1. http://www.randolphcounty.us/county-services/public-safety-law-and- justice/animal-control

2. Stray Animal Crisis Nationally  In the United States: 2.7 million animals euthanized per year  2011: Senator Lieu issued bill  Bill vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown http://urbanrescues.com/more- information/shelter-statistics/

3. Stray Animal Crisis locally  In 2008, Salinas Animal Services took in 3,938 animals  2009: Shelter had to reduce holding time of animals  Four to three days  2009: 3,908 animals  2010: 4,246 animals http://partyforthepaws.co m/beneficiaries.html http://norcalpetadoptions.com/ organizations/detail/salinas- animal-shelter

4. Continuing Water Crisis  In 2013, Salinas water quality reported contamination  Inorganic and organic contaminants  Pesticides and herbicides  Radioactive contaminants  Microbial contaminants http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_201639 00/report-nitrate-pollution-beginning- affect-salinas-valley-water

5. Specifically Approaching Stray Animal Issue  Mutually exclusive policy options:  1) requiring microchips governmentally funded  2) requiring microchips personally funded by pet owners  3) not requiring microchips http://blogs.rgj.com/mostlydogs/2012/11/13/wash oe-board-votes-for-free-pet-microchips-and- waiver-of-late-fees-for-dog-license-renewal-in- 2013/

6. Who is involved in this issue?  Animal Activists  Pet Owners in Salinas  Public Health Activists

7. Animal Activists  Value: animal’s lives  Fact: “amount of cats returned to owners increased 20% and amount of dogs returned to owners increased 2.5% when microchipped”  Assumption: More animals microchipped=decrease amount of strays=decrease amount of animals euthanized https://www.secularstudents.or g/animalrights

8. The Salinas Pet Owners  Value: personal finances  Facts: “In 2012, the average household income is $58,109 with four individuals inside the home with 35.6% of the community at or below the poverty level”  “Microchips at a veterinarian cost around $45”  Assumption: Salinas is a low income neighborhood= individuals may not be able to afford the cost of a microchip http://www.city-data.com/income/income- Salinas-California.html

9. Public Health Activists  Value: health of the public  Fact: “3.2% of human deaths caused by unsafe water”  “In past ten years, 28 people in the US have died due to being infected by rabies”  “1 in every 100 people die from leptospirosis if not treated”  Assumption: Stray animals negatively impact the health of the public, so a decrease in the amount of strays would benefit the public. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j &q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0 CDkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffyi.uwex. edu%2Fmrec%2Ffiles

10. Evaluating policy options within the environmental sustainability criteria  how much the issue is protecting the natural world Requiring microchip of animals and government pays for microchip Requiring microchip of animals and pet owners pay for microchip Not requiring microchip of animals (+) Long term environmental sustainability (+) Less stray animals causing water pollution (+) Long term environmental sustainability (+) Less stray animals causing water pollution (-) More stray animals causing water pollution and transmittable diseases

11. Evaluating policy options within the economic sustainability criteria  how great the policy will use the resources of society without unwanted wastage Requiring microchip of animals and government pays for microchip Requiring microchip of animals and pet owners pay for microchip Not requiring microchip of animals (+) Government official animal shelters would receive profit (-) Government would cover cost of microchip loosing profit (+) Provide health animals services profit in selling microchips (-) Pet owners must purchase microchips for each pet, costing $45 (+) Pet owners would have the freedom to decide whether to microchip pets or not (-) Less income for animal health services, as less microchips would be purchased

12. Evaluating policy options within the social equity criteria  how everyone in society will be affected in the issue and will the effectiveness be equal Requiring microchip of animals and government pays for microchip Requiring microchip of animals and pet owners pay for microchip Not requiring microchip of animals (+) Although pet owners loose freedom, government pays for the microchip (-) Pet owners would be required to pay for microchips (+) Pet owners would have freedom in deciding health services for their pets (-)The amount of stray animals would increase, as stray animals would not be returned to permanent owners

13. Recommendation of the a single policy option  Recommending requirement of microchip paid by government  Limitations: lack of concrete details  Concessions: too much governmental involvement  Justification: animal’s rights, environmental sustainability  Consequence: special planning, illegal ownership of animals  Accountability: increasing amount of businesses available to microchip

14. http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovatio n/everyday-innovations http://www.petsvet.com/microchip

15. Concluding the requirement of microchips  Requirement of microchips paid by government in Salinas, Ca would:  Decrease amount of strays  Provide microchips without owner’s paying  Increase amount of owner’s abiding  Set example to future generations and populations http://www.change.org/petitions/turkey-plans-to-kill-all-stray-animals