A promotion that allows Emporia residents to take home free cats from the animal shelter has been extended another five months.
The cat giveaway has led to a significant reduction in the cat population in the shelter. There have been 147 cats adopted so far.
“There is value in this program,” said Emporia Police Lt. Scott Cronk. “Besides helping reduce the number of cats at the shelter it’s keeping our costs down.”
Residents may adopt a cat or dog at the shelter, 1216 Hatcher St., from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. weekdays.
In September, city leaders decided to waive the normal cat adoption fee until Thanksgiving because the shelter had been overrun with cats needing a home. The vast majority of pet cats picked up by animal control aren’t retrieved by owners.
To read complete story see the print edition or the online print edition.
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
Here's an idea...just have free cats all the time lol. I adopted a cat from the shelter last August. Best decision ever. :)
February 7, 2011 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flyboy32 (anonymous) says...
Just want to know if you are comfortable with the taxpayers continued subsidy to collect them, house them, spay/neuter them and vet them and then give them away for free?
February 7, 2011 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Buffalo_Breath (anonymous) says...
Spring trotline season is coming up ...
February 7, 2011 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ToxicPink (anonymous) says...
If it reduces a feral cat population, which can cause destruction of other wildlife, spread disease and screw up your garden...
Yes, I am ok with that.
Its beneficial to take care of them, get them off the streets, get them fixed and get them into homes.
Inb4 the a$$holes want to shoot them all.
February 7, 2011 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
I'm in favor of spending taxpayer money so long as those who let their pets run loose pay a premium to get them back and are fined big $$$ if they are not spayed or neutered.
February 7, 2011 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ToxicPink (anonymous) says...
I would not argue that if you're not a licensed breeder, you should be fined if your animals are not spayed or neutered. Pet overpopulation is a big issue and we as pet owners need to make sure that are animals are being taken care of responsibly and that includes having them fixed.
Maybe not fining them out the butt, but enough to be an incentive. And that money going straight to the shelter to continue to make sure the animals coming in are taken care.
I don't agree with fining owners if they pet gets out and they make every effect to catch them, sometimes the animal can do a pretty good job of getting away, especially if they slip out at night.
Sh!t does happen.
February 7, 2011 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Buffalo_Breath (anonymous) says...
Trotline bait doesn't need shots ...
February 8, 2011 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Hmmmm, I wonder what Thomas Justagato would think of a companion. Will give this some thought.
February 8, 2011 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
I just thought it was funny that this is like the 5th article about "extending" the offer. :)
February 8, 2011 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flyboy32 (anonymous) says...
Toxic, why should I as a taxpayer be required to subsidize those who chose to own pets and the associated risks such as them getting loose, biting someone, etc? It should all be borne by the user, in this case, the pet owners.
February 8, 2011 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaGarrison (Melissa Garrison) says...
"Just want to know if you are comfortable with the taxpayers continued subsidy to collect them, house them, spay/neuter them and vet them and then give them away for free?"
Technically my cat was brought to the shelter, so the "collection" was free (yay!) and I had to pay the vet bill for all her checkups, surgery to spay her, and also eye drops and amoxicillin since she had a very bad upper respiratory infection that spread through the shelter and was untreated until I adopted her. So, you didn't have to pay for that either. ;) But, I do appreciate that she had a place to sleep and food and water until she came home with me. And thanks to those who donate to the shelter! I love coming home to that little fuzzy face everyday. :P
February 8, 2011 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TexasGirl (anonymous) says...
"Why should I as a taxpayer be required to subsidize those who chose to own pets and the associated risks such as them getting loose, biting someone, etc? It should all be borne by the user, in this case, the pet owners."
The same reason I have to pay taxes to operate public schools, even though I don't have kids, and if I did would probably have them in private school. The same reason my taxes go to subsidize deadbeat meth heads on welfare even though I did not "choose" for them to live that way.
In other words, because we all get taxed for many things that do not in any way affect us. That's just the way it is. It stinks, but it's true. How nice it would be if we only had to pay for the things we actually use, but that will never happen.
February 8, 2011 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )