Leo, ID# 365470
Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) managers have settled into their placid dump and dispose animal care practices after generously giving themselves permission for killing for any reason at all (See: MCAS assures animals aren’t euthanized for space and the response, “don’t believe euthanasia assurances”). By expanding the reasons for killing, they have replaced initiative and thought with excuses and laziness. Pet stores evaluate more carefully why a “product” has been returned than MCAS does to the nearly free animal dump site store that was once a public shelter. Since any excuse will do, the death rate is climbing rapidly, each death excused as “unavoidable” when any close reading of the record reveals gross incompetence driven also by indifference.
Only the death delivery day changes, The pattern is the same.
Previous practices
Under previous leadership, every adoption return was assessed to evaluate how to improve the odds towards a successful adoption; verification of alleged incidents was sought. if a dog with challenges needed help achieving adoption success, a plan, often including training, was implemented at MCAS. Dogs with challenges were not automatically killed or exported to rescues. Potential adopters were carefully screened. Staff had checked for landlord approval. Dogs left the shelter spayed or neutered.
Disposition Reviews included experts from the community, rescues, volunteers, and staff. Now all dispositions are decided behind closed doors by managers only, granting the power to kill without cause.
MCAS makes up rules for exclusion from adoption, fostering, or killing that must be followed. Then they decline an animal opportunities and kill an animal because their hands are tied by the rules they made up. The absolutist rules they conceived were created without any community input and their summaries are vague and devoid of objective information. These are not rules that assess risk. They are like the game of Lotto: Put the red apple card on the red apple picture when the causes and solutions for incidents are multi-faceted, not simplistic.
October 21, 2025, Rounds Review
“Due to multiple bite history, this dog does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster. We will seek transfer, follow up 10/24.”
“Multiple bite history”, a vague general term that implies serious public safety concerns, exaggerated by omitting details… The term “multiple bite history” is automatically linked to “does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster” regardless of merit or circumstances. Thinking is not allowed. The outcome is automatic.
In evaluating bite histories, it is never about “multiple bites,” but how the bite incidents happened. Key questions include, ‘What were the stressors’ and ‘can future bite incidents be prevented.’ In every summary conclusion there should be factual support and objective documentation. In this and nearly every case there is none: No bite pictures, no Emergency Room report; no questions. The managers are blind scribes.
In most cases, the adopter has created the stressor but MCAS gives adopters free passes because MCAS Operations Manager Andrew Mathias runs MCAS like a car lot: If you don’t like the dog, bring him on back. We will dispose of him for you.
MCAS allows a short timeframe when they seek a rescue to take animals they intend to dispose of due to the deeply flawed judgment of the Rounds Review, entirely beholden to MCAS management. Few rescues can respond rapidly and MCAS has rapid deadlines. ‘The trains must run on time.’ In the past, MCAS set up a pathway for success. If a rescue was not available, volunteers, trainers, and staff trained to work with a dog’s challenges often provided training followed by careful placements. Death or transfer to rescues were not the default options for dogs with challenges.
When MCAS Rounds Review met again on October 24 after recommending seeking a rescue transfer on October 21, they gave seeking rescue options one more day until October 25, before killing Leo. There is no reference in his records about which or how many rescues were contacted.
October 24, 2025
“Rounds met and will place individual pleas out to rescues – Due to human aggression and multiple bites will be moving forward with euthanasia if no rescue placement is found. Will FU 10/25.”
October 26, 2025
“JRT Terrier rescue declined due to possible dog/dog aggression noted in both adoption returns along with multiple bites resulting from potential resource guarding.”
October 27, 2025
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”
When it comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Cornell University Dogwatch Newsletter, February 2005:
“Labels can be misleading. Because aggression can be very specific rather than generalized, labeling a dog as possessive, dominant, territorial, or predatory can be misleading. Labels imply that a dog’s behavior is consistent across a variety of circumstances, which may or may not be the case at all. To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful simply to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.”
Analyzing and Modifying Aggression, Dr. Suzanne Hetts and Dr. Nancy Williams
MCAS has an allergic reaction to responsibility. MCAS managers set up a series of self-generated limitations and false “requirements” that they then reference as “forcing them” to kill Leo. Owners often create opportunities for aggression. MCAS instead of educating the owner, kills the victim. Leo was not universally aggressive.
MCAS writes in generalities to escape solutions. There are solutions.
Leo’s History
Leo’s owner went into an acute care facility, leaving Leo in the care of a couple who turned him in to police officers on August 27, 2025 stating that Leo was becoming aggressive. The officers took Leo to MCAS. MCAS did not ask questions about what was meant by “aggression.” Nor did they speak to Leo’s original owner about Leo expecting to ask if he was willing to surrender him. He was not and was going to try to seek other options.
Until his first adoption on September 5, 2025, Leo’s behavior was positive and unremarkable:
August 28, 2025
“Playgroup
Yard Summary: Some brief spats of play with Latke. When Bram rushed towards him he corrected hard, jumping up and air snapping at his side. Disengaged and did not have any other issues.
Returning to Kennel: Wanted to pull back towards playgroup. Tolerated being picked up and carried back to kennel, relaxed in handler’s arms.”
There was only one data collection.
