Home / Articles / Commentary / Letters to the Editor / Letters to the Editor 03/07/19
Print this Article
Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:14 am

Letters to the Editor 03/07/19


There is so much disturbing in Greg Largent’s response to the allegations regarding mistreatment of Sangamon County Animal Control’s dogs by a new kennel attendant (“Trouble in Puppyville,” Feb. 19).

According to the article, the new kennel attendant previously worked in a slaughter facility.  Mr. Largent’s response to the alleged mistreatment of dogs, “We discussed the difference between the outcomes for those animals (the ones who died at the slaughter facility) vs. the outcomes for the animals in our care” is sickening.  So, is he saying that when animals are killed for food it means it is acceptable to treat them poorly while they are alive?  Is he saying that they actually hired someone who finds it acceptable to give suboptimal treatment to the dogs (and cats) at SCAC, regardless of where they previously worked?  Do they really hire people who have to be taught not to “handle dogs roughly” and not to leave their kennels dirty?

Come on, SCAC, do you really have to counsel the people you hire on how to treat the animals in your care? The new attendant “has much to learn”?  How much does one have to learn to treat animals with compassion? How about this for a learning session – put yourself in the place of that animal.  How clean would you want the cage in which you spend 95 percent of your day?  How would you want to be handled by the humans who are responsible for your care? That is how you should treat the animal in front of you.

Teri Kidd, DVM

There has never been a demonstrated “need” for a destructive, environmentally disastrous Lake 2. The State Water Survey claim that there is a 50-50 chance that Lake Springfield would not have adequate water pertains to a hypothetical 100-year drought,  an event that had about a 60 percent chance of occurring once every 100 years, before climate science pulled the rug out from under that claim.  It’s based on other flawed assumptions, like never dredging Lake Springfield, or that 50-year-old coal-fired water-intensive power plants will be operating forever.

Let’s pretend it’s all true, and there really is an imminent risk. How much water is needed? They tell us about 9.3 million gallons per day extra. Retire all three of the aged coal plants, and you’ve already got more than that. CWLP admits they will likely have to retire two of them within two years.

CWLP and the mayor know they cannot prove a “need” for Lake 2 based on the drought bogeyman. Behind the scenes for the past nine months, and now publicly, they are changing their story. “We need a new lake, well, er...for recreation...or...er... uh...economic development,” they claim.

There are many better ways to use the existing land for recreation without the outrageous expense of a destructive dam. Proving the need for an environmentally catastrophic dam for such bogus, vague reasons also requires a whole new set of pricey studies taxpayers will be forced to fund.

Frank Edwards is spot on: “It’s time we close that fantasy down and move on.”  The city needs to fund real needs, like replacing 120-year-old sewers, leaking water mains and failed sidewalks and streets, not another grandiose monument to wasteful spending.

Don Hanrahan
Pleasant Plains


  • Mon
  • Tue
  • Wed
  • Thu
  • Fri
  • Sat
  • Sun


Wednesday June 26th