- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
For info there have been local langley society cat shelters like CARES that finally took in the kittens that were refused by LAPs that were denied any funding requests by Langley Township council and they don't have a $2 million Taj Mahal shelter by any means!
Yes, I know a very wonderful lady who takes in ANY cat(TLC) and she would think she'd died and went to heaven if she had a pittance of funds compared to laps.
I supported this action from the original group and the Township, I thought it a wonderful idea....now, I'm not sure. Simply stated, now can they turn them away? Where will they go? What will become of them? Will they go wild and turn out more and more?
This is more animal neglect than care.
I remember Patti Dale. What a kind and compassionate animal lover she was. There was another Patty involved in this development, anyone remember her name?
Didn't Mayor Kurt Alberts do consulting work for the SPCA around the time of the SPCA controversies and around the time LAPS took over their contract? In fact did he not also face some controversy because he did this work while he was Mayor? I remember this because it stirred up quite a fuss and the Mayor excused himself from the council meetings due to conflict of interest after having been paaid for his consulting work with them.I think when there was any vote or discussion around the SPCA he left the meeting.
Curiously there is a sudden newspaper article regarding too many kittens at LAPS on the heels of another letter about a family of kittens being rejected by the LAPS organization. Damage control? It even suddenly has a picture in yesterdays advance of a loving LAPS employee smiling and gently holding a couple of kittens at http://www.canada.com/langleyadv...f5-
fe10039143bd
Laps better get back in tune with Patti's original vision before its too late and we all start to bitch again for another change, to get the SPCA back! There is just no excuse for telling any Langley taxpayer to leave kittens by the side of a road. Not with the millions of OUR TAX dollars and the ballooning bureaucracy and grand digs that OUR Mayor & council have splurged on so far for OUR ANIMAL S-H-E-L-T-E-R . No wonder no one adopts their kittens given their astronomical adoption fees that probably pay for all the growth and expansion over there!
Edited By Siteowner
The sharing Langley pets program with prison inmates sounds great but we have no prisons in Langley so why don't the mission or abbotsford LAPs orgs provide this service? How much is this costing me as a Langley tax payer and how do I benefit?
I have never read an opinion with so much miss understanding than this editor's point of view.
First no one was available to build the shelter due to the construction boom. $1.3 million was small potatoes to local contractors, hence almost a 2-year wait and increased costs. Now at $1.7 million
The prison program is self sufficient in its operations, subsidized by dog grooming and boarding. Antisocial dogs are now given a new chance to join a family.
The original kennel was just that, a kennel, not a place for running a dog pound to house dangerous dogs, or dogs that needed quarantine.
Cats are not part of LAPS mandate, only a request by council to house them. There is no funding in place to care for them other than what fund raising and donations bring in.
LAPS has a spay neuter drive every year to fix hopefully 200 cats, only half of the vouchers are redeemed.
Which part of the "the inn is full" don't you understand? Volunteers house the overrun of kittens in their own home. Instead of bashing LAPS maybe you should be directing your opinions to the people out there that leave their animals unfixed. There are no limits to the amount of cats you can own or afford to own, cute kittens grow into unwanted cats that are free to breed.
LAPS run a program that catch the queen feral cat, spay the animal and return her to the barn where she is still head of the clowder but unable to produce off spring.
Maybe it's time to licence cats to help pay for the hotel space they take up. Maybe its time for the general public to face up to their responsibility. Maybe its time to get your facts straight, before running off at the mouth.
Come Halloween the shelter will be overrun with lost dogs, indiscriminate fireworks will cause a lot of distress to the animals, but that will be LAPS fault too.
So before you condemn the organisation spend a couple of weeks housing some of the lost and abandoned kittens in your home, then maybe the stories you read in the newspapers will never happen.
Shoot the messenger? Maybe you missed these comments I also made:
"But as the messenger here, I sure hope that they never lose track of the core services and respective costs, checks and balances that the taxpayers and all Langley animal owners and lovers expect. Just another little reality check spurred on by this Editor. Where all others will certainly fear to tread, no doubt! In the meantime, keep up the fine work & programs LAPs...". So give this Ed a break will ya?
Remember I did say these were building & growing concerns that this Editor had and someone had to finally ask these questions for a reality check.
I knew that I would get at least one angry comment! While on the topic Mike what about the growth in staff, adoption fees and licensing I mentioned. Are these really realistic?
And I am not quite clear what you mean about the cost overuns of $1.3 or $1.7 million you quote. As a Township taxpayer this is not small potatoes to me!
