The practice of imposing conditions for release that the homeless simply can’t meet because they have no homes: Creating a mandatory requirement as you have with Charlie that a secure enclosure be built can’t be met by homeless persons because they don’t own property upon which to build a secure enclosure. It amounts to extorted surrender. I see this condition imposed over and over again.
You
must come up with flexible solutions that permit companion animals to
be returned to homeless persons without imposing impossible fines and
conditions. Protecting public safety is indeed possible while seeking
humane solutions, solutions that allow the return of animals to the
homeless. Exploiting homelessness to force surrender is unacceptable.
I
am asking that the county implement policy changes addressing these
concerns beginning with Charlie. Repeatedly homeless persons lose their
animals to an inflexible indifferent system that exploits the most
vulnerable populations and their companion animals. That has to stop. .
Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD
Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog
Telephone: 503.625.4563.
Finally an agency induced factor that must end is Michael
Oswalds' policy prohibiting staff from acknowledging, speaking to,
giving treats, or engaging animals on Security ( and Intake). It is a
senseless cruel unnecessary policy that creates a climate
extraordinarily hostile to animal mental health, far worse then any
"crime " committed. After destroying an animal's mental health through
deliberate isolation, lack of exercise and lack of stimulation, the
animal is then declared " unadoptable"/"unsafe" and "offered" to rescue
or killed. Prisoners of war have more protections..
This cruel and inhumane "animal care" policy must be immediately stopped;
Finally what will Multnomah County do about this chronically low ethical bar?
No comments:
Post a Comment