OPINION: The city, country split on animal control

But I’m puzzled by the glee some show when they talk of shooting unwanted animals on their property. Aggressive animals can threaten you and your family, and you should be able to protect yourself on your own property if you’re truly endangered. But taking a life should sober your soul, not make you chuckle.

That said, I think our animal control debate in Madison County is a tough matter, because it puts two entirely different realities under one umbrella.

We should all recognize that it’s one thing to raise your gun toward an aggressive animal with a pasture backdrop. It’s quite another to fire at a moving target with your neighbor loading her 2-year-old daughter into her Toyota 40 yards away.

Do-it-yourself animal control in the Harrison area is one thing; it’s entirely different in Hull.

This distinction is reflected at the BOC table. Madison County commissioner Mike Youngblood has been the most vocal proponent of county animal control on the BOC. That makes sense. Much of District 3, which includes the Hull area, is a neighborhood community, not a farming area. Youngblood is surely going to hear from more people who support animal control than commissioners in rural areas of the county, such as Stanley Thomas, District 1; and John Pethel, District 2.

Ideally, animal control would be a municipal matter, something offered in more densely populated areas and avoided elsewhere. If you have one or two animal control officers covering a county as big as this one, you’re going to have slow response times. The situation will likely be over by the time they get there. If they’re stationed closer to the problem zones, their effectiveness surely improves.

Let’s not forget, too, that animal control is not just to protect people from animals, but vice versa. Animal abuse and neglect are real problems.

But if the county government can’t really afford animal control services, then smaller towns surely don’t have the money.

Right now, the county animal control service is stretched very thin, trying to serve both as nuisance control and public safety — with just one officer on staff after a recent resignation. It is not effective in that manner. You have a code enforcement officer, who serves the dual role as the county animal control officer, responding to complaints that often require a lengthy ride, followed by a search for a four-legged animal that may be long gone. There are the legitimate threats, but there are also the disputes between neighbors that have little to do with dogs, which eat up considerable time with little results.

We’ve reached a point where the current arrangement must give. Should it be beefed up with more funding and staff? Or, should it be stopped until adequate money is available? Or is there another alternative?

Madison County must always have someone designated as a “dangerous dog officer,” meaning that if someone is bitten, the government must have someone to respond. Yet, that’s cold comfort for the neighborhood menaced by an irresponsible neighbor who lets an aggressive dog roam free. What if it’s you or your kid who must take the bite before the protection kicks in?

Madison County commissioners will soon begin the 2010 budget process. They’ve agreed to discuss animal control again during the money discussions. They’ve talked about contracting with the Madison Oglethorpe Animal Shelter for animal control services, but the costs would be similar either way.

Like many issues, animal control is no easy matter. Opinions vary, based largely on where you live in the county.

When it comes to animal control, perhaps the only sure thing is the barking — from disgruntled citizens.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.