Bone of Contention
Why are more dogs being euthanized at Multnomah County's animal shelter?
November 26th, 2008
They Make You Wanna Shout | Memo to anti-gay protesters: Portland doesn’t have a Swedish consulate…or much sympathy for your cause.3 comments
November 26th, 2008
Rogue of the Week • Associated Creditors Exchange | Chasing a debt to the ends of the Earth.3 comments
November 26th, 2008
The Score • A Mess With Taxes | How can Oregon give a $10 million tax break to a company whose affiliate may owe taxpayers $20 million?5 comments
November 26th, 2008
Letters to the Editor • Inbox1 comment
November 26th, 2008
A Matter Of Trust | A high-profile defense lawyer in Portland faces allegations that could end his career.7 comments
November 26th, 2008
Murmurs • A Heaping Plate Of News2 comments
November 26th, 2008
The Weekly Fix • Our Spin On 7 Days of News0 comments
November 26th, 2008
Cover Story • Paulson’s Pitch | Why does Hank Paulson’s son want $85 million of your money?37 comments
November 19th, 2008
Meltdown Lowdown | So how is Portland’s new, new economy looking now?7 comments
![]() A POUND OF COMPLAINTS has landed on Mike Oswald, director for Multnomah County Animal Services. IMAGE: cameronbrownephoto.com |
[August 1st, 2007]
Portlanders are dog people. They take their dogs to coffee. They push for leash-free parks. Last year, Dog Fancy magazine named Portland the best "all-around city for dogs." So why, in such a canine-loving city, has the local animal shelter increased its dog-euthanization rate by 10 percent?
In 2006, 1,259 of the 4,600 dogs processed by Multnomah County Animal Services were euthanized. That's 27 percent compared with three years ago, when only 17 percent—or 754 dogs out of 4,346—were euthanized. Dog adoptions dropped by 35 percent during the same period.
Local shelter-reform activist Gail O'Connell-Babcock blames Animal Services Director Mike Oswald for shifting away from more humane treatment recommended by a 2000 citizens task force and toward protecting the public from pit bulls and other breeds perceived as vicious. Oswald says the numbers just reflect reality for most public shelters.
"For 2006, about 33 percent of the dogs entering our shelter were pit bull-type dogs," says Oswald, who notes it was only 20 percent five years ago. "The average owner is not looking for aggressive dogs. Last week we had 400 people come to the shelter wanting a family pet, not something difficult to handle."
Oswald stresses the shelter shares the same problems as shelters nationwide: more people with pets, more pets abandoned and more of those abandoned pets coming from unpopular breeds.
Some critics don't think it can be so easily explained. Nathan Winograd, a national advocate for "no kill" shelters, blames the county for inappropriate use of temperament tests to assess dogs. At O'Connell-Babcock's request, he reviewed 115 shelter euthanasia cases from 2005. He found "much to be apprehensive about in the use of temperament testing at MCAS to justify the killing of dogs under the guise of public safety, scientific legitimacy and objective 'adoptability.'"
Temperament testing involves engaging the dog to detect aggression, including touching, removing food or putting the dog in contact with other dogs. An assessment officer judges whether the dog is too aggressive for rehabilitation. Winograd believes the records he reviewed showed misuse of the testing. He says dogs were tested before they acclimated to the shelter environment, and that testing was performed on injured dogs, nursing mothers with unweaned pups, even a dog under treatment for poisoning. Winograd says behavior stemming from pain, protectiveness and illness was assessed as aggressiveness and the dogs destroyed. He says the temperament testing was "setting the dog up for failure."
Oswald disagrees, emphasizing Winograd hasn't even been to the shelter. He points out that testing doesn't take place until three to six days after the dog arrives at the shelter. His assessment team was trained by leaders in temperament training, and the shelter is one of only five in the nation recognized for meeting the highest standards of the American Animal Hospital Association.
The real problem may, as one local animal-rescue activist noted, go beyond shelters and animal activists.
"The problem is bigger than the shelter," says Claudia Wood, a co-founder of Indigo Rescue. "The problem is people don't spay or neuter their pets, don't keep identification on them, or support the taxes necessary for these services to do their job."
RECENT COMMENTS ON “Bone of Contention”
One more point: regarding no-kill models; I don't believe there is another legitimate model besides Avanzino/Winograd. The local model is,in my opinion, kind of a farce: say we don't kill "unado...
Ha! I agree 100% with your local model reference. I can remember when, the same individual who claims no-kill of adoptable animals, referred to no-kill as being "both cruel and deceitful." W...
Heather,
I posted something yesterday that hasn't come up, so here are the essentials
You can check out the No-Kill Declaration and program specifics at The No Ki...
"The reality is that animal people are a strange and passionate crowd and saving animal lives becomes an obsession that causes some people to make well intentioned but not-so-good of decisions, r...










