Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Regional system puts animals in good spot

Getting Spokane’s elected leaders to agree on a long-term animal control solution has been as easy as herding cats. Perhaps citizens themselves can round up a solution when they vote on a nine-year property tax levy placed on this fall’s ballot by the Spokane County Commission.

The revenue – as much as $15 million – would go toward the replacement and relocation of the county’s animal shelter, putting it near the fairgrounds. The hope is that the city would then contract with the county for animal control services.

Spokane is in desperate need of comprehensive animal control. The current holder of the contract, SpokAnimal C.A.R.E., would rather focus on gathering strays and finding homes for them. This stopgap “solution” has been in place far too long.

Then-Councilman Brad Stark got it right in 2006 when he said of this civic embarrassment: “The city has been driving the 1970s Pinto model for a long time, and it’s dead.”

The city has tried to get by cheaply over the years, with animals suffering the consequences. Finally, in 2008, the city signed on with Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service, a partnership that triggered a need for a shelter expansion. However, the proposed shelter was bundled with other city bond requests, including a new storage facility for police evidence, and voters rejected the package.

So, the city reverted to contracting with SpokAnimal.

Now, the County Commission is putting the levy on the ballot, which could demonstrate whether voters want to set in motion a regional solution to this problem.

We’ve long felt that animal control is a regional issue and that centralization would give people a straightforward, easy-to-navigate system, with consistent licensing requirements and fees. This would be a big improvement over the current setup, which sometimes forces people to visit multiple shelters to find a lost pet.

However, even a regional system must work hard as possible to pay for itself. This may mean raising fees. It may also mean getting tougher with people who fail to license their pets or get them “fixed.” About 2 out of every 5 dog owners buy a license; it’s about 1 in 5 for cat owners. It’s not fair that the people who comply with the law are subsidizing the rest for animal control services.

City and county leaders will no doubt haggle over the details of any regional system, but they shouldn’t let those quarrels become deal-breakers. This is an urban area in need of better animal control. All of the region’s leaders should get behind this effort.