MCAS rewards abusive owners: Almight traumatized by constant abuse of electric shock collars
Almight, ID# 345682
Almight’s quarantine ends on April 2, 2025 for a bite incident that occurred after an abusive owner sought obedience by repeatedly using a shock collar accompanied by verbal abuse. The incident was reported by the owner to have occurred while “he was petting his dog.” There is no information about the context of the ‘pat’ or the owner’s behavior. Context which is key to understanding why the incident occurred, and whether it’s a behavioral concern or a strictly human-caused bite. “You don’t want to make a dog feel frightened or, worse, like he has to protect himself.” (How to Pet a Dog” Your Dog, Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine)
The injuries were ones in which recovery would be expected to be quick with no lasting impairment.
Investigative concerns
The claim that this is the 3rd bite in 3 weeks was not substantiated or investigated. Most importantly, neither was the owner’s conduct a preview of which was directly witnessed at MCAS. Almight seemed to be living in a climate of fear.
March 23, 2025, Behavior observations during Intake:
“Greeted owner and dog at intake gate. Dog was anxious, pacing mildly, avoiding eye contact, heavy panting. Owner had dog on a tight leash and was continuously commanding him. Owner weighed dog and scanned for micro chip. Dog was stress panting and trembling the entire time. When not immediately obedient, AO [Animal owner] would shout at him and jerk him around by his lead. Once in kennel, AO was able to safely remove shock collar. AO tried to command dog to go inside by shouting at him repeatedly, but the dog was too scared to cross that threshold to inside[- – shaking and slightly cowering. AO attempted to put the shock collar back on him but I asked him not to. He was able to get out after yelling at the dog to sit and stay.”
To date no investigation has occurred. An abuser was allowed to drop off his dog at an animal control agency for a $50 surrender fee, no counseling was provided and he is free to go out and abuse again. Failure to counsel makes the agency complicit with animal abuse.
Multnomah County is not a community that advocates rewarding an abuser by killing and victimizing the abused animal. Instead,our community that values animals’ lives, seeks humane options, and consults with community professionals seeking expertise for advice in planning. They do what they can to heal the damage done.
That was the humane sheltering mission and trajectory approved long ago by the broadly representative 2000 Citizens’ MCAS Task Force(report attached below)appointed by then County Chair Bev Stein. It has become a mission sabotaged by MCAS management in defiance of the county commissioners funding mission ‘mandates.’
Any apologist statement that humane sheltering creates safety concerns because “unsafe” dogs will be released into the community is false. The way to create safety is to replace ignorance with facts, plans and education.
A tri-county local example
Washington county has a smaller budget than MCAS and is also without the over one million dollar support from Dolly’s Fund, a restricted donation-driven fund for animals’ medical care. The county’s shelter addressed a case of animal abuse and deprivation of proper care with a plan, not an excuse, and a process of ongoing assessment and planning, first addressing the surgery needs for recovery.
After the dog’s physical injuries resolved, behavior challenges still remained. A highly qualified veterinarian in Portland with an advanced degree in behavioral veterinary medicine went to the shelter, observed and evaluated the special needs dog, then created a treatment plan.
The dog who had been abused and neglected then went to a rescue with the assessment plan accompanying him. An assessment plan was critical to recovery. The shelter that accomplished this operates out of an old and humble building without the funding,with fewer managers, and without a publicist (PR agent for rationalizing failures through FAQs).
At MCAS instead the management’s response is to kill every unwanted dog as “unsafe,” “unhealthy and untreatable” in closed door sessions. There is no other plan. From Spud MCAS 338010, recently killed as“unsafe” for barking at strangers to abused dogs, MCAS has a vocabulary for indifference: Lacking “resources” or “unsafe” are code reasons listed as reasons for killing out of indifference.
Please do not kill Almight. Indeed there are multiple options by just creating a plan not a dump site of excuses. Almight did nothing wrong, surrendered by his abusive owner. Silence about cruelty is another form of abuse. It’s community complicity.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD
Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog
Almight’s records, redacted
MCAS Task Force Findings, June 29, 2000
The Shocking Truth About Shock Collars, Three Oaks Animal Behavior Counseling, by Karen Holman
Shock Collars: Barbaric, Ineffective, and Unacceptable – NAVTA, by Steve Dale
Whats the problem with low-dose Shock collars, Tufts University, July 2006
Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite, Your Dog, December 2008
Words That Wound Your Dog, Tufts University, August 2016
Even Mild Punishment Has a Negative Impact, Tufts University, November 2020
How to Pet a Dog, Tufts University, September 2020 Update