I hate cats, and dogs wig me out. But even my cold heart is moved when I hear that 8,000 animals are killed at the Anderson County Animal Shelter each year.

That grim statistic, which represents fully 61 percent of the 13,000 hauled into the facility over the course of the year — a figure a little better than the national average — is actually an amazing success story.

In 2001, the number of animals exterminated stood at 85 percent. Credit the improvement to close cooperation with rescue organizations, more pet adoption events — alone and with the private sector — as well as a low-cost spay-and-neuter program.

Understandably, officials contend the overcrowded shelter should be expanded to give animals a chance to be adopted before meeting their fate with a needle full of pentobarbital.

Although 60 cages were added to the facility in 2007 at a cost of $345,000, it was clearly a short-term safety valve, not a permanent solution.

Six years after first considering a new shelter, conditions must be bad indeed if officials — even in an election year— want to borrow $3.2 million for a new 20,000-square-foot facility, including a spay-and-neuter clinic.

It’s doubtful that County Council members or their challengers will want to make a spending program part of their campaign platform. But build or not, controlling our animal population, which is growing by nearly 1,000 animals a year, will require a public policy with more teeth.

On this as with practically every other issue facing this county, our current crop of leaders has shown a remarkable willingness to avoid tough choices.

It’s increasingly hard to understand, for instance, why pet licensing isn’t one solution for the exploding costs of animal control. Structured correctly, it could actually encourage responsible pet ownership.

If you don’t want to penalize responsible pet owners, give them a free yearly license with proof of spaying or neutering and “chipping” of their animal.

If we’re worried about causing financial hardship, why not consider the idea of county vouchers good for the full cost of spaying and neutering their animal at a local vet?

Those who won’t license probably are those who are responsible for animals running wild and contributing to the pet-overpopulation problem, so I’m quite happy with the idea that they could fined a hefty amount for not complying.

Critics will yelp about the cost of policing animal control or the spay-and-neuter vouchers, but it can’t be much more expensive than building and staffing shelters and disposing of animals.

In fact, revenue from fines resulting from enhanced animal enforcement alone is quite likely to recoup most, if not all, the added expense.

The bark of regulating pet ownership is worse than its bite.