Animal control opportunity wastes away

In an ideal world, every pet owner would be a responsible one and strays would be rare. No need for a non-profit agency or local government to take in these abandoned animals, care for them and determine their eventual fate - preferably adoption by someone who is responsible.

But that's not the case in Linn County. Thousands of strays roam our cities and rural areas. The demand for care and control remains substantial and is growing. Cedar Rapids' temporary shelter has averaged 2,800 animals annually since the 2008 flood and will easily top that figure this year.

The flood that wiped out the city's animal shelter also presented what seemed like a prime opportunity: A larger, modern regional facility serving much or all of the county with a shared cost across jurisdictions that saved money for all taxpayers.

But that's not the case.

Cedar Rapids is pushing ahead with plans for its own new facility. The site will likely be on or near the Kirkwood Community College campus.

FEMA will pay for part of project but likely not all of it. The city must purchase or lease a new site, and the size, staffing and equipment needs have yet to be finalized.

Leading up to this point were proposals including a non-profit private entity, such as the Cedar Valley Humane Society, taking over animal control in the county or even adjacent counties, or a county-Cedar Rapids operation jointly funded and operated.

Those ideas didn't advance.

Kirkwood is willing to sell or lease land to the city for the shelter but wants nothing to do with a non-profit running it.

Diane Webber, manager of the Cedar Rapids shelter, told us “city officials would be happy to join with the county or another organization” on a joint project, but in lieu of that development, planning for the new city shelter will allow for future expansion.

Linn County supervisor Lu Barron told us there's still some county interest in a joint operation but “the city is moving along without us.”

County Supervisor Brent Oleson, who had pushed the non-profit idea, told us the county shouldn't put money into a shelter unless the city also partners on decision-making. “The city has given no indication it wants to give up control.”

Oleson prefers the county get out of the animal control business altogether, other than maybe contracting for unincorporated areas. Currently, it contracts with the Humane Society for service to most small towns in the county.

Obviously, none of these entities are on the same page. It all strikes us as wasted opportunity. If the big city, county, Kirkwood and non-profits can't get together on a smaller issue ripe for collaboration, what does it say about the outlook for larger regional strategies and projects?

Can't we do better?