(Jenni Craig is an Olmstead native and a graduate of WKU with a degree in journalism. She is general manager of the state’s best small newspaper, the Todd County Standard. She, her husband Ryan, who is executive director of the Logan County Chamber of Commerce, their four children, and the many animals which are part of their family, live in Russellville.

(The Logan County Animal Shelter was the subject of a three-page investigative report in the Bowling Green Daily News earlier this week. An editorial in that newspaper called on Logan County leaders to correct the problems there. The picture to which Craig refers was of dogs housed in wire crates at the Morgantown Road shelter.)

I have much to say, and all of it will probably make someone or everyone angry, but these are animals and I rarely let that stop me. Logistics are not my strong point. Emotions are.
But this is a time to be reasonable here, if you love animals as much or even a .00008665 of a percent as much as I do, and while I get most folks' problem with the original Daily News article is that it was, as this new editorial of theirs even suggests, "from the outside," there has to be a bit of sobering reason even with the heavy emotion involved here.

***And by the way, the INSANE way people fight over this on Facebook, the things people say to each other, I am not sure what animal that does good, but to an "outsider" (and to launch another tangent-- unless they stayed at this shelter as an embedded reporter for a few months, which is sort of what the quoted BG shelter staff members did, I'm not sure what else a Daily News reporter is supposed to be here), how do people think that looks? Like we NEED Warren County to swoop in and help us crazy folk, that's what. So we did that to ourselves.***

First of all, this isn't going to stop. Unless you all know something about human nature I don't, you could have every single dog or cat in this country adopted tomorrow, be at peace and about half of them would be in search of a good home on Facebook the next week. And then some of those folks would ISO each other's surrendered pets again a month or so later.

This is an issue in the first place because not everyone values life. Not everyone thinks this is even an issue. Some of them see it as a money issue only, or a nuisance. 

So being realistic, look at this sad dog in the photo. I want to say that some family with 2.5 adorable children is going to visit soon and take this guy home. They won't.

And you aren't allowed to vilify them for that. These aching eyes that have seen so much don't really deserve to have to play dress up with a toddler or be told not to chew on the family kitten, but what kind of future does he get? A warm and fuzzy one on a chain in someone's muddy backyard again, just a different someone this time? I don't know.

It's unfair, or maybe again, just a reasonable part of the literal vicious cycle: if you don't know what he has been through and how he is going to react, then you are just going to get that puppy with no Pavlovian aggressions.

This may come off as the opposite of goodwill toward the shelter and all those who have done so much good for fellows like the one in that picture. Please don't misread me. I support the shelter, those people who really are the epitome of the tired phrase "tireless volunteers," I believe wholeheartedly the folks on the new Fiscal Court special committee care, are smart enough and want to do the right thing and I join Bob Barker in daydreaming that all pets -- except enough to keep the world repopulated in a sustainable amount of cuteness -- are spayed or neutered.

But I have five animals crammed into my household and just that is terrifically hard sometimes, and my main dismay is that so many, each day, such bright eyes and loving hearts go to absolute waste, dead ones and living ones all the same.

The world is so unkind. 

Kids are thrown over bridges and dogs into trash cans. We are never going to be able to save them all. We can try, until the burdens lower us in the ground, and more, and more, more are unwanted and abused.

Does that mean we stop trying? Never. But if we can't admit we need help when we are currently lacking, and no matter where your Facebook status lies on this, surely you agree with me that the shelter needs some sort of rescue. I just don't get the immediate vitriol at mere mention; surely it doesn't always have to be either/or, maybe, kill/no kill. Maybe there are in-betweens. That's what I hope we are set on finding. Ergo, my own legitimate, agenda-free questions/concerns, if you have made it this far: 

I don't want a kill shelter. The thought of having to cull the excess in a litter of kittens, for example, if that were my task, I would rather cull myself. 

But since we are getting it all on the proverbial table, I want to know more about and have for some time the rescue trips that move animals out of the shelter. Now, clearly, I am all for making more space and for getting animals to good homes. But I don't see it addressed, ever, what actually happens to these dogs once they make these mysterious journeys. How are there so many places up "North" that need or can house more animals for people to adopt? If they are indeed fully checked out and legit, then what can we learn from them and from the area as a whole? Is it spaying and neutering programs (because I was happy to learn about the RePets partnership and the Fix Foundation) are just so much better there? Do we check up on these animals we move some time afterward?

Some people's biggest concerns with the shelter, others think the Daily News was overly dramatic about. I tend to think there are far deeper problems than the smell or visible poop, which do not necessarily convey constant filth if you're just visiting a few times -- please, I sound like I'm describing my house -- but if a place is unclean to the point where animals are getting sick or people no longer want to adopt, then your whole operation is being undermined. Don't think for a minute that I don't understand that cleaning a place like this is a constant job. To further play Devil's Advocate, our cat Claire came from the squeaky clean BG shelter and was so sick when we adopted her, she stayed at Logan County Animal Clinic for a full week of IV antibiotics.

But again, real talk: no matter how bad the cleanliness issues actually are, at this point, it also matters how bad it is perceived they are. That's why to make a healthy shelter it's also about good old new-fangled social media PR. The shelter that does a far better job of this than the BG shelter that the Daily News holds up as the shining example is the Christian County Animal Shelter, which gets so many of its adoptions -- my cat Marshmallow says thanks -- due to an extensive, fantastic PR campaign using Facebook.

