Followup to: Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba
Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270
On September 23, 2024, the Rounds Review committee recommended Sheba, also known as Sundown, to be killed. Two days later on September 25, 2024, she was labeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable” despite all recorded evidence to the contrary.
Management does not justify their euthanasia decisions beyond labeling animals as “unhealthy and untreatable.” Rather than meet professional expectations of accountability, they have lowered expectations upon themselves making dogs pay the price.
The MCAS management has categorically rejected behavior and training, despite recommendations by formal audits in 2016 and 2018. Recommendations that had been glibly acknowledged in 2018, despite recent reporting by the Oregonian in 2023 demonstrating that there is still a dire lack of training throughout the agency’s personnel. This lack of training is especially problematic since the demographic the shelter serves significantly disadvantaged areas and whose adopters are often ignorant about animal behavior. Problems that all contribute to a protocol defaulting to euthanasia for convenience or ‘savings’ on space or medical care.
September 23, 2024, 9:45 AM Rounds Review:
“Rounds discussed and will move forward with humane euthanasia due to unpredictable aggressive behaviors outside of the shelter and lack of transfer resources.”
If Sheba’s behaviors were truly motivated by “unpredictable aggression outside of the shelter” then she would be very unlikely to be made available to rescue.
There was no evidence during Sheba’s extended stay at MCAS concerning “unpredictable aggression” with dogs or people in any notes despite the fact that she was in multiple play groups with other dogs. In every one she was friendly and tolerant of other dogs.
May 8, 2024, Behavior Notes, prior to adoption on May 8, 2024:
“PLAYGROUP
Greeting: Panting, walked over to fence with handler. A little avoidant of dogs initially, Turned and sniffed them. Small butt wiggles. Steerable.
Entry: Walked in, greeted handlers. Tolerated other dogs sniffing her. Sniffed them back.
Summary: Dog tolerant to dog social. Sniffing with dogs. Hung out by handlers. Friendly with people and interested in dogs. Limited energy.”
September 20, 2024, Behavior Notes, after being returned on September 10
“PLAYGROUP
Greeting: Brief snffs with with dogs. Went off and sniffed around and peed. Checking in with Runner, tail wagging.
Entry: Walked in. Tolerated sniffs from other dogs. Gave a few brief sniffs.
Yard Summary: Hung around Primary and Secondary [Playgroup handlers], sniffing their legs and wagging. Started whining, jumping, and soliciting pets. Some whining and panting next to handlers. Dog tolerance seen in play group.”
After the Rounds Review committee decided that Sheba should be euthanized due to “unpredictable aggression,” she was in another playgroup that showed exactly the same friendly behaviors she had consistently shown in playgroups prior.
September 23, 2024, Behavior Notes, after her euthanasia schedule was finalized
“PLAYGROUP
Greeting: Whining at the fence. Tail wags at all the handlers.
Entry: Walked in and sniffed with Mirage [Another dog], FDBD sniffs [muzzle sniffs and butt sniffs] with tail wags.
Yard Summary: Wagging tail and whining at the fence, soliciting pets from the handlers. Interested in other dogs but gets overwhelmed. Will greet new dogs, More interested in people. Solicited pets and attention.”
Nothing about her behavior met any standard for aggression at MCAS.
April 30, 2024, Intake notes after being held in protective custody for abuse and/or neglect.
“Behavior observations: Very overweight and severely matted along entire body. Somewhat nervous and avoidant during exam, but allowed all handling and readily accepted treats throughout exam. This animal is being placed under protective custody for further investigation into her poorly [sic] condition. Once cleared from PC [Protective custody] can be placed up for adoption inf not RTO [Returned to owner].”
On her adoption return intake notes, no personal aggression was observed. Nor was any aggression towards people observed throughout the remaining days of her shelter stay.
September 10, 2024, adoption return intake notes
“Exam performed when in admissions room – nothing appeared amiss, able to administer [de]wormer and flea control without issue. No aggression during time in shelter, able to easily kennel ( from outside, other dogs shut inside) and take off loop, no sensitivity shown.
