Help Stop Slaughter Of This Gorgeous Animal

Please help prevent a needless death

Mozart the Alaskan Malamute

Mozart, a 6 year old beloved family Malamute who once had a wonderful life is now facing a death sentence. His life has been documented on YouTube; he is trained, highly responsive and has many behavior skills including walking backward on command. He once found rats in wood pile and played with them rather than attack. Despite two highly qualified rescue offers both including qualified trainers; in one case a Northern Breed rescue and sanctuary, Multnomah County Animal Services in Troutdale Oregon, has stalled in any decision to release him to rescue, and the kennel care technician working for MCAS who evaluated Mozart has recommended euthanasia. No one else believes that is necessary. The two rescues who have offered to take him continue to wait for a response.

The county’s indecision and delays in releasing Mozart to rescue cannot continue. Every concern has been met. Excellent options exist. When humane options exist it is unconscionable to kill an animal. Mozart has been held at MCAS in stressful solitary confinement since November 29, 2013 deprived of exercise and socialization after he was released to be killed by an adopter who did not follow the adoption terms. The brief term adopters were repeatedly advised that Mozart was a wonderful dog but his stressors were food guarding and head patting. The advice was completely ignored. As a result Mozart bit the hand of one of the new owners after the second pat to his head. It required several stitches. Mozart’s life long owner has contested the county’s ownership of Mozart and wants humane options for Mozart. There has been no response.

Please help prevent this needless killing. Write the Multnomah County Commission and ask that Mozart be allowed to go to a rescue.

Contact information:

Multnomah County Chair: Marissa Madrigal

E-mail mult.chair@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.3308

Commissioner Liesel Wendt, District 1

E-mail district1@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5220

Commissioner Loretta Smith, District 2

E-mail district2@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5219

Commissioner Judy Shiprack, District 3

E-mail district3@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5217

Commissioner Diane McKeel, District 4

E-mail district4@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5213

Help Save Gorgeous Portland Malamute

 

UPDATE

January 10, 2014

 

Weeks have gone by. Multnomah County Animal Services serving Portland and Multnomah County Oregon continues to delay, responding with silence or with a request for one more free evaluation, not even acknowledging offers of rescue for Mozart  that meet every mark and every condition.

 

On Monday afternoon, January 06, 2014, James Herbold’s attorney, Robert Babcock, filed a lawsuit charging MCAS and animal control director Michael Oswald with unlawfully holding the property of another.

 

Please contact the Multnomah County Commissioners asking that Mozart be freed. His life depends upon it.

 

Thank you for acting on behalf of compassion and the humanity we share with all animals.

 

 

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

gocbwatchdog@aol.com  

 

 

 

Please help prevent a needless death

Mozart the Alaskan Malamute

 

Mozart, a 6 year old beloved family Malamute who once had a wonderful life is now facing a death sentence.  His life has been documented on YouTube; he is trained, highly responsive and has many behavior skills including walking backward on command.  He once found rats in wood pile and played with them rather than attack. Despite two highly qualified  rescue offers both including qualified trainers; in one case a Northern Breed rescue and sanctuary,  Multnomah County Animal Services in Troutdale Oregon,  has stalled in any decision to release him to rescue, and  the kennel care technician working for MCAS who evaluated Mozart has recommended  euthanasia. No one else believes that is necessary.  The two rescues who have offered to take him continue to wait for a response.

 

 

The county’s indecision and delays in releasing Mozart to rescue cannot continue. Every concern has been met. Excellent options exist. When humane options exist it is unconscionable to kill an animal.  Mozart has been held at MCAS in stressful solitary confinement since November 29, 2013 deprived of exercise and socialization after he was released to be killed by an adopter who did not follow the adoption terms. 

 

The brief term adopters were repeatedly advised that Mozart was a wonderful dog but his stressors were food guarding and head patting. The advice was completely ignored. As a result Mozart bit the hand of one of the new owners after the second pat to his head. It required several stitches. Mozart’s life long owner has contested the county’s ownership of Mozart and wants humane options for Mozart. There has been no response.

