Letters for January 16, 2003

Let’s see if I have this right. Some people worry that the future animal shelter will be too pleasant-looking and will encourage owners to give up on their animals and drop them off there. Then there are others who want the shelter to look welcoming so that people will feel at ease picking out a pet in a clean friendly environment. Huh?

The only real fact here is that the new shelter is too expensive. The community needs to remove its bleeding heart for these surplus animals and face the real world. There’s nothing wrong or horrible in putting down unwanted animals. This “no kill” trend makes it out to be the worst thing in the world to destroy a dog or cat. Well, most people don’t feel that way about cows, pigs, chickens, horses, lambs and goats, which are killed by the thousands daily. Bottom line: It’s OK to euthanize surplus animals.

Larry Taylor
via e-mail

Euthanize bad owners
Re “This dog’s life” [RN&R, Cover, Jan. 9] :

I’m growing very weary of the dog sob stories. Every neighborhood I’ve ever lived in has had dog-related problems—barking, roaming, etc. Realistically, most stray dogs should be euthanized. The no-kill philosophy makes for more problems since “loser” animals are merely recycled into other neighborhoods. One of my neighbors “saved” a dog from the animal shelter. The dog lives in an enclosed area with food and water, yet it barks all day while the owners are at work. Now, with a new $10 million animal shelter planned, more people will be inclined to bring troublesome animals back into the community creating even more chaos. Please folks, think of your fellow man first.

L. R. Brackett
via e-mail

Don’t kill people
We’re not supposed to bomb people in any country. I’m not any kind of a religious freak, although I happen to be a spiritual person. Where does it say in any book that we, as Americans, are supposed to bomb people in any country, especially a poor country where the average teacher is only earning, like $15, a week?

B. Ron Burkhardt
Reno

Control your pets
Re “Our condolences” [RN&R, Letters, Jan. 9] :

In regard to Gail Martin’s letter about the loss of her cat, I have no sympathy for Martin. I do, however, feel deeply for the cat. In an issue with a cover story about how many animals are put down because of irresponsible pet owners failing to spay or neuter their pets, I find it ironic that Martin is seeking sympathy. She is every bit as responsible for the death of her cat as are those who won’t spay or neuter. Be responsible and keep your pets contained.

Donna Boroff
via e-mail

Morally ambiguous news
Re “Have some scruples,” [RN&R, Food finds, Jan. 9] :

Brad Bynum, your restaurant reviewer, goes to a late-night joint called Scruples with a bunch of friends. They drink their beers and eat their food, but then leave without paying the bill. Then Bynum returns to the restaurant to tell them about it, but doesn’t make good on the bill (or if so, he makes no mention of it). After that, he pens a review where he refers to their french fries as having been too salty, and the accompanying burger too greasy. Then, in the same review, he lectures his readers to pay their bill before leaving. Am I missing something here? Isn’t this supposed to be a family paper? What kind of message does this send to younger, more impressionable readers?

One more note: if you’re serious about people getting their pets spayed, why not try to obtain some low-cost spaying offers from local vets, and then get those offers advertised in your wonderful paper as a local public service?

Barry Guerrero
via e-mail

Correction

Re “Defense on the range,” [RN&R, Pulse, Jan. 9] :

In the story, "Defense on the range," there was an error of fact. The circulation of Range Magazine was stated to be 15,000. Editor C. J. Hadley reports that she actually has 150,000 readers from coast to coast.