If the shelter is going to do what it has to do -- and that's move animals and ideally to local, deserving families -- this is a great shelter's example to follow.

I also have to wonder if there were a better-suited expert they could have included in the tour with the lady from the HSUS and Judge Chick other than the director from "Snooty Giggles" out of Brentwood, but that's OK. They do wonderful things, it's just that they may be a little advanced for us yet. We aren't ready for a Dog Whisperer when some people on the Fiscal Court can't stand to hear them bark. But I think, then again, I am being a snooty giggler on this one. If someone is willing to provide valuable insight, then we should be willing to listen and learn, always. And speaking of this organization, surely having a smaller, mobilized rescue group alongside the shelter, such as Heaven Can Wait or Max's Hope in Hopkinsville, to assist in foster homes, etc. is key. 

(And another aside: this discourse better start including more discussion of cats; they may be better able to survive as feral animals than dogs, but a working shelter can take healthy cats and provide for them. No excuses.) 

But these places, and fosters, fill up fast. So back to the real matter: overcrowding/housing.
I can't bear a dog on a chain. To look at it is to see a skeleton, or the same difference. Of course, a dog has to be in a pen at a shelter, or some type of enclosure. I do not, however, understand chains or tiny spaces. Do not confuse chains and temporary tethers, please, and don't misunderstand me in that I have never seen this at the shelter for myself, in person. I am stating how I feel in general, about every chain, until the end of time, at a shelter, at your house, wherever. They are cruel. I would rather a dog either be running wild fending off the elements even or just at peace in the ground than lying on it, day after day, on a chain.

If a shelter (which by definition means haven, refuge) can't exist -- and some of you say it can and does, which only adds to the reason the Daily News did this story, and went undercover, such conflicting stories, such a melee -- without this kind of non-life for animals, then it is not serving its purpose, then it is NOT a no-kill, and you know that, I know all of you do.

I do not want a kill shelter, but I don't want this picture you see here, either. I know that regardless, it, like any snapshot, is only a day in the life of people who are surely trying, but... if we all love the same thing, then it can't be any day, it just can't.

Don't be angry at me because I am complaining with no answers. Logistics, remember? I am asking questions. You can't fault the News-Democrat & Leader or the Daily News or anyone for coming in and doing that. How they report what answers they got, sure, you can choose to like or dislike that, but whether your recoil is about the reporting or the reflection of the truth, we need to come together right now and figure out. I am asking because I want to know more.

Now for the deep breath. I most of all do NOT want to see an animal control officer perform euthanasia in all the scary and despairing ways everyone has shown you videos of that, if you're like me, you couldn't even bring yourself to watch. Do you think I could want that? Me? But there are situations in which even with hearts as big as this county has -- some of us, anyway -- for animals, our hearts can't hold all the heartbreak and neither can our buildings. 

Something or someone has to give.

Unfortunately, someone who paid better attention in math class is going to have to figure out what's doable in a way I can't. I say we let this committee make recommendations. I say we let this DN editorial and the other pieces, not just the Daily News' gloom and doom one, have an effect. I say we search for options and change. Let's talk more about the rescue trips, the building, the social media, all the ideas everyone has. Because all anyone will hastily argue is that if we make changes, that means being a kill shelter. And then of course those in favor of it say being a kill shelter doesn't automatically mean we will kill that many animals, but who can promise or regulate that? Monitoring or taking responsibility for what goes on at the shelter hasn't until lately seemed to be anyone's strong suit, from what I gather.

While I believe there are many situations worse than death, including some of the ones I have described, I know I won't support most forms of putting animals down. That's why this debate has to shape up, get it together toward a unified plan here, so whatever the decision is, for the animals' sake, it can't be the country justice equivalent of taking the shelter out behind the barn and getting rid of an annoyance.

But we can't let fear keep our shelter mired in literal mire, either. Animals have to be put to sleep for illness, aggression in some cases, etc. Lord help me if I were to ever advocate for going back to a kill shelter with a certain percentage of kills or a day of slaughter or any of those dire things.
But if it does come down to it, if we are indeed in so dire of straits that the only alternative we can find is dogs on chains and pawing rusty wire (and I find that hard to believe), that's why I am asking this: if the following is possible, funding-wise?

I believe we could all feel a little more at peace about the situation if there were a way to partner with local vets only, as with the spay/neuter programs, for any euthanasia. Mercy, that's all that is, not murder.

I do not know who handles it now when time arises and I am sure this would be a thankless and dour volunteer effort for a vet, though if for overcrowding, euthanasia really is as rare as proponents of changing the scope of the shelter say, then perhaps it could be arranged. Again, all these are simply my likely vain thoughts.

If we never need to go there, I will be glad. But we have to get as far away from the image this picture and this editorial paint as we can. Even someone who doesn't care about animals surely would be humiliated enough by it -- and wink, wink, I think that was its intention -- to act now in a positive way. 

After all, maybe a little perspective, even getting a little insulted by this, is what we need to stop being upset with each other and start thinking about the only opinions that should truly matter in this situation, could they be spoken at all.