CANCUN, Q. Roo.- The municipal kennel of Benito Juarez began as a project sponsored by the entrepreneurs of Cancun, but the corruption of the officials did not allow the creation of a center of attention canine that was intended to have a population control in dogs, that Cancun was a tourist town and great example in the care of the domestic fauna, stated the president of the Association for the protection of Animals, Sara Rincon Gallardo.
The municipal kennel was built in 1992, with the support of then-governor Mario Villanueva Madrid, and the municipal president Carlos Cardín Perez, the intentions were good because the government donated the land and the building, in addition to the board of trustees of the businessmen who supported in-kind with the gasoline for the truck and food for the dogs.
You may also be interested in: Association received more than 15 complaints per month for animal abuse
The Kennel Facility, as it was called in the beginning, was managed by the Association for the protection of Animals and the board of the entrepreneurs; in 1999, it was decided that the municipal government take the management.
However, staff using it for their particular use gasoline, which give the entrepreneurs to the kennel and when they heard they quit giving this support.
The food of the dogs was also cancelled due to the sponsorship, a self-service store that gave the croquettes to the dogs guarded, when the product that came open was not for sale.
Who was in charge of going through the food began to use it for another place and even had an outbreak of violence within the supermarket because there is a video where you can see this person breaking the bags of food to donate, “I asked for this video, but the supermarket would not give me a copy”.
The ex-municipal president, Carlos Cardín, pointed out that the municipal kennel was because he had a problem of fauna street in the municipality and in its beginning he had good intentions, but there have always been disagreements between veterinarians and associations of animal protection which was intended to be in charge of the administration.
The government in turn decided to put the staff to the kennel not to close and continue giving services to the public; however, noted that the donation of in-kind resources should have been monitored both by the board as associations themselves animal protectors.