Blount County.) So we have now come to this sad state where the residents of Blount County have to take animal control into their own hands. Let us hope no one is injured until this issue can be resolved. ADDENDUM BY AUTHOR (Received January 6, 2007 -- Added January 6,2007) The Blount County Commissioners on the subcommittee for animal control will meet Wednesday, January 10, at 5:00 pm at the Blount County Courthouse. Everyone is invited. Come and show your support for the commissioners to solve this problem as soon as possible. For
more information on people interested in doing something about the animal control problem see the
Website. This is Citizens United for a Better Blount County.
Terry, Maryville
POST MS-1: ANIMAL RIGHTS.
Received: December 30, 2006. Added: December 30, 2006.
First, I wish to thank Senator Finney for this opportunity. My comment concerns animal rights. The good people of Tennessee can change the laws if enough will back tougher penalities for animal cruelty. One case to demonstrate this is little Bo Bo in Campbell County. Please back Senator Finney in some much needed change. We must speak for the animals, they can't do it and are at the mercy of the people. Let's get this done on behalf of the little creatures of the world. Let
Tennessee be a leader in tougher national laws for them.
Kathy, Louisville
RESPONSE TO MS-1.
Received: January 1, 2007. Added: January 1, 2007.
Who is Bo Bo?
Ed, Sevierville
EDITOR'S COMMENT: Bo Bo is a ten-pound Chihuahua mix dog, who was dragged behind an automobile in late December, 2006. Read Bo Bo's story, as reported by WBIR-TV. The owner was scheduled to make a court appearance on December 29, 2006 (presumably to determine if the incident was due to negligence, wilful intent, or accident), but I do not know the judge's decision as of this date.
State Senator Raymond Finney, January 1, 2007