Animal Control

Living in a small rural community definately has it's drawbacks. Living 20 miles from the nearest grocery store definately requires you to do some planning and juggle some schedules. You can't just make a quick run to pay your bills or pick up something you might have forgotten. However, these things are the price that we pay for the knowledge that we can walk down the street without being shot at and the pleasure of not hearing 15,000 cars pass by our house each day (though I think the fort shooting off their howitzers sort of limits that pleasure).

However, there is one drawback that I never expected.

We do not have any form of animal control!

Stray animals are an issues in nearly every area. There is simply no way to avoid it. There will always be those people who simply are not fit to care for their pets. There will always be those animals that have escaped from their owners or are abandoned.

So what is the humane way to deal with the matter? The logical answer would be to contact your local Animal Shelter to take the animal in. YOU'DE THINK!!

The fact of the matter is that if you live in a remote area, no one cares about these animals or the people that they are inconvienencing.

Here is the conversation that took place between a co-worker and our local Animal Shelter today:

Co-worker: "Hello, I have a stray dog that I need to find a place for."
Staff: "Where are you?"
Co-worker: "Bum Fuck Kansas"*
Staff: "Well, you need to contact your local animal control officer."
Co-worker: "We don't have an animal control officer, I was told to contact you."
Staff: "Let me see. You need to contact Jill Dogcatcher."
Co-worker: "She no longer works for animal control."
Staff: "Please hold."
...
...
...
Staff: "It appears that Bum Fuck Kansas has not signed a contract with us, therefore we no longer service your community."
Co-worker: "So what am I supposed to do with this dog?"
Staff: "Well, you can bring it in to the shelter, but we charge $80 to take in an animal."
Co-worker: "You're telling me I have to pay $80 to dispose of a stray dog! Why would I do that?"
Staff: "Well, you are not in our service area so we do will not come get the dog."
Co-worker: "Right. But you're telling me if I bring the dog in to you, you're going to charge me $80! What if I run the dog to the city limits with my gun? Then call you to come get him?"
Staff: "WHAT!!"
Co-worker: "Well, that's the option you're leaving me. I'm not paying you $80 to take in a dog that isn't even mine! That's stupid!"
Staff: "Well... um... uh..."
Co-worker: "Basically you're telling me that instead of doing the right thing by bringing this animal in for shelter, I'd just be better off to chase it into town or leave it to starve."
Staff: "Well, no. If you bring the animal after business hours, you can leave it in the drop box for free."
Co-worker: "But if I bring it to you during business hours you're going to charge me $80."
Staff: "Have you tried calling your local police?"
Co-worker: "We don't have 'local' police. We are serviced by the police in YOUR town."
Staff: "Well, have you tried contacting them?"
Co-worker: "Yes, they said I should contact you!"
Staff: "Well, I'm sorry. You're more than welcome to bring the animal in."
Co-worker: "If I bring you $80!! A bullet would be cheaper!!"
*click*

If this isn't the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life!!

I realize that caring for stray animals has its expenses, however, this shelter is partnered with the humane society which recieves donations for such expenses. On top of that, the animal shelter charges adoption fees for animals in order to compensate them for the care of the animals.

Can a police officer transport the animal? No! Not unless it is a dangerous animal. Why? Because the animal shelter may bill the police department the $80 fee for the animal! While you might think, "So what, the police department pay it!" I can't help but think how much $80 per stray might add up to. On top of the time the officers would be wasting transporting stray animals, I certainly would rather the money was spent on catching criminals and keeping my neighborhood safe.

So what can you do about these abandoned and neglected animals?

1. Well, if you are wealthy enough to have a spare $80 laying around, you could pay the shelter the $80 to take the animal in. But since $80 goes a long way in my household (formula for a month, diapers for a month, clothes, groceries, toys, etc.) that is not an option. I imagine that is not an option for most of the people who live around here.
   