 

Please help prevent this needless killing. Write the Multnomah County Commission and ask that Mozart be allowed to go to a rescue. 

 

Videos of Mozart:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH2MwRtgirA&list=UUE6P2OaBL1_WQifrPeLRBqA&noredirect=1

 

Contact information:

 

Multnomah County Chair: Marissa Madrigal

E-mail mult.chair@multco.us 

Telephone: 503.988.3308

      

Commissioner Liesel Wendt, District 1

E-mail district1@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5220

 

Commissioner Loretta Smith, District 2

E-mail district2@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5219

 

 Commissioner Judy Shiprack, District 3

E-mail district3@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5217

 

 Commissioner Diane McKeel, District 4

E-mail district4@multco.us

Telephone: 503.988.5213

Why We Won't Adopt Animals To Multnomah County (Portland Or area)

To: Michael Oswald

To: John Rowton

To: Kim Peoples

 

What interventions do you plan to put in place so this tragic but not uncommon event does not occur again ( and I use the term tragic  its full sense:  meaning caring so little for a dog with wholly correctable problems that on surrender without informing or telling the owner, you obviously planned all along to kill him in three days)

 

MCAS knows well that Thunder ridge rescue and a few others take and "rehabilitate" MCAS dogs labeled" unadoptable" often accomplishing that goal within 24 hours because the dogs were only reacting to a stressful agency environment.. Ample documentation  is available that MCAS dogs deemed "unadoptable";  are often wholly and inaccurately mis classified.

 

There was no compelling reason to kill Teddy. Teddy had no bite history, a history of reactivity on leash, good with family, wary of strangers, terrified at MCAS ( a quite common experience for most dogs). When MCAS  took him into the agency his family was told be might be euthanized as all dogs might .

 

Three days and no effort to calm or seek options reveals the agency's real intention. Whi is going to know?  Ms. Collingsworth had him killed in 3 days with no effort to find resources at all. Ms. Collingsworth knows of options. But misdeeds are rationalized away at MCAS not corrected so they happen again and again. 

 

Above are the options for leash reactive dogs; not an uncommon problem, and a caution about over classification baaed upon minimal data  from a legitimate credentialed behavior specialist lableing, making, Teddy treatable but dead anyway.

.

The community and  frightened homeless pay a heavy price; the animals,pay with their lives, for government absent standards and cursory indifference.

 

Teddy had nothing compelling in his  history that required death as an only option. He never even had training. False and/or incorrect diagnostic and prognostic assignations are an alarming problem at MCAS (and I will be bringing them up with Maddie's Fund and other groups that rely on the Asilomar Accords):

 

MCAS has:

 

• A mission that claims to protect pets but policies contrary to that mission: MCAS  is run  more like an animal processing plant. The statement made to me by a senior staff person that the goal of temperament testing was "To decide which ones to kill" confirms the view that MCAS abuses the purpose of temperament testing.
• No checks and balances: Usually just one  kennel care technician/ staff person does a 15 minute non-standardized "test" on an often distressed or injured or ill dog ( all confounding stressors that preclude temperament testing), then decides if an animal lives or dies.
•  
•  Any collaboration " is  cursory or collegial, a form of predetermined agreement (Did you see that? Oh I did too!. It is not independent) No baseline systematic behavior data collection records are kept any more. MCAS ended all transparency when it removed all the standard data collection behavior forms,making them optional, up to staff. Records that elsewhere are retained as part of accountability are eliminated or destroyed at MCAS. Final cursory impressions are recorded and sometimes not. 
•  
• Sometimes the entry is just BA completed or private code" Multiple Tier 2 behaviors: ER)MCAS is a public agency not a private club. Ms. Collingsworth is not the only person that has dispensed with behavior assessment forms altogether, just the most frequently inclined, an unusual privilege extended to employees at a publicly funded agency. Now one just records one's beliefs in one's head. 
•  
• Clearly that makes review impossible and reduces diagnoses and prognoses to magical thinking . It has also led to what one might anticipate and expect: deterioration in assessment quality that again effectively costs animals their lives. Here is the record for part of an "assessment" of a dog that was bleeding from an abscess,( the dog was "tested" before going for medical care when pain is a recognized  stressor that confounds temperament evaluation; medical care should precede temperament testing but att MCAS the order is almost always reversed):" Nice girl! Stinks like a dog who spends a lot of time outside!!" 
•  
•  I use that to note over generalization from limited data ( overgeneralization from limited data is common) and it also has no place in a temperament testing evaluation. It is just personal/prejudicial about the owner. Perhaps the odor came from the abscess not owner life style. 
• No oversight, no review, and rationalizations of poor decisions that cost animal their lives instead of corrective actions that change the future.

