Mia, ID# 301586
Mia, described by the county as a 4 year old cream Labrador mix and by the owner as a Great Pyrenees mix, was surrendered on June 26, 2025, and then immediately placed on the “Awaiting euthanasia” list the following day on June 27, 2025 for a bite incident that did not break the skin. The only intervention that saved Mia was a relative of the surrendering owner who contested the owner’s report and redeemed her the same day she was scheduled to be killed.
In 2000, a Multnomah County Task Force representing every county demographic, appointed by then County’ Chair Bev Stein, elected a progressive humane shelter model focused upon prevention and education with euthanasia as a last option should all efforts fail. The current Director Erin Grahek, abdicated her responsibility to this community and destroyed that elected model in favor of expedited killing.
As part of returning control to themselves, MCAS managers eliminated all community partners in determining animal dispositions. Trainers, credentialed animal behaviorists, volunteers, staff and interested citizens who were once included were eliminated from any participation in order to expedite killing. The county supervisors looked away.
Convenience euthanasia
MCAS managers never fact checked the scant information provided. They were happy to engage in convenience euthanasia. Their decision that killing her was the only way they could keep the community “safe” was based upon managerial laziness, a personal lack of integrity, and their dedication to lethal solutions. It runs counter to this community’s views about companion animals and community values and is an embarrassment to everyone in Multnomah County government.
June 27, 2025 Rounds Review,
“Rounds recognizes that there was a bite. It did not break the skin and therefore, there is no bite quarantine needed. Rounds recommends humane euthanasia due to displayed unpredictable and aggressive behavior to people as reported by the animal owner.”
Managers at MCAS have no background in animal behavior science and training. It is intentional. Lethal ignorance serves them well. They also fail the critically important expected task of objective data collection and the task of verifying reports. They use the deliberate absence of skills and avoidance of data gathering to facilitate killing at a rapid pace. The main priority is quickly moving dogs through, whether by careless adoptions or through killing them.
Mia was ordered killed based on the entirety of the following unverified and vague report, though fortunately a relative intervened the very day she was scheduled to be killed, saying that she wasn’t a dangerous dog and everyone had overreacted. If there had been owner surrender counseling, this would have been discovered during it.
There are no other reports on record except for an “at large” report December 15, 2023 (Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 285971) and an animal welfare complaint on October 28, 2023 from a neighbor that the owner’s two dogs, a Golden Retriever and a Labrador mix were outdoors all of the time without shelter and frequently without food or water, a complaint dismissed by the animal control officer after talking to the owner (Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 284909).
June 26, 2025 Animal Care Notes
“AO arrived with dog stating she needed to surrender the dog and refused to take it back as there were kids in the home and she was dangerous.
AO stated that her son had the dog on a walk, someone the dog knew (refused to tell me the person’s name or relation to the family) walked up and was talking with the son, Mia then attacked the man unprovoked by biting him on the arm. She said it didn’t break the skin that she knew of but didn’t see his arm. She was in the house and ran out when she heard people yelling, she assumed Mia had attacked the neighbors dog since she tries to attack other dogs.
AO refused to take dog back or look into rehoming resources. I advised based upon the history she has provided humane euthanasia is the likely outcome for the dog. AO understood and would like to be contacted for private cremation.”
The only advice MCAS provided was how to arrange a private cremation.
Management’s professional violations
- Failure to enforce the State required quarantine laws, and instead accepting a second hand unwitnessed report. Historically quarantine was mandated as a precaution if a bite incident could not be corroborated.
- Failure to investigate uncorroborated reports instead taking dictation from the owner as a professional behavior authority i.e. “… AO states that the dog has been increasingly aggressive towards people and has always been aggressive toward other animals.”
- Failure to counsel the owner about the single incident on record, the reason for surrender, about possible causes and ways to prevent recurrence while still abiding by safety constraints. MCAS only provides a list of “re-homing resources” that advise citizens to go somewhere else, usually to other rescues with wait lists.
MCAS isn’t mandated to take owner surrendered animals. They chose to accept surrendered animals for a $50 fee, board and euthanasia included.
MCAS managers are unprepared to counsel owners because of their premise that companion animals are potential pests, nuisances and liabilities best controlled by killing if any incident occurs. Education and prevention are not their concern.
The MCAS owner surrender form reads like a dating app. It is not a professional background history form critical to counseling. The MCAS owner surrender form is not followed up with questions.
There were no questions about the specific incident or the age of the child who was walking Mia. Important, as young children rarely maintain proper control. Likely incident factors include protecting the person holding the leash and the behavior of the victim towards the dog. Leash reactivity can contribute towards an incident because leashes prevent a dog from retreating from a stressor. Great Pyrenees as a breed are protective. Without understanding factors leading to an incident, incidents cannot be prevented in the future. Public safety depends upon advancing education and prevention.
Ignorance is the major factor contributing to owner surrenders. MCAS exploits ignorance to victimize and kill animals whose owners failed them. MCAS is happy to be the executioner.
Mia’s reprieve was not attributable to MCAS. The owner’s sister called on June 27, 2025, the same day Mia was to be killed stating Mia was not aggressive and that her sister who owned Mia had over reacted. The sister was told she could not reclaim as she was not the owner, but she could adopt her. Because Mia had a relative who wanted her she became “adoptable” no longer “unhealthy and untreatable.” The plan then was the owner would accompany the sister to reclaim and then re-home Mia. At no point was there any management intention or effort to educate the owner in order to replace fear with facts.
The biggest risk to public safety and the lives of companion animals in Multnomah County is its public shelter where the most unfortunate animals are warehoused, graded and killed every day.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
MCAS Records for Mia, redacted