LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Shelter policies often lead to pet abandonment

There’s obviously never any excuse for abandoning a cat inside a locked carrier in the freezing cold, but animal shelters aren’t helping when they erect barriers to surrendering animals by implementing waiting lists, surrender fees, and other misguided and downright dangerous “no-kill” policies (Middletown Press, “Cops: Man who abandoned cat on cold night arrested,” Feb. 6).

Such cases are increasing at an alarming rate as more shelters adopt these policies. In Pennsylvania, 17 cats were left inside sealed plastic tubs outside a shelter that publicly stated it “does not have room for more.” In California, two people who were turned away from an animal “rescue” were seen on surveillance video abandoning a dog in the parking lot.

In the Middletown case, the cat’s owner was reportedly turned away by the Waterford branch of the Connecticut Humane Society, which requires people with unwanted animals to make an appointment, turns away animals deemed unsuitable, and charges an $80 “intake fee.”

When shelters make it difficult (if not impossible) for people to do the right thing and bring in animals they are unwilling or unable to care for, they set animals up for horrific fates.

If shelters really care about saving animals — not just making their euthanasia numbers look good — they must admit all animals: no waiting lists, no surrender fees, and no excuses.

Teresa Chagrin, animal care & control issues manager, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, Virginia

Attorney should not replace town planner

As the budget season begins, Portland should be looking back at what financial decisions were effective and which were mistakes. Since the elimination of the position of town planner, there has been little accountability within the department, along with private individuals pushing agendas to benefit a small group within the town.

With no experienced department head, the personnel is left to operate independently with no oversight, no support and little guidance. As observed, the department is left to make decisions under pressure from applicants with social or economic status when issuing permits and writing regulations.

When specific questions are asked regarding zoning violations or rights to appeal, the town attorney is called to block any response. These actions result in favoritism for one group, and discrimination for all the others seeking transparency and equal enforcement of regulations and laws.

The attorney hedges her bets by silencing boards and commissions under the premise that, after long delays in responding to questions, the aggrieved property owner will walk away. The officials at the top turn their backs, and remain silent as the attorney shields them from responding to questions, giving them a sense of legality that is simply morally wrong.

Regulations should not be arbitrarily applied, but should be applied evenly to everyone in the community. When regulations are arbitrarily applied, the town fails at representing the community, and fails at providing the oversight and transparency that the public is entitled to under the law.

It’s time Portland installs a new town planner to ensure regulations are applied evenly, and written to benefit all of the community — not just the chosen few.

Rose Aletta, member of Portland Zoning Board of Appeals, writing as a member of the

public