Many homeless animals have been misdiagnosed as "unadoptable" at MCAS. The evidence is that they recover as soon as they leave. MCAS does not follow "Open Paw" shelter  missions as advertised. 

 

A few Open Paw programs are adopted but not Open Paw philosophy. The overall policy and programs at MCAS deliberately create significant stress causing healthy animals to deteriorate in kennels where they are left day after day. Mr. Oswald's excessive unnessary zealous pursuit of "public safety"concerns far beyond ehat is needed generate the hostile prison like stress environment in which homeless animals are kept. Previous directors did not have these policies and there was no increase in public danger.

 

Intake doors are closed to the public and many staff are excluded creating a locked prison; many capable staff , once allowed to socialize with animals are specifically prohibited from interacting with the animals. 

 

They should be; animals are very often not permitted "potty walks", exercise, games, play or social engagement out of misplaced "public safety concerns." Every shelter worker should know how to engage a scared or timid dog or just don't work in sheltering. Terms in records referring to a homeless animals as "inmates" or "prisoner" property confirm the prison not shelter model adopted by the county.

 

• Unhealthy/untreatable, a preferred MCAS designation used to misclassify many killed animals: It is clear from records review that this term is used when nothing about the animal suggests "unhealthy/untreatable" i.e a young cocker spaniel who did very well at the intake veterinarian; and at the agency  but Ms. Collingsworth ordered him killed because she believed his reaction to one dog  gender in one  leash encounter  made him "unhealthy/untreatable at least 50% of the time ( assuming 50% percent of the world is the other gender: an ideal projection) Personal reactivity, impatience, whim, not responsible professional engagement guides many of these decisions.

I am sorry Teddy was killed, anguished really because his life had a value and no one cared. 

 

Having found options for little cattle dogs and others like him before it is very distressing.Working dogs need training and work .He deserved a careful review, a second chance, instead he was treated like disposable refuse. He is not "unhealthy/untreatable"  an agency preferred designation for every dog that doesn't go to rescue or adoptions.  It is a neat way to dispose of animals, take no responsibility while claiming awards.

 

The entire process of assessment must be independently reviewed as well as the current frankly cruel prohibitions on activities critical to support the mental health of animals. You are creating the distress you label.

 

The solution isn't just to care enough to alert rescues that might help. It is to create a healthful emotional social environment for stray animals, not a prison, so they aren't distressed and misclassified to begin with and to reach out into the community. As an example recently one 20 pound 8 month old dog was kenneled without exercise or companionship for 75 days labeled "severely undersocialized". 

 

Deprived of appropriate engagement, kept in solitary, his stress increased, No rescue would take him. No effort was made to reduce his stress ( public safety concerns). A rescue finally took a chance on him when the rest had declined. Within 24 hours of exit, he was playing with other dogs, walking on leash, soliciting attention from people and dogs, going to dog day care where he is very popular and if anything likes to party too much ( after midnight he still solicits play, maybe making up for lost time).

