On Supporters say there is a need for sidewalks
Posted on April 30 at 7:44 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sidewalks are generally for other pedestrians' ability to walk past a property. They are a part of a transportation plan. They are mandated by the city as result. The cost for new mandates, where the system did not originally have them, should be funded just as street updates/ repairs are, by the general population, not isolated property owners.
On Rock County Humane Society sees fewer animals in 2011
Posted on April 25 at 10:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"One major change has been an attempt to separate the shelter's role of providing temporary care for adoptable animals." ???? What is/are the other role(s)? Spaying and neutering are already offered at nearly any veterinarian.
"If someone donates $100, we shouldn't spend that $100 to keep an animal in a stray hold for seven days," Rhodes said. Ha! The municipal contracts had paid for the service, what a miss leading comment!
On Proposed zoning change could revive gravel pit plan
Posted on March 29 at 7:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Isn't the zoning conflict that the C1 zoning overlay was improperly put on the land? That the soil type is not what the ordinance defines C1? That the C1 zoned area isn't even lowland/ wetland? That it is higher than any of the surrounding land?
On Towns grapple with stray animal control
Posted on March 25 at 9:35 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
flivver, the RCHS HAS refused to contract. They notified current contracted municipalities that they will not offer a contract for service in 2013. Your donations towards adoptions is mute, if there are no animals to adopt, knowing the RCHS decision to not take strays. Again, the RCHS refuses strays if there is no contract and refuses to contract in the future. I hope you can figure it out.
On Towns grapple with stray animal control
Posted on March 25 at 9:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Anon22, read all the posts here. The municipalities had contracted with RCHS for services as an "animal control facility", per Statute Chapter 174. The RCHS has said it will not agree to do so in the future. That is the decision of the RCHS. Not the municipalities. Also, the RCHS has always set the rates. The rates have not been negotiated. The rates have not been part of any negotiations, to determine an agreement.
On Towns grapple with stray animal control
Posted on March 22 at 7:49 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
flivver, Their mission IS to be a "pound" for local governments, at least that's what their Mission and Vision are---
RCHS Mission Statement;
"To inspire compassion for all animals, provide shelter and humane care to homeless animals, and promote adoptions and responsible pet guardianship in our community."
Vision;
"A safe and loving home for every adoptable animal and humane treatment for all."
Do you believe "all" means "not part"?
If you believe so, it is not a "Humane" attitude.
They certainly can, as a private shelter, choose any policy they want, just live up to the policy, or change their Mission Statement and/ or Vision. The responsibility to the public here is that they want support from the community. The RCHS can not survive without it ($). Their policy should be true to the supporters and donors.
On Towns grapple with stray animal control
Posted on March 21 at 7:15 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rock County Humane Society Board of Directors;
Current Members (according to their web site);
Debbie Mills
David Thill (President)
Leslie Bentz (Secretary)
Julie Michaelson (Treasurer)
Elise Erdmann (Vice President)
Barb Arms
Maryann Burkheimer (Member at Large)
John Davidson
Jaci McDonough
Margaret Duerr
David Heckner
Rock County Humane Society Executive Director;
Angela Rhodes
Rock County Humane Society Humane Care Officer Supervisor;
Jim Hurley
Rock County Humane Society
222 S. Arch St.
Janesville, WI 53548
(608) 752-5622
(608)752-4201 fax
director@rockcountyhumanesociety.com
http://www.rockcountyhumanesociety.com/b...
On Towns grapple with stray animal control
Posted on March 21 at 6:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
flivver - Pay attention please, The RCHS refuses to contract, not the municipalities. The RCHS refuses to take any dogs or cats at the door, regardless the situation, even if offered money by the individual. I ask, what services are left? Why keep the lights on at the RCHS? Realize, there are no pets to adopt, or care for, if you don't take them in. This is the responsibility of the RCHS staff and the Board of Directors. Angela Rhodes, Jim Hurling and the Board need to show accountability. Remain ignorant if you wish, blame the municipalities if you want, but close the doors if you can't resolve your inability to serve your mission. Donors should demand accountability. http://www.rockcountyhumanesociety.com/b...
On Towns grapple with stray animal control
Posted on March 19 at 10:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Angela Rhodes, Rock County Humane Society Executive Director, said “We are not going to be forced to make those decisions,” Rhodes said. “There is no way I could look at one of these cats (in the shelter) and say, ‘You’re not worthy of the same humane care and control as dogs.’”. She is so stubborn she believes that dogs should not be attended to, if cats will not. What a childish position to take. That attitude is contrary to the RCHS Mission Statement on their web site “To inspire compassion for all animals, provide shelter and humane care to homeless animals, and promote adoptions and responsible pet guardianship in our community”. The all-or-nothing mentality Rhodes has doesn’t serve the attention the dogs are offered by several municipalities.
Many municipalities had historically contracted with the RCHS for decades. That came to a hault when Rhodes arrived in Rock County and it wasn’t the proposed contract fees that created the situation today. It is RCHS policy change, Rhodes policy, don’t be fooled otherwise.
I would like to know why the municipalities that do currently have contracts with the RCHS are being told in a letter, that they will not be offered a contract in 2013, regardless of the terms.
The RCHS, according to their web site, claims to have animals for adoption, offers people to search for their missing pet (within the confines of their walls), offers opportunity for volunteers to help them, and accepts donations! If they won’t take a stray in without an associated municipal contract, and won’t contract with municipalities, what good are they? There will be no animals! Those that donate should consider why. What services are left that justify their existence, in its current form? What are they funding, other than Rhodes salary?
Page 1 of 10 | Next
On Sidewalks? Here we go again
Posted on April 30 at 7:44 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sidewalks are generally for other pedestrians' ability to walk past a property. They are a part of a transportation plan. They are mandated by the city as result. The cost for new mandates, where the system did not originally have them, should be funded just as street updates/ repairs are, by the general population, not isolated property owners.