According to Hank Phillippi Ryan, not Barton Brook Kennels.
This is a topic someone had asked me about and I hadn’t had the time to look into. [Note that this TelegramTowns article indicated that BBK could not adopt these dogs out.] I’m really glad Channel 7 did a story on it.
Essentially, though Barton Brook Kennels takes in Worcester strays, it does not have a license to adopt out dogs.
So — who’s facilitating the adoption of Worcester strays?
As regular readers (or anyone who knows about dogs in Worcester) may remember, WARL lost/didn’t reapply for the contract as the city’s designated dog kennel because they strongly opposed the completely ridiculous pit bull ordinance.
Yes, this is the same WARL that Councilor Eddy spoke so poorly about at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting (emphasis added):
J.O’Brien would like the city to work with local animal shelters to allow a check box on dog licenses that would let owners make a voluntary contribution to local shelters. Eddy wants to know if this is the Animal Rescue League, who “made a public ultimatum in the paper” saying if the pitbull ban went through they wouldn’t take city pitbulls. O’Brien says it would go to any organization that works with the city’s animal control office, so long as they filed an RFP for them. Eddy wants a list of how many organizations would fit this criteria.
It seems like WARL is stepping up to the plate, as they always do, despite the criticism of an elected official who shoved a pointless and unenforceable ordinance onto the books.
I believe Barton Brook Kennels is still on a month-t0-month contract with the city. Someone should be asking why we don’t negotiate back to WARL.
Updated, 8:02 – I looked at the city’s contract report, and saw that Barton Brook Kennels has the contract for Animal Shelter Services/WPD until November 2013.
When this contract is up for renewal, we should definitely look back into WARL and get a reckoning of how successful (or not, as I suspect) the pit bull ordinance has been.