 

Improper diagnosis/prognosis and MCAS exaggerated misplaced public safety policies serve  only to aggressively increase not reduce shelter stress  and cost animals deserving a second chance their lives. Rescues can do nothing to correct this. That is an agency problem; not a dog problem. And it has to change. MCAS has to become an open shelter.

 

 

Gail O'Connell-Babcock

Telephone: 503.625.4563

 

---Original Message-----
From: John ROWTON <john.m.rowton@multco.us>
To: gocbwatchdog <gocbwatchdog@aol.com>
Cc: Jill Cameron <thunderidge@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 5:35 am
Subject: Re: Teddy: MCAS 553515: status and options

Hi Gail

He was euthanized November 4th.

John M. Rowton

Shelter Manager

Practice active listening..

An Open Paw Shelter

An AAHA accredited Veterinary Hospital

www.MultcoPets.org

john.m.rowton@multco.us

503 988 7387 x 25247

Should Donations To Portland Oregon "shelters" be Given To Rescues Instead?

To: Michael Oswald

     Officer Michelle Luckey

     Officer Charles Poetz

     Kim Peoples

     Attny David Blankfeld

CC: County Chair Marissa Madrigal

       Couty Commission

I understand Ozzie was killed September 17 despite the fact that you well knew 
 ( as did David Blankfeld) I had humane options for him and indeed had raised money
 for his writ of review appeal ( $500). Why would you do that ? ( and I include David 
Blankfled  in that comment because he was completely involved, asks and well knows 
I help in cases like  this, and did nothing desdpite that information ...on vacation. . 

My concerns are significant also because the same week Ozzie  was killed MCAS 
brokered a  deal with FDNL to release another little dog that had actually killed a dog but as noted in the
 record  " you wanted him to have a second chance." 

Are only dogs affiliated with FDNL and  other large organizations allowed 
"second chances"?

 Not the dogs of the homeless? Why?

You well know that my placement history is very effective, thorough and conscientious.
 I have no idea after you knew my investment in Ozzie, the minor nature of his "crimes"
 why our offers of  humane alternatives were just ignored/not even acknowledged 
( in case the writ of review did not go through for monetary reasons;I had the funds donated). 

Ozzie had chances, his crimes were  minor,  he was a nice dog. you killed him anyway 
after months of unnecessary solitary confinement, just carelessly snuffed out his life.. 

I consider that cruelty.

Meanwhile I am putting together resources for Pucky ( MCAS 541100) and Charlie  
( MCAS  550945)

Please don't kill them. I will deal with my concerns about the circumstances surrounding Ozzie's
 death ( this has happened before) at greater length later.

Thank you

Gail O'Connell-Babcock

503.625.4563

   

Why Does Portland Oregon Support Killing Animals?

PLEASE POST FAR AND WIDE!  THIS HAS TO STOP!!

Gail, with Watchdog.org, see email below, spends her life PAYING (out of pocket) for PUBLIC records (spending more than $300 a month) to help dogs caught in the lethal trap at Multnomah COUNTY Animal Services.  She offers foster homes and has many times taken dogs from MCAS with medical needs, promised by MCAS that they will pay for the veterinary care, only to find that they break their promise on the offer and she and people like me donate $$ to pay what MCAS promised to pay. 

The most egregious point is that despite offers to foster or board at a kennel, MCAS, rather than turn a dog over for alternate care, or offer rehabilitation services or lower fines to return animals to the people who love them, chooses to kill.

PLEASE READ BELOW ABOUT DOGS HELD IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, BELONGING TO POOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD THE STIFF FINES!  IN THE END, DOGS DIE FOR NO GOOD REASON!

Do you have any media contacts?  If so, please forward.  This is a story worth telling!!

THANK YOU!!

~ Bev Trover

Wisconsin DNR Kills Baby Deer Waiting For Transfer at No Kill Shelter

The president of a Wisconsin animal shelter is furious after the state Department of Natural Resources raided the facility with armed agents, detained volunteer workers and killed a baby deer named “Giggles.”


