*VERY VERY important, all pet owners should read!* Yes I'm yelling!

[Rene' Warren]

The county of Multnomah is trying to change it's licensing law into a "registration". Some of the ideas of this new "task force" are to:

1. Require all animal service providers, this includes, vets, groomers, daycare, self service washes, etc. to require proof of rabies vaccination before offering services. Business owners must not accept these pets without proof and will be fined if they do. They also mention the possibility of having rentals require proof of vaccination in order to comply with the law. Therefore burdening the people who rent to people who have pets. I don't know about you, but I think if there are any more "rules" the people who rent to pet owners, will just throw up their hands and say it isn't worth it. This will, in my opinion, backfire and send many more pets to the shelter.

2. Vets will be offered 2.00 per vaccination by the county for the program and 1.00 for yearly registration after that. From what I gather, most vets are outraged by this proposal as they fear the outlying counties will get their business due to the new policy. The studies that they showed/talked about in the town meeting showed that many more pets (mostly dogs) were vaccinated for rabies than licensed with multnomah county. They talk about the possibility of people not vaccinating their dogs to avoid registration.

3. They are talking about having city workers such as meter readers who will check up on you and your pets to make sure you are registered. (By entering your address into their database if they believe you have pets, to see if you are "legal".)

4. They claim that there isn't enough funding to support local shelters and the 'causes they support. However, outlying counties are able to get by on much less funding than multnomah county.

I could go on and on...
BIG BROTHER.. I think so.

I am writing a letter to the appropriate people to voice my concern with this "taskforce". I hope it isn't too late. The timeline stated June, but I guess they are still deliberating now.
If you'd like to read up on it and voice your opinion, please follow this link. It also has the actual video coverage on a youtube link.

http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/pets/TaskForceLanding.shtml

People to write to include:
Ted Wheeler, Chair
503 998 3308
[e-mail]

Deborah Kafoury, District 1
503 988 5220
[e-mail]

Jeff Cogen, District 2
503 988 5219
[e-mail]

Judy Shiprack, District 3
503 988 5217
[e-mail]

Diane McKeel, District 4
503 988 5213
[e-mail]

I hope you'll take the time to tell your leaders what you think of this plan.
A concerned citizen and business owner, Rene' Warren / Happy Tails Pet Center

[Andrea Schneider]

Thanks Rene for putting this up! This is an action item everyone can participate in easily. I encourage people to write about their thoughts on these new rules and on to your county commissioner.
Things like this usually have something to do with raising money when county coffers get low.

[Rene' Warren]

You are welcome!
I got a response back from Ted Wheeler. While I was impressed in the time he got back to me, I can't say I was impressed with his response. He makes it sound like I haven't done any research. Here is his response. I have not yet responded to him because I had been on vacation, but I will....

Rene - thanks so much for your email.

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating (including at least
one falsified document that appears to bear the logo of Commissioner
Leonard and myself) so I want to take a brief moment to clarify these
issues from my perspective.

The task force included many folks representing an array of animal
service providers and professionals. It included the Humane Society. It
did also include SOME code enforcement representation because as local
governments we get many complaints from citizens about a variety of
issues, including noise concerns. It is our responsibility to deal with
those complaints, and we all felt it would be important to include the
enforcement perspective since enforcement is, in fact, a required
component of animal services.

While some may bristle at any suggestion of increasing licensure, I
strongly support it since it would make it more likely that animals
could be returned to their owners in the event that they are separated.
Licensure, combined with a robust adoption program, could help reduce
the rate of euthanasia for animals in Multnomah County which is an
important goal for me.

I can only assume that licensing combined with a robust adoption program
would help many of the people who we share as clients. There is no
interest in my part on requiring any business to deny service based on
failure to license. For the record, I am not sure that there was much
interest on the part of most task force members, either.

With regard to people being turned out of their homes for lack of
licensure - I am not aware of a single situation where this has ever
happened. Nor do I see any scenario where it would. Multnomah County has
been diligent in keeping our fees as low as possible. We even offer
abatements for low-income folks since licensure - not fee collection -
is our primary goal.

The reason we spend more on animal services than many other communities
is because Multnomah County includes both the largest and 4th largest
cities in the state. As you are aware, animal ownership per capita in
our County is among the highest in the nation. Having said that, we
actually spend a lot less than jurisdictions with similar populations
because, frankly, we don't have the funds currently available. Increased
licensure could help to some degree, though it is no panacea.

Thanks for your email, and I hope this helps allay your concerns.

Sincerely, Ted Wheeler.

[Eileen Machida]

The problem with a proposal like this, although well intentioned, is that it attempts to regulate our lives more than it should be. Having a state requirement that all dogs be vaccinated against rabies is sufficient. Enough people will comply with the law that rabies ceases to be a problem.

Not too long ago, one of the states wanted to call all dog owners caretakers, because dog owners just didn't sound politically correct. The San Francisco SPCA, came out against the proposal because it would allow neighbors to report you if they didn't like the way you trained your dog, didn't like what you fed your dog or didn't like the fact that you left your dog at home while you worked. The law supposedly would allow your neighbor to report you to the animal control police and could have your pet confiscated.

While making sure dogs are properly vaccinated may be a laudable public health goal, any implementation that forces citizens to police their neighbors should be carefully scrutinized; under scrutiny the reason for the law may fall apart and force the lawmakers to come up with a solution that does not require citizen snoops.

[Shonna & Pixel]

What?! Why in the world are we spending our tax dollars on something like this? Is there a rabies problem that I'm unaware of? I'm sick of being treated like a criminal because I have a dog.

[Rene' Warren]

Sorry, I just saw your post. I haven't been here in a while. There has not been a case of rabies in dogs in about 30 years here in Oregon. So, I don't think that constitutes a problem.