To the Editor:
We are amazed at the controversy surrounding the proposed assisted funding through taxation for the Pet Adoption and Welfare Society. There is so much misinformation floating around the valley.
The PAWS shelter is run totally by volunteers (except for the on-site caretaker, but she returns her wages as rent). There are certainly no plans to hire employees if the Regional District of Central Kootenay and the Town of Creston do supply sustained funding. It would make no sense to use funding dollars to pay employees, as these funds are needed to help pay the $8,000 per month for operating expenses — and volunteers are doing a superb job, anyway.
Some people say they don’t want their tax dollars going to support a shelter for pets because they have no interest in animals. But we don’t hear too much griping about paying taxes to support schools, which you pay whether you have kids in school or not. The amount of additional tax dollars proposed for PAWS is a minute fraction of the cost for other valley services, including schools.
PAWS does so much more than take care of animals. It provides education for high school students, supplies dogs to be trained as service animals, helps special needs people by giving them things to do at the shelter, works with community outreach to provide opportunities for people ordered to perform community service, and has a program to provide older animals to seniors with all expenses paid by PAWS.
We admit that the alternate approval process is new to us. But this seems like an inexpensive way to get a feel for what people are thinking in the valley. Those who say that a referendum would be more democratic than the AAP don’t realize that taxpayers would pay the cost for a referendum. As with the Creston and District Community Complex referendum a few years ago, most people in the valley would vote for PAWS, so the tax dollars spent on the referendum would likely be wasted.
Given PAWS’ great contribution to the Creston Valley, we think it is a no-brainer that this organization should receive at least some funding that could be relied on year after year through taxation.
Patricia and David Huet
Canyon