Wednesday, August 5, 2015

BROWNSVILLE DECLARES WANDERING WHILE STRAY ILLEGAL

By Juan  Montoya Brownsville – on the forefront of banning plastic bags, giving away city assets, and claiming it has more zumba dancers and fishermen than any other city in the world – wants all its animals to have papers.
If not, it's off to the animal shelter where they will be zapped if no one wants to adopt a stray.
Ostensibly meant as a ordinance that would require pet owners to microchip their animals to avoid having to euthanize them or place them up for adoption at the shelter, others see the move as a way to facilitate the slaughter.
"So Animal Control can just go around picking up dogs and cats that don't have the chip and will be given the authority to whack them?" asked a Southmost resident. "How many owners of the of the dogs you see wandering in the barrio do you think can afford to buy the microchip? Hell, they are struggling to get a 24-ounce Natural brewsky."
The city's public health director says that is a pooch or pussy is found wandering outside the city, inspectors will be able to scan them and find their owners. 
"It’s important we do this because animals end up outside the city and the ability to scan the microchip for their owners’ information will help us to return them,” Arturo Rodriguez told the commissioners.
Some say that if the ordinance is passed, it will also be a way for Big Bro Browntown to determine if someone – like say, former mayor Pat Ahumada – has more than the allowed number of dogs (3) in his home so they can prosecute.
"An animal lover like Pat would probably be put out to purchase the dozen or so microchip implants he needs for his brood," said a critic. "Since when does the city decide it has the authority to tell its residents how to take care of their pets?"
There are others who see a dark, sinister and class-war aspect to the proposed regulation.
Critics point out that the exceptions to the microchip requirement include owners who kennel or train their pets in Brownsville but do not live in the city, or having a pet who would be at risk of suffering serious injury if implanted with the microchip. 
However, a veterinarian’s written confirmation is required.
"If the cost is prohibitive, only rich people will have dogs and cats," said a resident. "Will the city be able to confiscate your pet if they scan from the fence line and determine it doesn't have and implant?"
Implanting the chip will put the pet in the Brownsville Animal Shelter database, Rodriguez said.
"And who will have access to the database?" asked another. "What if someone wants to find out if you have an exotic pet and dog nap him and hold him for ransom? I can see the letters coming gin the mail. 'If you don't pay up we'll kill your dog.'"
The City of Brownsville would engage in a campaign that would insure owners, operators, and managers understand how to comply with the law before enforcing it.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your argument makes no sense to me but, for the time being, it doesn't matter. You seem to be having a premature fit since you seem to be calling this an elitist ordinance due to the cost when you don't even know how much it costs. How much is to much? My uncertain recollection is that I recently saw an offer to provide and insert a chip for $15.00.

Anonymous said...

Where did they find these people to comment on this article?? Dog nap....just plain stupid in order to avoid being responsible pet owners. If you can't afford the cost of owning a pet, don't get one...much else more than one. It makes me mad that people won't spay or neuter and then you see stays all over the place breeding and suffering!! Stupid, irresponsible people!


.

Anonymous said...

Instead of finding solutions for more serious problems in the City, this assholes are always looking for a way to screw citizens lives.

Anonymous said...

The city commish will have I.D.s implanted while in session; life and limb are at stake when meeting. Da mayor will be disguised as a Mexican Poodle with a new hair-do.

Anonymous said...

What Commissioners voted for this ordinance? Statists strike again. If I wanted to live in a Nanny State I would move to San Francisco or New York. There are many things that would benefit our community, but it's wrong to use the power of our local government to require us to microchip pets when the vast majority won't. The unintended consequence: people won't pick up there pets if they are found by animal control for fear that they will be fined for not complying. We can barely get our community to vaccinate their pets against rabies -- it's naive to believe that our population will comply with this ordinance. Instead why not educate our community and try to persuade them to microchip their pets instead of forcing them. Why does every good idea need to become mandatory?--Plastic bag ban and attempted curb side recycling are examples of this. Just because our City Commissioners can does not mean they should.

Anonymous said...

That's a real pic of Da Mayor being heisted.

rita