September 2, 2025
“Data collection
When I passed outside kennel in a.m. I called to Leo, he came running out to greet me with wagging tail. Jumped up on door and licked my hand. I returned later to move him to an office. He readily approached inside door. I opened it and placed slip lead as he hesitantly walked out. Walked well to office, loose body, some tail wags. Removed leash and he began to drink from water bowl. Accepted pets on head and back as he drank. Retrieved a few more items for office setup, and he had begun to whine and paw at pen people were present.”
Adopted for $25 on September 5, 2025 and returned on September 9, 2025, the return reasons reflect an adopter whose repeated actions created stress. There are no bite pictures. MCAS takes faith based information.
September 9, 2025
“AO stated dog rolled around in something outside so they took him inside to his walk in shower and dog began biting at water, then bit at owner. Dog bit again Sunday 9/7 when AO was sitting on the couch and was trying to move the dog by pushing pillow in his face. Dog had lunged towards the owner while growling and bit the owner multiple times. This morning 9/9 AO attempted to clip some of dogs matts [sic] on rear end with scissors and dog bit him multiple times again. AO states that dog is great and would sleep next to him in bed and always follow him around. AO marked not great with kids and was unable to clarify. ”
The adopter reported he had to “punch the dog off, then sprayed with water bottle.”
Instead of analyzing the circumstances of the incidents, MCAS applied waivers to disown responsibility. The waivers included Resource Guarding, which is speculative since the bite incident did not occur because Leo was protecting the couch but because of the adopter’s aggressive actions when he precipitously pushed a pillow in Leo’s face. Forcibly washing Leo and clipping off mats was the direct result of the adopter’s handling insensitivity, not Leo’s handling sensitivity. There are examples throughout the record where Leo welcomed and was responsive to contact. He just didn’t welcome bullying. He also didn’t welcome forced intrusive intake exams when MCAS did not practice “fear free handling, ” and instead applied a “medical handling waiver” to dismiss their use of force.
Following this adoption, MCAS also added a child restriction waiver based on a written remark in the owner surrender form “No Kids” which was never clarified by the returning adopter or MCAS. There are no bite pictures; hence no ability to confirm whether the reported bites broke the skin, and what incidents, if any, preceded such bites. No information was sought about whether or not medical attention was acquired.
There are no further notes about Leo’s behavior at MCAS before his second adoption for $25 on September 21, 2025. He was returned October 13, 2025, 22 days later for bite incidents.
Ownership History, second adoption
“Bite me on hand when getting him off table.
Bite me on thigh again after trying to get him down.
Bite my grandson on upper left arm when he got into my car.”
The first two bites were provoked by the adopter’s mismanagement. MCAS had no questions about the adopter’s methods of seeking compliance with commands. The bite to the grandson as he was entering the car was reported to have broken the skin but MCAS sought no bite pictures and did not ask if emergency medical attention was sought, leaving uncertainty for whether the other two incidents broke the skin.
It is unclear if this was an example of referenced potential resource guarding. It is flimsy speculation. There are no other examples in the record that suggest resource guarding. Being forced off the couch seems more a reaction to the first adopter’s aggressive conduct than resource guarding.
Leo was adopted with a no child restriction. The second adopter ignored that restriction. How old was the child? How was he behaving when he entered the car where Leo was already settled in?
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”
The human aggression was a human who was aggressive against a small dog. The “multiple” bites were provoked and minor; it is unclear how many of the alleged bites broke the skin. The two bites reported to have broken the skin (no pictures, no evidence) by report seemed insignificant.
Limiting options to rescue only
It is not up to rescues to “correct” challenges that occur because of MCAS errors in judgment. Correct the practice of careless adoptions that lead to incidents. The Jack Russel Terrier rescue’s reasons for declining Leo were for “possible dog aggression” and the simply incorrect summary that all the alleged “bites” resulted from potential resource guarding—conjectures based upon vague uninformative entries in MCAS records.
About “possible dog aggression: One adopter described Leo as playful and easy going with new dogs, also adding that his dog was afraid of Leo but there was no conflict. What did that mean? Leo did well in the play group. The second adopter circled both “easy going” and “poorly” in the survey question about meeting new dogs. There was no clarification about the conflicting information in that response.
Poor and/or inaccurate history taking by MCAS costs animals options. MCAS repeatedly fails to take an objective detailed history. They create uncertainty by their poor history taking compounded by a lack of understanding of dog behavior. Rescues then without reliable information are more likely to reject potential candidates. It is how they solve the dilemma of conflicting or absent history. MCAS creates the rejection.
MCAS also screens adopters poorly and seldom intervenes to decline an adoption that seems problematic. They set the road to failure; Then uniformly label the dog “unhealthy and untreatable” for their failure if a rescue cannot be found.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Leo’s MCAS records, redacted (Updated from ‘Awaiting Euthanasia’)
When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Hetts, CAAB, Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, March 2006
Dog-Dog Aggression by Pat Miller, CBCC-KA CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal, May 2024.
Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite by Pat Miller, YOUR DOG, December 2008.
Set of Resource Guarding articles: (1) Guarding Resources — Including You, (2) On Guard?, (3) Mine, All Mine!, (4) Guarding Dog?, (5) Food, toys and owner: ‘Mine, all mine!’, (6) Peace in the Pack.