2. So, your second option is to pack the dog up in the evening and drop it in their "drop box" (WTF?) for free. However, most people have families to tend to in the evenings and work the next day. So driving 40 miles round trip to find a safe home for a stray is not likely.
   
3. You could always adopt the dog into your own family. Of course there won't be any agencies bailing you out when you can't afford vet bills, shots, toys, dog food, etc. And when you excede the limits of any city ordinances, you'll be facing fines and more hassel than you could imagine.
   
4. I wonder what the shelter would do if you drove the animal into town and kicked it out of your car in their parking lot. Then you could call there number and say, "Do you realize you have a stray dog roaming around in your parking lot?" What are they going to do?
   
5. I guess it would be just as easy to drive the animal into any other part of town and release it. You could either call the shelter or hell, leave it for something else to deal with.
   
6. You can always kick the animal to the curb and let Darwin's theory take effect. I'm sure the Humane Society highly supports the idea that all these pets will be left on the streets to starve to death.
   
7. That being said, I'm certain that the Humane Society would definately NOT approve of my final and most EFFECTIVE method. The cheapest solution is to pack the dog up in your car, drive 2 miles out of town to the country and spend 50 cents to put a bullet in the animal's head!! Personally, I find that much more humane than allowing the animal to starve to death. It also prevents further annoyances and the possibility that the animal may become sick and/or endanger local residents. It saves gasoline by reducing the drive, and as a result also benefits the environment by reducing the greenhouse gases your car would have emitted driving the dog into town. In addition, it will leave an opening for another needy animal in the shelter and the $80 you save will lessen the strain on the economy because the money can be spent supporting your family, making a larger payment on your mortgage, donating to another needy cause, or saving for your child's college fund! This seems like the all around best solution in this particular scenerio.
   

As an animal lover, I certainly do not promote the idea of randomly shooting all stray animals. However, when local organizations make it difficult to do what is best for these animals, I see no better alternative. Far better to put the animal down mercifully than to see it injured by a vehicle, or struggling to survive on it's own!!

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

Cops are Stupid!!

Let's set up the scenerio:

A 350 pound man and his 120 pound girlfriend get into a verbal dispute in the front lawn. Aside from words, the only thing that made this incident any different that a normal lover's spat was the fact that the girl threw a glass of water at her boyfriend. A neighbor called the local police to report the disturbance.

So what do you think happened?

I'm thinking the biggest thing here might be a disturbing the peace charge. Apparently, our local police had a different perspective.

Here's what happened:

The cops arrived and separated the couple who had since made up and were hugging. Both are asked if the girl had hit the man. Both tell the police that she did not hit the man. A rookie cop informs them that they have reason to believe that she DID hit him. The young woman is handcuffed, despite the protests of her boyfriend. Scared and confused, the girl is near hysterics. Her boyfriend has to beg the officer to loosen the cuffs on his girlfriend. He is not allowed near her to help calm her down. The girl is hauled off to the police station where she is booked and put in a holding cell on the charge of "battery". A no-contact restraining order is filed on the boyfriend's behalf which prevents him from being able to talk to her or even get her out of jail. He quickly gets ahold of the girl's father who comes to the station and bails her out. This whole process takes several hours. During this time, the girl is locked in a holding cell scared and slightly "spazzing". Her behavior causes the officers to ask her whether or not she is on drugs. She explains to them that she does not do drugs, she simply has ADD. The officers inform her that she just needs to keep that to herself and that they do not want it. Her father is finally able to get her out of jail and take her home. The no-contact restraining order bans the young couple from having any contact with each other for a period of 72 hours. When it's all said and done, the couple has to appear in court (and pay court costs) just so the boyfriend can inform the judge that "No, he does not want to press charges!"

Seriously, I realize that this system was set up to protect women (and men) who ARE being abused by their partners, but are afraid to defend themselves. However, this seems a bit ridiculous! It was all the boyfriend could do to keep from defending his girlfriend physically and ending up in jail himself. While all of this was taking place, some man or woman really was being abused by their partner and no one was doing anything about it!!!

