The article titled “Recently approved $660M Jackson County budget pours money into capital improvement projects,” published in RVT, June 19, stated that “after changes to shelter policies, increased volume of dogs being housed at the facility and a shelter decision last year to cease housing cats, county officials briefly discussed a 15-cent tax levy that would have built a larger-than-planned facility and accommodate cats, but community response did not indicate support for a larger facility.”

The last part of that statement — “community response did not indicate support for a larger facility” — is inaccurate. The community was, in fact, wildly supportive of a bigger, better shelter to accommodate more dogs and cats. Citizens pushed for this for well over a year, speaking out in public forums, commissioner meetings, the Animal Control Advisory Committee, through print and social media. A group of advocates visited shelters around the state and found that the best shelters were run by nonprofit organizations, often with public/private partnerships, contracting with their county to include dog control services, which counties are mandated to provide. 

This successful model is how many shelters in other Oregon counties are managed, not by limited county governments, but by animal welfare and shelter experts, further supported by hundreds of volunteers, while also allowing the county to satisfy its state mandate.

Jackson County has acknowledged several times that the county has the money to build a new shelter, but not to operate it. Great! So build it. The nonprofit would run it and contract with Jackson County to meet its limited responsibility of dog control services. Problem solved. Everybody wins and Jackson County citizens would have a true animal shelter to meet the county’s needs!

Unfortunately, Jackson County was unwilling to work with the community. Instead, administration proposed a new taxing service district, which meant Jackson County would continue to manage the shelter and residents would have a new permanent tax to pay for it — one that could later be redirected at the whim of the commissioners (remember the Southern Oregon Historical Society?). That’s what the community did not support — a new, unnecessary, unsecured tax, while the money for the shelter sits in the coffers.

A corrected version of the statement mentioned above would be: The community enthusiastically advocated for a bigger, better animal shelter for both dogs and cats. The community did NOT support a new tax for a county-run shelter.

After the lack of public support for a new service district, the county’s response was to double-down and make a plan disregarding public input to use our tax dollars to build a county-run, dog-only facility in a non-desirable, out-of-the-way location. No cats.

What could have been a spectacular win is a missed opportunity for Jackson County. Without involving the community, we will get a new building based on an out-dated management model. Granted, it’s better than the dilapidated facility we have now, but falls far short of what we could have had.

In summary, Jackson County is going to use our tax dollars to build a dog control facility with no accommodation for cats. No discussion. The two dozen different animal welfare organizations struggling to help cats are left on their own trying to fill the void left by the county refusing to accept cats. Rather than having one big beautiful campus that brings in partners and volunteers to serve all of the animal needs of the county, we will still have a gaping hole of unmet need.

Under these circumstances, do we need an additional facility — a cat shelter? Unfortunately, we probably do. Jackson County is missing an opportunity for a comprehensive plan powered by partnerships and volunteers which would be a much more efficient use of resources while meeting the needs of our growing community. Too bad we couldn’t learn from the successes of other nearby counties.

Denise Krause lives in Ashland.