Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Fee for humane society not waived

Council votes against measure

March 29, 2013

PARKERSBURG — The city of Parkersburg refused to waive a $2,200 building permit fee for the humane society’s planned spay and neuter clinic....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-30-13 7:13 PM

I truly hope that the council will reconsider since no one from the Humane Society was invited to the meeting. It seems to me that for the good of the ENTIRE community, this spay/neuter clinic will be happening. I am sure the council would be the first to take advantage of a low cost clinic since we all know politicians are always looking for a deal. And for the person complaining about the shelter not being able to pick up every single stray have you seen their numbers???? People drop off pets every day. They also rescue animals from unfit situations so yay to you for doing the humane thing and helping animals out. They are NON PROFIT. There is not a single soul in that place that is not overworked and underpaid and they do it for the LOVE of animals. Period. City council - DO THE RIGHT THING. It is simple.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 10:12 PM

I beginning to wonder if our elected officials know their a** from a hole in the ground. They give businesses breaks all the time which cost the city far more than $2200. Cut them a break for crying out loud. No doubt this clinic will be built anyway. This clinic is definitely needed. If you have paid for a spay/neuter in the last few years you would know it costs $100 or more for one animal. Help with the cost of spaying/neutering, education about over population, and cracking down on "backyard" breeders are just a few solutions to stopping or at least slowing down the flood of animals the humane society receives.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 9:05 PM

I'm paying Parkersburg's user fee, as are tens of thousands of others who don't live in the city. The least Parkersburg could do is give this most charitable organization a break on a permit fee! Wow, I never knew so many cold-hearted individuals served on city council. Let's hope the fine citizens of Parkersburg fix this problem next election!

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 8:56 PM

@sassy: You seem to be a very giving, caring person to take in the kitties. Bless you!

We have 6 cats of our own, and we feed neighborhood cats when we can. The majority of our neighborhood cats are fixed, so I'm told. I lost my job a couple weeks ago, so it is a little difficult to buy extra food right now.

At any rate, I think city council and the mayor are being petty.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 8:23 PM

Shame on those council members who voted NO.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 8:07 PM

Oh, and by the way, I had these animals fixed, with no help from the HS.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 8:02 PM

IFHPED, it depends on what day it is, what time of day it is, etc etc.. I've called several times in the past to get the HS to come and pick up animals, but was told to pick them up myself and bring them in. Another time, I was told they had two many cats, they couldn't take any more in. Thats when I opened up my basement for a few stray cats. I refuse to see any small animal go hungry or not have shelter of some kind. How sad is it!!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 6:26 PM

to error is human , to make stupid decision's after stupid decision is parkersburg city council, what a bunch of clowns!

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 4:15 PM

Two councilmen vote against their own resolution, others vote against it because the HSOP didnt show up to kiss their ass. Plenty of good laughs ahead with this group. Stay tuned.

16 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 3:32 PM

People are acting like this is the end of the world....smh. If you are angry donate some of your own money to the HS so they can apply it towards the fee that the council did not cover!

1 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 12:35 PM

Very sad state of affairs when this city council is so petty. Exactly what questions did they need answered? It is a "spay/neuter clinic" being built to aid in animal control with funds that have been raised by hundreds of volunteers and generous donors. How difficult is that to understand???? Incredible pettiness and/or stupidity. Shame on this inept council!!

16 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 11:04 AM

"Rockhold said Thursday while he was in favor of waiving the fee, he voted against the motion because he believed it did not have enough support from council to get through two readings."

Why do we elect these people. If you are in favor of something you vote yes, if you are not you vote no. It shouldn't matter what someone else is voting. It seems odd that the ones who sponsored it didn't even vote for it. Why do we keep electing people to run our city that have no clue to what they are doing?

19 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 10:16 AM

Seems to me the problem is having to pay $2200 for a building permit in the first place.

15 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 8:43 AM

This sounds like the council is trying to justify the mistake they know was made. How about a do-over?

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 8:20 AM

@fedup...: On my way home a few months ago, the HS was trying to catch a dog that was not contained. The dog thought they were all playing a game, but they finally caught him.

So no, the animal does not have to be contained.

As far as the council meeting, a fish market wouldn't stink as much as this.

Politics--aughhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! :(

14 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 7:30 AM

If Newell really wants to help the Humane Society, start funding them again like they use too. Once again, blame Council members or whoever. Never TAX NEWELL'S fault. Pathetic so called leader.

16 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 7:15 AM

With a half million dollar budget the Humane Society can afford 2 grand in fees. Poorest animal control I've every encountered, will not respond unless you've contained the stray animal.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 5:38 AM

It's really true, stupidity cannot be cured! So I guess this city is doomed with council members who don't care about anything but themselves. Speaking of arrogance, they as well as the HS are full of it. And hannahRose, I absolutely wouldn't drop off an animal at one of their homes. It figures, one thing this city really needs, and heads turn the other way.

23 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 5:11 AM

In the past Council gave the shelter almost 100,000 in support to run the facility. They have put forth a great effort to become a no kill shelter. What does it hurt to waive the 2,200 fee? Maybe they don't like pets. They give businesses breaks all the time why not this one? Mr. Rockhold just likes to hear himself talk. Bad vote on this one.

21 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 4:52 AM

"Two of the ordinance's sponsors, John Rockhold and Roger Brown, voted against it."

You sponsored it, and then you vote against it. That like saying, I don't know what I,m doing, and I shouldn't be here.

23 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 2:59 AM

These types of decsions is what make people think that WV is a backwards state!!! I support every Humane Society that I live near by, because if we leave it up to the pet owners, they would not do what it is neccessary to take proper care of the animal. $2,200 is bought a $35,000 truck for God's sake!

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 2:51 AM

If the local humane society was run a little better as far as responding to complaints maybe they would garner more support. It is something that is definitely needed but I view the local society as arrogant and just don't want to be bothered by anyone. I have lived in other areas and they have put the local shelter to shame. sad.

10 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 12:41 AM

WOW! This sounds more like a "spite" vote rather than one that is truly in the interest of helping animal control. One might hope that all of the unwanted animals are dropped off at the homes of council members voting against this, but that probably would not be too good for the animals.

20 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 23 of 23 comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web