Proof that the system is flawed

Okay, first let me state a few things:

1) I fully support your right to worship whichever make-believe man in the sky suits your fancy.
2) If you don't believe there is a make-believe man in the sky, I fully support that as well.
3) If your make-believe man in the sky is actually a woman in a tree or an alien in outer space, I'm okay with that too.
4) Please do not tell me that my make-believe man in the sky is not real because I'm quite happy with my own delusions.
5) This really has very little to do with the various make-believe men/women/aliens in the sky/trees/outer space.

What this does have something to do with is the U.S. Government.

We are all aware of the fact that our politicians are lying to us. I'm okay with the politicians lying because they all do it and we know they do it. I've gotten to where it's kind of cute. Like the little kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and responds, "I was getting it for YOU!" Yeah, it's a lie, but those cute squishy cheeks and that innocent smile get me every time. I feel that way about politicians.

However, there is one major lie that just burns me to no end: the separation of church and state.

It doesn't EXIST!!

So we end up with legal battles over whether the 10 commandments can stand on display in the courthouse lawn, or whether we can sing Christmas songs in public schools or say the Pledge of Allegiance with the word "God" in it.

(My personal opinions: If you don't believe in the 10 commandments, don't read them; if you are against Christmas, don't participate; and if you don't like the word "God", don't say it.)

Unfortunately, in a country that insists on claiming that church and state need to remain separate entities, these are inevitable battles that will be fought in an effort to achieve that goal.

What baffles me then, is why there is so much "hoopla" over other political issues.

Example #1 - Gay marriage

I personally have no problem with homosexuals who wish to marry. At this point in my life I can honestly say that I see no reason why anyone would want to get married, but it seems to be the trendy thing to do. Why shouldn't we allow homosexuals to be as miserable as the rest of us?

So here is where I get confused. The biggest argument against gay marriage comes from the religious sects. Okay, so we have separation of church and state. Problem easily solved. If you have to use the words "God", "religion", "Bible", or "sin" to defend your argument in the Supreme Court... YOU LOSE!! Hello gay marriage! (or union or partnership or whatever else you'd like to call it to keep from offending your fragile religious sensibilities)

Please, as far as I see it, "straight" marriages aren't fairing out to well, so maybe we should let someone else have a go. Maybe they know something we don't!

Example #2 - Evolution vs. Creationism in Public Schools

Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, it is a major issue in the scientific community. So the way I see it is pretty simple. There are a few solutions to this problem:

1) Do away with evolution. In which case, there is no Charles Darwin, no dinosaurs, no Galapagos Islands, no Big Bang, no species evolution, and no hope for human advancement in many genetic and otherwise useful studies.

2) Do away with creationism. This is not likely to happen, but perhaps we could come to some understanding that the two could possibly co-exist. I don’t know, maybe the make-believe man in the sky has a greater plan that humans could ever imagine and he didn't tell us everything WORD FOR WORD! Maybe when he said that the world was created in seven days he meant it figuratively. Perhaps, he has a different perspective on what a day is. And maybe, just maybe, he left some gaps and holes in his story just to see if we were smart enough to fill them in or whether we'd just follow around like a bunch of blind rats.

3) Teach them both. This is by far the most complicated and least desirable solution for everyone involved. Honestly, lets think about this. I want my daughter to learn about evolution and you want your daughter to learn about creationism, and the parent's down the street are Native American and they want their kid to learn about the Spirit of Nature, and John Travolta wants his kid to learn about aliens, and the Satanistic couple three blocks down wants there kid to learn something totally different that none of us can even imagine. This simply opens the door for a crazy and ludicrous snowball effect that will have all of our kids so messed up that they’d be walking around with tin foil hats and straws hanging out their ears.

