Upload
tawana
View
42
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What are some ways to decrease the amount of stray animals in Salinas, Ca ?. Kelsie Campbell Molecular Biology major CSUMB 6 May 2014. http:// www.randolphcounty.us /county-services/public-safety-law-and-justice/animal-control. Stray Animal Crisis Nationally. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
What are some ways to decrease the amount of
stray animals in Salinas, Ca?
Kelsie CampbellMolecular Biology major
CSUMB6 May 2014
http://www.randolphcounty.us/county-services/public-safety-law-and-justice/animal-control
Stray Animal Crisis Nationally
In the United States: 2.7 million animals euthanized per year
2011: Senator Lieu issued bill Bill vetoed by Governor Jerry
Brown
http://urbanrescues.com/more-information/shelter-statistics/
Stray Animal Crisis locally
In 2008, Salinas Animal Services took in 3,938 animals
2009: Shelter had to reduce holding time of animals Four to three days
2009: 3,908 animals 2010: 4,246 animals
http://partyforthepaws.com/
beneficiaries.html
http://norcalpetadoptions.com/
organizations/detail/salinas-animal-shelter
Continuing Water Crisis In 2013, Salinas water
quality reported contamination Inorganic and organic
contaminants Pesticides and herbicides Radioactive contaminants Microbial contaminants
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_20163900/report-nitrate-
pollution-beginning-affect-salinas-valley-water
Specifically Approaching Stray
Animal Issue Mutually exclusive policy
options: 1) requiring microchips
governmentally funded 2) requiring microchips
personally funded by pet owners
3) not requiring microchipshttp://blogs.rgj.com/mostlydogs/
2012/11/13/washoe-board-votes-for-free-pet-microchips-and-waiver-of-late-fees-
for-dog-license-renewal-in-2013/
Who is involved in this issue?
Animal Activists Pet Owners in Salinas Public Health Activists
Animal Activists Value: animal’s lives Fact: “amount of cats returned to
owners increased 20% and amount of dogs returned to owners increased 2.5% when microchipped”
Assumption: More animals microchipped=decrease amount of strays=decrease amount of animals euthanized
https://www.secularstudents.org/
animalrights
The Salinas Pet Owners Value: personal finances Facts: “In 2012, the average
household income is $58,109 with four individuals inside the home with 35.6% of the community at or below the poverty level”
“Microchips at a veterinarian cost around $45”
Assumption: Salinas is a low income neighborhood= individuals may not be able to afford the cost of a microchip
http://www.city-data.com/income/income-Salinas-California.html
Public Health Activists Value: health of the public Fact: “3.2% of human deaths
caused by unsafe water” “In past ten years, 28 people in the
US have died due to being infected by rabies”
“1 in every 100 people die from leptospirosis if not treated”
Assumption: Stray animals negatively impact the health of the public, so a decrease in the amount of strays would benefit the public.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDkQFjAC&
url=http%3A%2F%2Ffyi.uwex.edu%2Fmrec
%2Ffiles
Evaluating policy options within the environmental
sustainability criteria how much the issue is protecting the
natural world Requiring
microchip of animals and government
pays for microchip
Requiring microchip of animals and pet owners
pay for microchip
Not requiring microchip of
animals
(+) Long term environmental sustainability
(+) Less stray
animals causing water
pollution
(+) Long term environmental sustainability
(+) Less stray
animals causing water
pollution
(-) More stray animals
causing water pollution and transmittable
diseases
Evaluating policy options within the economic sustainability criteria
how great the policy will use the resources of society without unwanted wastage
Requiring microchip of animals and government
pays for microchip
Requiring microchip of
animals and pet owners pay for
microchip
Not requiring microchip of
animals
(+) Government official animal shelters would receive profit
(-) Government would cover cost
of microchip loosing profit
(+) Provide health animals services profit in selling
microchips
(-) Pet owners must purchase microchips for
each pet, costing $45
(+) Pet owners would have the
freedom to decide whether to
microchip pets or not
(-) Less income for
animal health services, as less microchips would
be purchased
Evaluating policy options within the social equity criteria
how everyone in society will be affected in the issue and will the effectiveness be equal
Requiring microchip of animals and
government pays for microchip
Requiring microchip of
animals and pet owners pay for
microchip
Not requiring microchip of
animals
(+) Although pet owners loose
freedom, government pays for the microchip
(-) Pet owners would be required
to pay for microchips
(+) Pet owners would have
freedom in deciding health services for
their pets
(-)The amount of stray animals would increase, as stray animals would not
be returned to permanent owners
Recommendation of the a single
policy option Recommending requirement of microchip paid by government
Limitations: lack of concrete details Concessions: too much governmental involvement Justification: animal’s rights, environmental
sustainability Consequence: special planning, illegal ownership of
animals Accountability: increasing amount of businesses
available to microchip
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations
http://www.petsvet.com/microchip
Concluding the requirement of microchips
Requirement of microchips paid by government in Salinas, Ca would: Decrease amount of strays Provide microchips without owner’s paying Increase amount of owner’s abiding Set example to future generations and
populations
http://www.change.org/petitions/turkey-plans-to-kill-all-stray-animals