What are some ways to decrease the amount of

stray animals in Salinas, Ca?

Kelsie CampbellMolecular Biology major

CSUMB6 May 2014

http://www.randolphcounty.us/county-services/public-safety-law-and-justice/animal-control

Stray Animal Crisis Nationally

In the United States: 2.7 million animals euthanized per year

2011: Senator Lieu issued bill Bill vetoed by Governor Jerry

Brown

http://urbanrescues.com/more-information/shelter-statistics/

Stray Animal Crisis locally

In 2008, Salinas Animal Services took in 3,938 animals

2009: Shelter had to reduce holding time of animals Four to three days

2009: 3,908 animals 2010: 4,246 animals

http://partyforthepaws.com/

beneficiaries.html

http://norcalpetadoptions.com/

organizations/detail/salinas-animal-shelter

Continuing Water Crisis In 2013, Salinas water

quality reported contamination Inorganic and organic

contaminants Pesticides and herbicides Radioactive contaminants Microbial contaminants

http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_20163900/report-nitrate-

pollution-beginning-affect-salinas-valley-water

Specifically Approaching Stray

Animal Issue Mutually exclusive policy

options: 1) requiring microchips

governmentally funded 2) requiring microchips

personally funded by pet owners

3) not requiring microchipshttp://blogs.rgj.com/mostlydogs/

2012/11/13/washoe-board-votes-for-free-pet-microchips-and-waiver-of-late-fees-

for-dog-license-renewal-in-2013/

Who is involved in this issue?

Animal Activists Pet Owners in Salinas Public Health Activists

Animal Activists Value: animal’s lives Fact: “amount of cats returned to

owners increased 20% and amount of dogs returned to owners increased 2.5% when microchipped”

Assumption: More animals microchipped=decrease amount of strays=decrease amount of animals euthanized

https://www.secularstudents.org/

animalrights

The Salinas Pet Owners Value: personal finances Facts: “In 2012, the average

household income is $58,109 with four individuals inside the home with 35.6% of the community at or below the poverty level”

“Microchips at a veterinarian cost around $45”

Assumption: Salinas is a low income neighborhood= individuals may not be able to afford the cost of a microchip

http://www.city-data.com/income/income-Salinas-California.html

Public Health Activists Value: health of the public Fact: “3.2% of human deaths

caused by unsafe water” “In past ten years, 28 people in the

US have died due to being infected by rabies”

“1 in every 100 people die from leptospirosis if not treated”

Assumption: Stray animals negatively impact the health of the public, so a decrease in the amount of strays would benefit the public.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDkQFjAC&

url=http%3A%2F%2Ffyi.uwex.edu%2Fmrec

%2Ffiles

Evaluating policy options within the environmental

sustainability criteria how much the issue is protecting the

natural world Requiring

microchip of animals and government

pays for microchip

Requiring microchip of animals and pet owners

pay for microchip

Not requiring microchip of

animals

(+) Long term environmental sustainability

 (+) Less stray

animals causing water

pollution

(+) Long term environmental sustainability

 (+) Less stray

animals causing water

pollution

(-) More stray animals

causing water pollution and transmittable

diseases

Evaluating policy options within the economic sustainability criteria

how great the policy will use the resources of society without unwanted wastage

Requiring microchip of animals and government

pays for microchip

Requiring microchip of

animals and pet owners pay for

microchip

Not requiring microchip of

animals

(+) Government official animal shelters would receive profit  

(-) Government would cover cost

of microchip loosing profit

(+) Provide health animals services profit in selling

microchips 

(-) Pet owners must purchase microchips for

each pet, costing $45

(+) Pet owners would have the

freedom to decide whether to

microchip pets or not

 (-) Less income for

animal health services, as less microchips would

be purchased

Evaluating policy options within the social equity criteria

how everyone in society will be affected in the issue and will the effectiveness be equal

Requiring microchip of animals and

government pays for microchip

Requiring microchip of

animals and pet owners pay for

microchip

Not requiring microchip of

animals

(+) Although pet owners loose

freedom, government pays for the microchip

(-) Pet owners would be required

to pay for microchips  

(+) Pet owners would have

freedom in deciding health services for

their pets 

(-)The amount of stray animals would increase, as stray animals would not

be returned to permanent owners

Recommendation of the a single

policy option Recommending requirement of microchip paid by government

Limitations: lack of concrete details Concessions: too much governmental involvement Justification: animal’s rights, environmental

sustainability Consequence: special planning, illegal ownership of

animals Accountability: increasing amount of businesses

available to microchip

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations

http://www.petsvet.com/microchip

Concluding the requirement of microchips

Requirement of microchips paid by government in Salinas, Ca would: Decrease amount of strays Provide microchips without owner’s paying Increase amount of owner’s abiding Set example to future generations and

populations

http://www.change.org/petitions/turkey-plans-to-kill-all-stray-animals