The Memphis Animal Shelter killed around 13,000 pets in 2009. In 2010, they hired Matthew Pepper to take over the helm. I was thinking he was going to work toward reducing the killing at the shelter. Now I'm not so sure.
This week, the community gathered at a city council meeting to discuss a proposal regarding mandatory spay neuter. MSN supporters far outnumbered those opposed and Matthew Pepper was there. But he apparently did not speak out against the proposal, which would likely increase the killing at MAS:
Shelter director Matthew Pepper, who started his job this month, said that as a newcomer he was there to listen. He said whatever the fate of the ordinance, community-based programs that address responsible pet ownership will be needed.
He was there to listen to people proposing a bad law that would burden animal control, cause families to lose their pets, increase the intake at his shelter and increase the killing. This is not a "whatever the fate" tra-la-la-la-la issue. This is the time for the new director at MAS to take a stand and establish himself as a leader in Memphis with regard to decreased killing of the community's pets. Programs that address responsible pet ownership are good. MSN is not one of those.
Why is Matthew Pepper not speaking out against something that will lead to increased killing at MAS? Haven't the pets of Memphis suffered enough?