My property taxes have pretty much doubled due in great part to the spending spree of this Township council including the cost overrun after overrun. When any business budgets they stay within their budgets or go bankrupt!
The Township council "Good Ole boy's Club" simply keeps raising my taxes to cover their deluxe & extravagant spending spree! Businesses can't unfortunately do the same because their clients will go to someone else that knows how to budget and keep prices realistic.
And I am not certainly condemning the organization! I am raising my concerns and asking very valid question that I knew no one else would dare ask. BUT I MAINTAIN THEY NEED TO BE ASKED. Thanks for giving us all YOUR answers though. Much appreciated. No institution that the taxpayer funds should be sacrosanct from asking pertinent questions. Don't you agree?
So Mike, why the #*&@ build a shelter if no one will do it for a fairer better dollar for us right now. Why not wait until a year or two when contractors are starving for work with the olympic work done. This logic appalls me. And why was not the budget higher and more real in the first place? Ridiculous.
Edited By Siteowner
The 1.3 million was the initial cost and jumped to 1.7 million, an increase of $500,000.
The boom in construction happened after the costs were set. Check out the price of a house in Langley compared to the cost two years ago. This could also be part of the reason for the increase in your taxes.
As for waiting till after the Olympics when would you be ready to handle the pressure from the growth you are experiencing from the housing boom. Not a smart idea, but then hindsight is an exact science.
As for the increase in staff, I have to assume there was a need to cover the growth of the demographic area of the Township. Then again maybe it’s because there is a sad lack of volunteers in this new generation. Service clubs and the like are calling for members under the age of 50 and finding it hard to find such. Over 50 we still care about our community. If you don’t volunteer then get out your check book and pay. Much like the soccer clubs do now to their parents who don’t volunteer.
Not only is there a concern about their LAPS shelter. What about the way they handle their affairs. In August a senior golden retriever, Queenie, was brought into the animal shelter by the police because of the owner not being able to pay rent. The person who had her bought her from the breeders when she was three months old. Since he had a job in downtown Vancouver that took up a lot of time she also had another family that spent weekdays with her. The first owner was hospitalized several times over the years and every time Queenie stayed with her other family. These illnesses meant that Queenie lived with her other family full time for 6 years of her life and weekdays only for the other 4 years of her life.
In July 2008 the original owner got back on his feet and got a place in Langley so that the other family, now living in Chilliwack, would have a lot of access to her. Unfortunately his health faltered again and he couldn't pay rent. This is what led to Queenie ending up at LAPS. The other family contacted the shelter and was told that they could not give them the dog so the best thing to do would be to wait until she went up for adoption. I expressed concern that someone else may adopt her then but he said that older dogs tend to not get adopted quickly and because of our history with the dog we would probably be able to adopt her. I asked if I could visit her and was told that it may upset Queenie too much if she didn't leave with me. I respected that and didn't visit.
When the adoption time came up I called again on a Wednesday and was put through to someone who told me that Queenie had to go to the vet the next day and that she would call me on Friday or Monday. This person called me on Monday with news that she was about to be adopted to another family. I said that I had better get down there to fill out the paperwork and was told "No, wait". I felt that something wasn't right and drove to Langley. As I was filling out the paper work this person informed me that I was wasting my time because it had already been decided that Queenie was going to the other family that afternoon. When I wanted to go visit my dog I as barred from entering. My husband and I went the next day and spoke with the supervisor who later phoned me to tell apologize for the way we were treated. When I asked if I could get my dog I was said "no, she belongs to the family that adopted her now." They will not contact the other family to tell them of this situation.
I do not understand how my dog that has known me since she was three months old could have been adopted out to strangers. I live in Chilliwack with my teenagers who took Queenie to their birthday parties, to show and tell days. Queenie walked them to school everyday. My other dog and her were puppies together and are best friends to this day. I even have her best cat friend who loves to sit in the sun with her in our 1/2 acre fully fenced yard. I can't believe that they adopted my dog to a family that would have taken any dog.
So, be careful when adopting an animal from LAPS, you might be adopting someone else's pet. I have put posters all over Langley hoping to reach the people that adopted Queenie. If anyone reading this knows the people that adopted a 9 year old female purebred golden retriever with a hip problem from LAPS in August 2008 please have them contact me at eaglfish@telus.net. So, how does this relate to the article you ask? It is relevant because Langley should go back to using the SPCA who has a proven track record and truly puts what is in the best interest of the animal first. In our case the best interest of the LAPs was their first and foremost concern because Queenie was adopted to "people that they know".
Edited By Siteowner - refers to LFP posting that can be viewed here:
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...lity-
check.html
Commenting by HaloScan