“I’m furious,” said Cindy Schultz, president of the Society of St. Francis in Kenosha, Wis. “We are a no-kill shelter. And they killed her. They killed Giggles. I’m furious – furious.”

Schultz told Fox News an Illinois family found a baby fawn that had been abandoned by her mother. The family brought the deer to the Wisconsin shelter.
Staff members nicknamed the deer “Giggles.”

Wisconsin law bans residents or shelters from possessing any live wild animals without a license. Wisconsin does not rehabilitate deer so if they find an abandoned fawn, the creature is left to die, Schultz said.

“We took it of course and we made arrangements to transfer the deer to an animal reserve in Illinois,” she said. “The day before she was supposed to leave, we had the raid.”

On July 15 DNR agents and four deputy sheriff’s staged the surprise raid in what staff workers called a massive and “intimidating” show of force.

According to a state affidavit, the DNR had been conducting aerial and ground surveillance in advance of the raid searching for an “illegally-held live captive Whitetail deer.”

“We didn’t know they were doing surveillance,” she said. “Five days before the raid, a DNR agent was hiding in the woods by our shelter watching the deer walk in and out of the barn.”
Schultz said agents rounded up the shelter’s nine staff members and detained them for nearly three hours as they searched for Giggles.

“They shut down our shelter and wouldn’t let anyone leave,” she said. “Nobody was allowed to use their phones. They were under armed guard.”

A 19-year-old staff member took photographs of the raid, but Schultz said a deputy sheriff confiscated his cell phone and deleted all the pictures.

Agents eventually found Giggles in the barn.

“She was a very scared little deer,” Schultz said. “The poor little thing must have been absolutely petrified.”

According to her version of events, two agents killed the deer in the barn and stuffed her in a body bag.

“It was horrifying,” Schultz said. “Everyone who loved that little deer and wanted to see her go to a wildlife rescue where she could live our her life, saw these DNR thugs haul her out of our no-kill shelter in a body bag.”

But DNR Supervisor Jennifer Niemeyer denies that Giggles was killed at the animal shelter.
She told television station WISN the deer was tranquilized and killed at another location.
“These are always very difficult situations for both parties involved and we are empathetic to the fact of what happened because we know in our heart of hearts they tried to do the right thing” she told the television station. “

Schultz said the fact that DNR may have stuffed a live deer into a body bag is even more disturbing.

“If they put her in that bag alive, they’ve got some explaining to do,” she said. “That’s animal cruelty and in Wisconsin that’s a felony. I don’t know what these idiots did out here, but we’re going to find out.”

And she also wants to know why there was such a show of force. Why didn’t the DNR just pick up the phone and call?

“If a sheriff’s department is going in to do a search warrant on a drug bust, they don’t call them and ask them to voluntarily surrender their marijuana or whatever drug that they have before they show up,” Niemeyer told the television station.

Schultz called that explanation ridiculous.

“Come on, this is a baby deer,” she said.

And that’s not the only thing the DNR agents took. They also discovered a Canadian goose – lounging by the shelter’s pond.

“The goose had been living there for eight years,” Schultz said. “But they grabbed it and said we couldn’t have it on our property.”

The goose was not killed.

“This is so bizarre it’s almost unbelievable,” Schultz said. “They’ve apparently got nothing else to do in Wisconsin.”

 

Is It OK To Kill?

Is it okay to kill? I don’t mean a bug in your house, a snake in your garage, or a deer in the woods. 

Deer tastes good; you may not know if that snake in your garage is poisonous; and bugs are home invaders.
I mean is it okay to kill a man, a human being, a person? 

Again, I don’t mean someone trying to kill you, rob your business, rape your wife, harm your children, or break into your house. Killing someone might be perfectly justified in those circumstances if it involves defense against aggression.

