You spoke, and we heard you: answers on the fate of the Humane Society

The votes are in and your voices are heard.

In all, the survey had 25 responses by the time of publication. All of these identified as students, staff or alumni. Forty percent were dog lovers, 25 percent cat lovers.

Forty percent of people who responded to the survey had ever adopted a pet from the humane society. Of them 17.4 percent had either good or very good experiences with adopting pets from there and 4.3 percent said it was average or poor.

Forty percent of people surveyed strongly disagree with the city taking over the shelter. While 32 percent disapprove, 20 percent were indifferent, and 8 percent approved.

A total of 95.8 percent of those surveyed do not think the city should end adoption services at the pound.

Seventy six percent of people either strongly disapproved of the 72-hour limit. Four percent disapprove. Twelve percent either approve or strongly approve of the new limit, and 8 percent approve only if it applies to cats.

Fifty-two percent of people responded that they strongly support the proposal to make the shelter “no kill.” Twenty percent supported the proposal, 8 percent were indifferent, 12 percent opposed and 4 percent either strongly opposed the proposal or supported it only if the new rule were to exclude cats.

The Baylor Lariat has no official position on the worth of any animal, least of all cats. The editorial board are all dog-lovers.

How do you feel about the city taking over the Humane Society?

Maybe there will be better funds?

The 72 hours is not enough time to find a missing pet. Dogs as well as cats will feel traumatized in the kill environment and will be label as unfit temperament.

I understand that there is a problem with controlling the animal population, but they will not allow pets to get adopted if they go unclaimed. They won’t have a fighting chance. The city has the money that they can use on any number of things in the city. Saving a life is more important some of the other things that city is flipping the bill for.

How do you feel about the city euthanizing animals after 72 hours?

They can’t afford to take care of all of them indefinitely, but three days seems extremely short. An animal could be picked up on Monday and killed on Thursday. People who work during the week would never even have a chance at claiming their own pet or seeing half of the animals brought in. That seems harsh, short-sighted and mean-spirited.

While pets are beloved by many, Waco’s excess of stray and domesticated animals are not worth higher debt or increased taxes.

Someone has to pay for them. If at least the majority of Wacoans agree, then it might be argued as right. But as long as the healthcare system is pretty much everyone for him/herself, I don’t see why animals should get special privileges.

Your answers:

Completely inept. Also, We lost a dog once. We called several times. “No, nothing here like that.” We brought her sister up there that looked exactly lik her. “No, nothing similar here.” Five minutes later we found her in a cage — scheduled to be adopted the next day. Almost every dog there is identified as a “shepherd mix” or a “lab mix.” Incredible.

Everyone was so helpful and kind. They made the process very simple.

Do you support making the Humane Society a “no kill shelter?”

The proposal is not fiscally responsible to Waco and McLennan County residents; if the increased donations could be raised from private sources, I would support the proposal.

Cats are jerks and there are way too many of them.

Having a no kill shelter is not that difficult. Most cities have turned to this.

The shelter will fill up fast, but at least those will be lives saved as opposed to many that would end for no reason.

Unless an animal is ill, I believe there is a home for all of them.