City of Kirkland should explore further options for animal control | LETTER
April 4, 2012 · Updated 3:03 PM
Further options should be explored prior to the City of Kirkland taking over the task of animal control as proposed by Lorrie McKay.
If Kirkland has experienced low-use animal service, it would not appear to be cost effective to establish a new city facility, position and equipment at $100,000, with recurring cost of more than $100,000 per year.
I suggest exploring readily available commercial services from firms like Critter Control to handle those animals more dangerous than guinea pigs or rogue rabbits.
Only when an animal has attacked someone, should it be necessary for the Police Department to be involved. Sheltering at local veterinarian facilities, PAWS or Human Society makes sense.
My first glance at the March 23 article, I thought I was reading the April Fools’ Day edition.
King County Animal Control sure appears to be ripping off the taxpayers of our fine city.
Reading further, the proposal put forth by the City of Kirkland Intergovernmental Relations Manager fares no better.
Bob Campbell, Kirkland
Comment on this story.
So keep your comments:
- Civil
- Smart
- On-topic
- Free of profanity
We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and “drive-by” commenters. We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please refer to our Terms of Use for full detail on participating on our site.