Placing on rounds for review.”
All behavior notes before and after her return were positive.
Why was Sheba killed for “unpredictable aggression” outside of the shelter, when none of those behaviors were reported in a stressful shelter?
MCAS never sought clarification of the owners’ reports of “unpredictable aggression” towards people and/or dogs. The only information provided by the adopters was that during their 4 month adoption Sheba “had bitten 3 or 4 times during her time away, none causing bleeding to their knowledge, only ripping pants once…” and “that they cannot keep her because of her behavior.”
Had MCAS managers taken any interest in seeking to understand what was reported to be “unpredictable” about Sheba’s behavior despite the fact that there was no evidence of unpredictable behavior at MCAS, they could have easily discovered the likely challenge in other comments the adopters made in the notes:
September 11, 2024
“Wife of [adopter] called in and wanted to provide more information about their time with the dog. She said that the dog had pretty intense separation anxiety, doesn’t think dog does well with children, but says the dog bonds pretty intensely to the person to the person that brings her home. Also states that she thinks the dog would do well for someone who has a yard, because their place didn’t have a yard so she would take the dog out for exercise and stated dog reacted strongly to other dogs and people.”
MCAS’ failure to follow up with an informed interview transitions into failing its community and shelter animals. They are responsible for their welfare and fates.
“To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.”
—When It Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels, by Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D, CAAB, from DogWatch Newsletter, March 2006.
The behaviors that the adopters may have intended regarding the difficulties they reported with handling Sheba could easily be commonplace leash reactivity alongside being protective of the adopter. This is especially likely if the adopter was holding the leash tightly, exhibiting anxiety that led to Sheba feeling anxious and taking a protective stance.
Educating her adopter was one remedy. However, MCAS also considers owner, adopter and foster surrender counseling irrelevant to addressing behavior concerns. The primary way they have addressed behavior concerns has been over prescribing tranquilizing medication not unlike how unethical nursing homes drug out their residents to keep them quiet.
A different adopter with a better understanding of dogs and behavior would have also been an option. Scholarly research supports that most failed adoptions are about owners, not dogs.
“Study: Saving Normal: A New look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters
Findings: There is no compelling evidence “for the notion that the general population of relinquished dogs in shelters are there because of relationship-breaking behavioral incompatibilities in their prior home.” Most dogs labeled “behavior” are normal as “surrenders often say more about the people doing the surrendering – about ‘owner-related factors, needs, and expectations’ – than the dogs being surrendered.” As such, shelters should stop thinking of dogs as having “behavior problems” and instead refer to them as ‘behavior incompatibilities” with the person they were living with before being surrendered.”
Saving Normal: A New Look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters
“Being loved and cherished is not incompatible with having some behaviors or habits owners might prefer dogs not have, if given the choice.”
There was a time when parents following an incident with the family dog would ask: “What did you do to the dog?” There was nothing wrong with Sheba. MCAS never fact checked the adopter’s report. They then robbed her of her life because animal care isn’t a managerial priority, but saving on money and space is. There were multiple options and this is made clear in other parts of the record.
‘But the trains have to run on time.’
September 15, 2024,
“Emailed breed specific rescues.”
September 18, 2024
“Rounds met and we are waiting to see if a rescue comes forward. Will FU [Follow up] 9/23”
September 19, 2024
“HUNAH [Herd U Needed A Home | Border Collie And Mixed Canine rescue] declined due to lack of fosters.”
September 22, 2024
“Emailed senior dog rescues.”
“Took Sheba to Agility. Took treats eagerly at back of kennel. Mild pulling. Kept stopping to eat foliage. Back at kennel accepted pets, butt wiggling all the while.”
“Rounds discussed and will follow up 9/23 on rescue placement.”
When no senior rescue responded in the single day they waited, the managers ordered Sheba killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.” She was viewed as expired merchandise.
When managers prioritize securing vacation time, pay, and ease in work, they treat criticism as antagonism and see no reason to improve their performance so long as county officials have their back.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
MCAS Records for Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270 , Redacted
Pingback: Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba | MCAS Shelter Shock