Note: this message was received yesterday.

The emaciated injured little pit bull described below is scheduled to be killed tomorrow. No one at MCAS or at the Multnomah County Commission has acknowledged offers of help. Killing and decision making at MCAS routinely exclude citizens in the community and deny its values. It occurs always behind closed doors. The public is deliberately kept out. His records are among those in the attached set of animal status reports for January 23, 2012.

I know time is very short. Please ask the county to permit outside review in this and future cases, a promise no longer kept ot honored. County Chair Jeff Cogen’s primary role appears to be protection of colleagues at the sacrifice of public service and humane values. He has no interest in animal welfare. Correspondence follows.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD
Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog
Sherwood OR 97140
Telephone: 503.625.4563

Note: this message was received yesterday.

—–Original Message—–
From: gocbwatchdog
To: mult.chair ; district1 ; district2 ; district3 ; district4 ; michael.l.oswald
Cc: rbabcock ; amanda ; nick ; mayorsam ; randy ; dan ; mult.auditor ; pbhatia Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 12:33 pm
Subject: Urgent time sensitive appeal to County Chair Jeff Cogen: please act

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD
Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog
16004 SW Tualatin Sherwood Road # 508
Sherwood OR 97140
Telephone 503.625.4563; Fax: 503.925.8299
E-mail: gocbwatchdog@aol.com

January 26, 2012

To: County Chair Jeff Cogen
CC: MCAS Director Michael Oswald

CC: Deborah Kafoury, District 1
Loretta Smith, District 2
Judy Shiprack, District 3
Diane McKeel, District 4

CC: Robert Babcock

Regarding: the injured neglected pit bull (MCAS 532858) scheduled to be killed tomorrow, January 27, despite offers of payment for outside specialist evaluation and community contributions to pay for an evaluation and the cost of any indicated surgery

Chair Cogen:

I am asking that you defer killing and grant permission for the captioned injured neglected pit bull (MCAS 504285) to be evaluated by a specialist so that humane treatment options can be thoughtfully reviewed. The costs of this expert review will be covered by public contributions. No costs will be borne by the county.

Mr. Oswald has said in previous correspondence that you are ultimately in charge of MCAS policy and therefore I assume that you must approve this request. MCAS policy permits outside professional review and second opinions. I am asking that that policy be honored. Perhaps you are unaware or ignorant of this request and that is why no one at the agency, including Mr. Oswald, has acknowledged any of the correspondence sent to them repeatedly about this case beginning Tuesday, January 24, after we received public records. In fact, there is no mention of the offers made or correspondence sent in the most recent public records production, Wednesday, January 25, 2012 after 4:00 PM.

The practice of simply ignoring the public (the forgotten 99%) when one doesn’t want what is offered is shocking and unethical especially when a stray animal’s life is involved. Yet this happens over and over again at MCAS. MCAS acts as if it is accountable to no one. Multiple historical examples in which MCAS ignores public offers and kills anyway denying humane options (despite public protest) suggest the implicit permission of your leadership at the county. It is unethical and unworthy of the humane values you claim. You were elected for your professed humane values. We need to see those values in action.

The information I have received from a highly respected local diplomate in veterinary medicine makes it clear that this case merits exploration of options.

· Regarding MCAS note that “It is unclear why the dog is so painful in that area,” the response was that pain is expected, disuse, and atrophy are the expected result of injury; the question is what qualifies as so painful?

· The MCAS statement that this dog was likely dog aggressive really cannot even be assessed when a dog is injured. Dogs are defensive and self protective when injured.

· Possible medical interventions include surgery (about $1500 to $2000) or amputation (if evidence of nerve injury or just to have finite cost and recovery time).

· There is no description or qualification of the dog’s pain reaction or location (specific response or provocation) to decide upon the most viable and humane treatment options.
Continue reading »

To: Wayne Pacelle
Andrew Rowan

As a professional courtesy, I am writing first to confirm a report that HSUS has ranked Multnomah County Animal Services second out of ten nationally as a “model” agency.

Is that correct? If so what attributes did you value?

If the report is correct, as I send out the letter below, and write other essays, I will make sure to note that HSUS approves of and endorses MCAS’s behaviors, considers them worthy of emulation: temperament testing abuses; agency refusals of publicly paid humane care for injured animals, covert breed bans, racial profiling in enforcement ( preliminary pilot research); falsifying statistics and other “model” animal control behaviors.

I am sure that an organization of your reputation and size has thoroughly researched every aspect of MCAS conduct, behavior, and policies. before your approve. What is your data base if indeed the above ranking report is true?

I am looking forward to your response.

Thank you.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock,PhD

Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog
Sherwood, Oregon
503.625.4563

To: County Chair Jeff Cogen:

Where was MCAS? Multnomah County elected a No Kill shelter agenda in 2000 that was to have been reached by 2005. It was a decision made by a broad assembly of citizens appointed by then County Chair Bev Stein. The lack of leadership in Multnomah County is the singular cause.. Instead of honoring the county tax payers’ will, you have sacrificed this for your own and Michael Oswald’s comfort. It is easier to dispose of tax payers and homeless animals than upset the status quo or a fellow employee.

As a result, increasing taxpayers’ monies are squandered on an unsupportable archaic punitive animal control system. While declaring No Kill unachievable (and rejecting outside independent review that would design a program achieving this), you take monies from Maddie’s Fund whose agenda is No Kill, and Open Paw, whose humane philosophy and practices are routinely violated.

To take money from No Kill sponsors, then reject the premises underlying the acceptance of these gifts is simply dishonest. Without study or outside review, you apparently believe, as a matter of personal convenience, that No Kill is impossible. It isn’t, You should for ethical reasons return the monies given by these organizations..

It is notable that after declaring that you would not accept dishonesty in a government employee, you have, and do exactly that. MCAS has a long documented history of deception, promoting false statistics and making highly misleading claims intended to misdirect. Mr. Oswald recently quoted live release rates that are false. He altered the accepted formula, allowing double counting, the equivalent of stuffing the ballot box, and discounts/does not include or account for hundreds of animals annually that just go missing. If these were “real ” property, county supplies, books and pencils, chairs, you would account for them.

Modeling accountability and honesty begin at the top. What is accepted at the top becomes the county ethic.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, Ph.D.
Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation