Is it wise to teach a new dog catcher old tricks?

After July 1, if you live in Wasilla and you've got a problem with a stray or vicious dog, you might just as well call Ghost Busters, because there's a good chance animal control won't be available. The city and the Mat-Su Borough have bargained their way to a $44,000 disparity over the cost of animal control, and that could mean Wasilla will have to handle its own animal control problems beginning this summer.

The borough had been charging Wasilla $26,000 per year for animal control -- which included personnel as well as housing, adoption and disposal costs for the animals. This year the borough came to the city with a whopping $124,000 increase to provide essentially the same service, and Wasilla said, "No way." The borough contends that their costs have skyrocketed while the city's payments have remained very low. The city says it's not convinced it ever received the services it contracted for to begin with, and it wants proof that the borough's cost estimates are accurate. Proof that borough animal control says it can't provide until it buys new computer software -- with part of the money it wants Wasilla to cough up.

In the most recent round, the borough reduced its asking price to $70,000, but the Wasilla city council is standing firm on the $26,000 figure.

Every day seems to bring another example of just how tough things are economically right now, and this quarrel seems to fit that bill. Whether they can show the statistics or not, a few simple calculations should show that $26,000 is a bargain for animal control. Salaries have to be paid, and the borough is a large area that can't be covered with a skeleton crew -- animal control officials say they've been understaffed for some time. The shelter also has to be staffed and maintained, and the animals have to be cared for. Unfortunately, some of them have to be destroyed as well. It all costs money.

Wasilla mayor Diane Keller has said she doesn't want to handle the animal control issue the same way Palmer does -- using police officers to handle the burden. She's come up with a few alternatives, including one that would involve teaming up with Palmer and Houston to create a sort of inter-city animal control program. Isn't that what the borough is already supposed to be doing? If Palmer, Houston and Wasilla would all sign up for the borough program, it would be more cost-effective for everyone, and the borough program might finally be able to perform the function it has intended to all along.

The bottom line is, it's never cheaper to go it alone. Keller is right to suggest teaming up to get a leash on the animal control issue in the Valley, but why not include the borough in that effort? Yes, the borough's program hasn't been perfect, but if the major borough cities would get on board, a more viable, better-funded program could result.

Starting from scratch is not the way to solve this problem -- especially in economically-challenging times.