Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises kennel‑cough and veterinary practice concerns at Multnomah County meeting
Summary
A resident described multiple cases of respiratory disease and treatment delays at a Multnomah County animal shelter, accused non‑veterinary staff of diagnosing and prescribing in violation of the Veterinary Practice Act and cited county sample figures; the board took no formal action at the meeting.
At the Multnomah County Board meeting, resident Anna Azizkani used public comment time to outline what she described as repeated incidents of respiratory illness, including kennel cough and pneumonia, at the county animal shelter and to urge county leaders to take action.
Azizkani said she reviewed public records and described individual dogs — identified in her remarks as “Winnie” and “Marge” — that she said developed severe respiratory disease after apparent misdiagnosis or delayed veterinary care. She said a volunteer who raised concerns was fired after pushing for veterinary review. Azizkani cited the Veterinary Practice Act, “chapter 87 division 30,” and warned that “no one other than a vet may diagnose and prescribe medication.”
She told the board that, according to a response she received from county staff, a sample showed 37 percent of animals had an upper respiratory infection and 5 percent of those developed pneumonia; she presented a calculation based on those percentages to illustrate the possible scale of the problem. The county chair asked Azizkani to submit written testimony, which staff said would be shared with board members and staff.
The board did not take formal action during the meeting in response to the testimony. Chair Vega Peterson invited the speaker to provide written materials so staff could review and follow up.
Azizkani’s remarks focused on alleged clinical and operational problems at the shelter and urged the board to use its oversight role to ensure veterinary oversight and compliance with state law. She said the shelter lacks a medical director, that some diagnostic or prescribing decisions were being made by non‑veterinary staff and that animals were being placed for adoption before being definitively diagnosed.
The board did not debate the issue on the record during the meeting; the chair instructed staff to ensure written testimony was distributed to board members for follow‑up.
