Again Cecil County has had a history of questions and public unrest relating to contractual arrangements for the care of “county animals” (unwanted, mistreated, lost, etc.) Your obvious disdain for “Buddy” and belief that there should be a termination of that contract supports my argument that there has been conflict relating to contractual service.

Steps are being taken to terminate that contract in order to begin a new paradigm. Instead of anger, I would think this would bring praise that this change will finally allow full access to finances and will open the door for more careful inspection.

Your comments indicate that you believe change in animal care can be easily made. It isn’t as if decision makers can wave a magic wand and POOF there sits another business or team ready to take on the role of animal control. This is a complicated function which, by County Code, dictates a bidding process. Past bidding has proved that few in the county are equipped to take on this role.

I’ve heard some chatter that volunteers or other groups would be a solution without need of taxpayer funding. Although this might seem logical to the well-intentioned, the actual ‘nuts and bolts’ of operation show that not only is this impractical, but as per county regulation, would be illegal. Please take the time to go to ccgov.org, click on “County Code,” and read chapter 142.

With the benefit of past experience, I continue to believe that the most plausible resolution is that care of “county” animals fall under control OF the county.