http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/columnists/story.html?id=7f78f9de-abb8-4de0-b71a-bd7305227586&page=1
Gerry Klein
The StarPhoenix

Wednesday, August 04, 2004
It seems the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is increasingly whittling itself down to the society for the storage and euthanizing of lost pets.

Last week the society told the city it is no longer interested in investigating complaints of cruelty to animals.

This is no small shift for the SPCA. When the organization was first founded in Great Britain in 1824, the prevention of cruelty to domestic animals was its sole purpose. In fact, the society grew from legislation introduced in the British Parliament in 1821 by an MP from Ireland that established the first laws protecting animals from being "wantonly beaten, abused or ill-treated."

It is for this work the organization is able to reach out to kind-hearted individuals for donations.

Apparently, it isn't so successful in Saskatoon. The SPCA is complaining donations haven't kept pace with the cost of doing business.

This, even though the city upped its budget considerably this year and allowed it to drop its animal control duties in order to focus on its core as a humane society and pound.

To make ends meet, the society opted out of the animal cruelty business. It's hard to see how this will help it raise donations -- most of those who donate to the organization do so because of their love of animals and desire to stop animal abuse and suffering.

The organization's reputation has also been hurt over the past year by threats of mass euthanasia should the city not come to up with a king's ransom to cover the cost of pound services and dogcatcher. The SPCA told the city that over the next five years it wanted $3.315 million for animal control and $3.8 million for pound-keeping or it would begin offing the critters in its cages -- an amount considerably higher than competing bids.

The city and society reached a compromise, with a newly formed private group being responsible for picking up strays (at a cost of $340,000) while the SPCA kept the pound contract for a cost to taxpayers of $313,300 -- plus a special $120,000 grant for humane society operations.

Saskatoon has long had a troubled relationship with the SPCA. When the organization was housed in squalid quarters in Sutherland, its membership became torn over whether it should be acting as a humane society, raising money to protect more animals in better conditions or serving as an advocacy group.

In order to get out of its cramped facilities, the society struck a deal with city hall, which included backing for a mortgage on the building it now owns south of the city. That mortgage still has $316,000 owing and is contingent on the SPCA continuing with its pound services.

The more the SPCA is seen as an extension of city services, however, the more difficult it is to attract donations. This problem is compounded as city hall broadens its pet licensing requirements, raises its fines and enforces its rules, angering pet owners.

Taxpayers have a role in assuring citizens are protected from dangerous animals and that animals are protected from dangerous people. There is a return on this investment in many ways -- including considerably improved mental and physical health of pet owners, thus reducing our health-care costs.

But pet owners have to realize their decision to take on the responsibility of looking after an animal carries with it a not inconsiderable financial obligation. That hasn't been the case in Saskatoon, where only a small percentage of cat and dog owners even bother to have their pets licensed.

Those pet owners who cry the licence fees are too high or their cats shouldn't be stopped from roaming the neighbourhoods are really arguing they want all the pleasure of their pet and the taxpayers can pick up the cost, while their neighbours can pick up the droppings.

While the city doesn't want to get directly involved in enforcing responsible pet ownership, it has no problem setting out the rules -- including passing a bylaw requiring universal registration of dogs and cats. If it were to establish an animal control department (as has Regina) it would mean negotiating union contracts rather than third-party deals with private enforcers.

And the police aren't in a good position to be taking over investigation of cruelty to animal complaints. There are better things for police to do than to be expected to show up at every home where someone suspects a dog is being neglected or a person has too many cats.

Data released last week by Statistics Canada showing that Saskatoon has the highest crime rate in the country is clear evidence they have enough on their plate already.

In spite of city hall's reluctance to take over the entire operation, the SPCA's decision it can't even carry out its foundational duties is evidence there has to be a re-evaluation of how Saskatoon looks after domestic animals -- and Saskatoon citizens have to start taking responsibility to respect the laws already in place so the cost of enforcement isn't unfairly dumped on taxpayers who have limited finances and no pets.

Speaking of respecting the law, there has been a debate of late on our Forum page over whether someone speeding down the left lane of Circle Drive should pull over to the right to allow even faster drivers to pass.

The answer, according to city police and engineers, is an emphatic no.

Unlike a divided highway, where the left lane is considered a passing lane, both lanes on a freeway like Circle Drive are open to all drivers.

According to Insp. Al Stickney, police are most likely to hand out a speeding ticket. Rarely are tickets handed out for vehicles going too slowly, and then only for large loads without a permit or pilot car or when they create a danger.

The sign asking slow traffic to use the right lane is there for those travelling considerably less than the speed limit.

Engineers who do actual counts on the speed drivers go along the road choose its speed limit. In the case of Circle Drive, 85 per cent of drivers go just less than 100 km/h, so a limit was chosen that was considered safe and that wouldn't push drivers to go uncomfortably fast.

Now it isn't up to ordinary drivers to see to it that people don't speed by blocking the road to people who will tailgate and put others in peril -- it is just common sense that they drive defensively.

But people who think they have the right to abuse peaceful and law-abiding citizens just because they can't speed as much as they would like, has a twisted sense of entitlement.

© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2004