Specifically, is it okay to kill someone who has not threatened or committed violence or aggression against you, your family, your friends, your neighborhood, anyone you know, or any American you don’t know?
No? Then –

• What if he is not an American?
• What if he lives thousands of miles away from America?
• What if he adheres to a religion that is different from that of most Americans?
• What if he is a darker color than most Americans?
• What if he speaks a language that most Americans don’t understand?
• What if he has habits that seem peculiar to most Americans?
• What if he holds to a political ideology that doesn’t resemble America’s?
• What if he smells different than most Americans?

Does someone having one or more of these characteristics alone mean it is okay to kill him?
Another no? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says he is a terrorist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an insurgent?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a communist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an extremist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a potential threat?
• What if the U.S. government says he hates our freedoms?
• What if the U.S. government says he is the enemy?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a bad guy?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
No again? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says it is a matter of national security?
• What if the U.S. government says it is in the national interest?
• What if the U.S. government says it is of strategic concern?
• What if the U.S. government says it has secret information that makes it necessary?
• What if the U.S. government says it is part of the president’s grand strategic vision?
• What if the U.S. government says it is essential to maintaining hegemony?
• What if the U.S. government says it is just a part of fighting terrorism?
• What if the U.S. government says it is important to foreign policy objectives?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Still no? Then –

• What if the U.S. military gives you a nice uniform?
• What if the U.S. military gives you a gun and ammunition?
• What if the U.S. military pays for your college education?
• What if the U.S. military provides you with free medical and dental care?
• What if the U.S. military offers you citizenship in exchange for service?
• What if the U.S. military gives you an enlistment bonus?
• What if the U.S. military gives you generous combat pay?
• What if the U.S. military assists you with repaying your student loans?
• What if the U.S. military offers you liberal retirement benefits?

Does the U.S. military doing any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Of course not? Then –

• Why are some so quick to make apologies for U.S. military personnel who kill for the state in unjust wars?
• Why are some so quick to excuse U.S. military personnel who kill while not defending the United States?
• Why are some so quick to justify U.S. military personnel who kill people thousands of miles away that are no threat to the United States?
• Why are some so quick to defend U.S. military personnel who kill people that resent and resist being invaded, bombed, occupied, or "liberated"?
• Why are some so quick to blame the government, the politicians, and the defense contractors and exempt the U.S. military personnel who do the actual killing?

For years now I have heard the excuses. But what are these apologists, excusers, justifiers, defenders, and exempters really saying?

• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t find a job.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t make it in college.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are economically disadvantaged.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if your father was in the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are patriotic.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are ignorant.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are poor.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are uneducated.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you have no resources available.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are doing the right thing.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were raised to never question the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were never taught otherwise.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are just obeying orders.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are avenging 9/11.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are defending our freedoms.

I have been given every one of these excuses at least ten times. The first part of the excuse is generally omitted, but why should it be? Is not this exactly what people are saying?

None of this means that the despicable creatures in the U.S. government who send American boys to war, and the equally loathsome creatures outside of the U.S. government who cheer them on, are not to be condemned as well. But those aren’t the people that are applauded in airports, called heroes, and thanked for their service.

But why is it that these excuses only seem to be valid for American soldiers? Why is it that soldiers from other countries aren’t lauded as heroes for killing Americans if they offer up one of the excuses that are commonly used to justify killings carried out by American soldiers? 

Some agree with everything I have said thus far, but think that if soldiers are draftees then it changes everything. I know this is the case because they write and tell me. I have written about the culpability of drafted soldiers in my article "Murder Is Still Murder." But again, why is it that it is only drafted American soldiers who can kill with impunity? I don’t think that apologists for draftees realize what they are saying. To excuse the actions of soldiers because they were drafted is to say that the state can somehow sanctify murder. 

Although the U.S. military is looking for a few good men to unjustly kill for the state, it is not okay to kill, even if the military advertises itself as a global force for good.

May 15, 2013

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The Revolution that Wasn't, Rethinking the Good War, and The Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. His latest book is The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom. Visit his website.