4) Do away with the State standards, which require our children to complete three years of high school Science before graduation and instead make all Science courses electives. This happens to be my favorite because regardless, I would require my child to take science courses anyway. Thus she would have the opportunity to go on and make BIG BUCKS in fields of study that your child doesn't even know exist.

5) Leave Science in the classroom and Religion at HOME! This just seems like the most logical choice to me. Honestly, parents are supposed to be the best teachers anyway! If my child comes home and tells me that the Science teacher taught her that we may have come from monkeys, I won't have a problem with it. If you have a problem with it, there is a simple solution. Sit your child down and explain to him/her that some people do believe that humans come from monkeys, but that feel they are wrong. This is not something that you can "shelter" your child from (unless of course you intent on following them around for the rest of their lives and curse profanities at anyone who might breach the subject to your 40-year-old son).

Of course if we return to the topic of this debate, which is the separation of church and state, then there is nothing to argue about now is there. Public Schools are run by the STATE! Referring back to my four "catch words" previously mentioned, if you have to use "God", "religion", "Bible", or "sin" to defend your case, it has no business in a school. Problem solved! Evolution can be taught without the teacher bringing up any of these words therefore evolution is IN and creationism (and all other religious "Where we came from" stories) are OUT!

Example #3 - Sex Ed

This is my HOT TOPIC (I like that store) of the day. Sitting down with a female student to help her with her Health homework a few weeks ago, I discovered a very shocking thing. This 14-year-old girl was completely oblivious to what HIV, AIDS and other STDs were! I was in total shock! Yes, you might argue that she should have paid better attention in her health class, but at the same time it was very disturbing to me that no one had bothered to have "The Talk" with this teenage girl (who just happens to be dating an older boy in school). I provided the bare minimum needed to complete the assignment (let me note that I am not the Health teacher and this is not my forte, therefore not the subject I wanted to discuss in too much detail for fear of over-stepping my bounds). Afterwards, a phone call was made to the family explaining that they might want to discuss the matter in more detail with the girl at home. The whole point of this story boils down to the fact that it should not be the job of the school to have the "birds and bees" discussion. However, since it seems that some parents are not having these talks at home, the weight of it does fall into the school's lap. As a matter of public health and safety, I think it is very important that teenagers are educated in these matters.

So where is the controversy? Whether or not condoms should be available to children in high school restrooms! And here I must voice my opinions loud and clear. MOST DEFINATELY!!! As a matter of fact, I think that condoms should be placed on every street corner in a "Free to take" bucket. I think that condoms should be taped to ever bottle of beer sold. I think that condoms should come with every McDonald's extra value meal! Get your oil changed? Here's your free condom! Buy a pair of shoes? Bonus, free condom! I think that police officers should check your driver's license, registration, and whether or not you are carrying a condom whenever they pull you over. Anytime you enter a bar, they should check your ID and your condom! Get the picture?

Do I think that giving away condoms will make more people have sex? NO! I think people who want to have sex have sex and people who don't, well they DON'T! The only reason that condoms are a big deal is because we as the public make them a big deal. If there were condoms everywhere you looked, you wouldn't think anything about them. The only concern I have about mass supplying free condoms is the fact that blown up condoms would be found in random (and probably hilarious) places for some time after the initial integration.

Let me point out that I hope and I pray that my daughter waits until she reaches a mature age before she even thinks about having sex. However, do not for a minute think that I’m delusional enough to believe that teenagers aren't having sex and won't continue to do so. If my daughter is going to someday have sex (providing we don't lock her in a bomb shelter and convince her that there is no such thing as boys and Daddy is the last one) I want to know that no matter where she is, she is protected. I guarantee you that the instant I believe she might be interested in such matters there will be a discussion about using protection and birth control. And I fully intend to make certain that both are available to her without having to jump through hoops to get them.

So my last thought for the evening (at least on this matter) is simple. If you take religion out of the debate, there is no reason why you couldn't put condoms EVERYWHERE!