Current Conditions
35°F - CLEAR
Mount Joy rejects bill from Humane League
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Nov 11, 2009 05:43 EST
Mt Joy
By CIVIA KATZ, Correspondent

A Mount Joy Borough council member called for a boycott of the Humane League of Lancaster County after the league sent the borough a $4,000 bill for 2010.

Council voted Nov. 2 to oppose a contract with the Humane League for the collection of stray cats and dogs.

Instead, council approved an offer of $1,000 to the animal shelter, which is a 25 percent increase over last year's payment of $800.

Scott Hershey, acting borough manager, said Mount Joy is facing a budget deficit for 2010 of about $220,000.

Robert Golicher, a council member, said the Humane League request put borough officials in a tough position.

"The people out there are losing their jobs, and I have to tell them I have to put $4,000 aside to pay for someone else's dog or cat," he said.

Bill Hall, a council member, said, "I will not allow this organization to hold us hostage. Now they come up with some exorbitant number of animals. That's crazy. … We don't give them $4,000 worth of workload."

Police Chief John O'Connell said, "If I had another game plan to throw at you, I would."

Chris Metzler, a council member, said, "Bottom line, what are our options? I'm not going to put the police department in a situation where he has 29 dogs show up and (and officers have) no place to put them."

The Humane League offered the borough two options. The first costing $5,550 annually and the second option costing $4,059. The higher cost is based on a per animal fee, and the lesser cost is based on a per capita fee.

Hall wanted documented numbers on the strays that were picked up from the borough. He said the animal shelter has not provided a list. Hall said if all 60 municipalities in Lancaster County vote no, the Humane League will have to come up with another option.

Council members also accused the League of "double dipping." The Humane League charges for each cat and dog that it takes in from the borough but also charges residents a fee to turn in animals and to adopt animals and does not credit the borough.

"Again, they double dip. When the person gets the dog, they have to pay, and the Humane League does not rebate that to us," Hall said.

John Rebman, council president, said, "The double dipping thing bothers me."

Rebman also was disturbed about the Humane League's feral cat program in which cats are trapped, neutered and returned to the borough. Rebman thinks the cats should not be returned.

The Humane League will not accept pets from municipalities that do not have a contract with it. The shelter's Web site lists 14 municipalities in the county that did not have contracts in 2009.

Townships with no contract with the League are Bart, Colerain, Conoy, Drumore, East Drumore, Ephrata, Fulton, Leacock, Little Britain, Providence, Rapho, Sadsbury and Salisbury. Ephrata Borough also does not have a contract.


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 71 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
a friend of mine feeds stray cats. he fed one prticular cat for a few months before a neighbor called the humane league and said he was abusing cats. they came and took the cat and probably put it on ice, all because of a prick neighbor who lied.
he and his wife are on a list of "animal abusers" that he claims they keep. his daughter was denied an adoption because her drivers license had his address on it, even tho she moved.
that's his story anyway.
justplainjoe
I'm curious to hear replies to this question: what should municipalities allocate more tax dollars towards: Humane League services or Libraries?
LocalMan
QUOTE (LocalMan @ Nov 15 2009, 07:25 PM)
I'm curious to hear replies to this question: what should municipalities allocate more tax dollars towards: Humane League services or Libraries?

this is a question for Dewey the library cat.

Seems both are on the bottem of the barrel fund wise.
spaylady
QUOTE (LocalMan @ Nov 15 2009, 07:25 PM)
I'm curious to hear replies to this question: what should municipalities allocate more tax dollars towards: Humane League services or Libraries?


Animal control is a county responsibility, under Pennsylvania law, rather than a boro or township responsibility. That's why dog tags are sold by the county treasurer, rather than being sold at city hall.

Suddenly, lots of companies are making electronic book readers - and lots of people are starting to buy them. Right now, new best-sellers cost $10 as e-books, compared to the $35-40 for a new book, and older authors are $1 a book or less. When it's ten times as expensive to drive to the library and feed the meter than it is to download an e-book, libraries no longer serve a purpose. I'd gladly vote for higher taxes to operate libraries - but I'd think twice before erecting a new building that couldn't easily be converted to other uses.
Harl Delos
QUOTE (dgnct @ Nov 15 2009, 04:35 PM)
For years they accepted all animals irregardless of township support. They are trying this as a last resort.


A last resort? They brought in $3 million last year, and only spent $1.1 million sheltering strays. They have $4 million in securities, and their $1.5 facility is mortgage-free. What is so "last resort" about that situation, that they need to extort a six-fold increase in support from townships and boros, by refusing to shelter strays from starvation or ending up road kill?

QUOTE
I have volunteered there many, many years, and I can tell you that mass numbers of strays are not being killed as you claim.


There's a report published in the paper every week. You can find old ones by googling "cats dogs site:lancasteronline.com"

If you compare the number of cats and dogs received to the number adopted, the ones returned to their owner, and the ones transferred to rescue organizations, there's always a lot of animals unaccounted for.

For instance, from Sept. 8-14, the league received 61 dogs and 149 cats. Fifteen dogs and 40 cats were adopted; seven stray dogs and one stray cat were reclaimed by their owners. Fourteen dogs and 16 cats were transferred to other rescue organizations.

That leaves 25 dogs and 93 cats unaccounted for just one week. At that rate, without killing the unaccounted pets, the shelter population would grow by 1,300 dogs and 4,836 cats every year.

So where do you think those animals go?
Harl Delos
Top Ads