Author Archives: mcaswatchdog

MCAS management: The gang that couldn’t shoot straight, and the sharp increase in animal deaths: Mia the Great Pyrenees/Retriever

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

MCAS Records_301586 Mia-Redacted Download

Toby: a 12 year old Pomeranian killed for “Quality of Life,” a.k.a. ‘Old Dog Syndrome’

Leave a reply

Toby, ID #320255

Old dogs by definition have multiple medical issues. None of Toby’s “multiple medical conditions” were “untreatable” or “unmanageable.” He took up little space. He also should not have been kept in the general population where disease and stress are rampant. But MCAS’ attitude is ‘Kill them if you can,’ contrary to the public’s values, ‘Save them if you can.’ Once MCAS had medical and hospice fosters and there are hospice and medical rescues. But MCAS is about efficiency and saving space, not saving lives now.

June 28, 2025

“Rounds recommends humane euthanasia at the end of the stray hold period due to the poor quality of life resulting from medical issues.”

A parrot could improve on this recommendation.

Toby’s medical issues listed below had solutions because they were treatable and manageable. His quality of life was well within normal limits even without care (see notes below) and he wasn’t moribund or at the end of “end stage disease” DMUU-2, a throw away category for every unwanted animal with any medical condition whatsoever.

Quality of life – Stray Pet Profile June 22, 2025

Found on the shore of the Columbia River:

“Easy going when meeting strangers; left alone and good in the house; Easy going with cats and other dogs. “

“Very sweet old man. Quiet. Loves to be held. Good with peeing, pooping, on leash.”

June 22, 2025 Intake Behavior Observations:

“Allowed most handling and treatments. ACR to AH for multiple reason [sc]. Rec rescue/transfer path if not RTO.”

Toby’s geriatric multiple health concerns were treatable and manageable. He wasn’t “moribund.” Treating conditions including any associated pain enhances quality of life.

“Assessment
– Under-conditioned- r/o systemic disease, decreased caloric intake due to oral pain, malnutrition, parasites
-Cognitive dysfunction
-OS nuclear sclerosis vs. cataract, OD microphthalmia w/cataract, limited vision to non-visual
-Severe periodontal disease
-SC mass left thorax – r/o neoplasia vs benign
– Heart murmur [ 2/6 left atypical systolic murmur; regular heart rate and rhythm] r/o degenerative valve disease
-Suspect OA/DJD [osteoarthritis/ Degenerative Joint Disease] +/- IVDD [Intervertebral disc disease]”

Each condition was treatable and also manageable. “Quality of Life” is a suspect category at MCAS. To see old dogs with “multiple conditions” happily living go to anyone’s home with an old dog. Visit Back on Track Veterinary Rehabilitation Center to see old dogs having the time of their lives.

Multnomah County Animal Shelter is not a “shelter,” but rather a careless holding facility where it’s just easier to kill than to care.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS Records for Toby, redacted

MCAS Records_320255 Toby-Redacted Download

MCAS: Using AI generated adoption descriptions sets Florence up for failure

Leave a reply

Florence: A short history of MCAS failure, Florence finally finds her way home

Florence, ID# 355672

Found stray on May 31, 2025, Florence was adopted on June 16, 2025. The same day her owners called to say this was their dog and were told she had been adopted and that they no longer had any reclamation rights. She was returned June 24, 2025, 8 days later by the adopter who had immediately called MCAS for advice the following day after her adoption. On June 17, MCAS had little to offer:

June 17, 2025

“Adopter Diane called for advice. She notes that Florence has been lunging, barking and snarling at other dogs on walks and next door, she notes that Florence lunges at her cat(s). Francis spoke with her 6/16 about possible prey drive. I suggested she seek a trainer through OHS or other providers, and that if this was not a good match she could return the dog. Diane asked if it was possible that she be a foster for Florence until MCAS could find a new adopter. I said that is not one of our pathways, but she could apply to be a foster parent. I suggested she attempt to manage and re-direct the behaviors or seek assistance and that she can return the dog during the 30 days. She was very insistent that she had been mislead by our Bio and Behavior notes, though we gave her a copy in total. That if the dog was returned management would use the new information about her behavior to assign a pathway and change requirements and descriptions appropriately.”

Without a behavior and training department, MCAS has nothing to offer dogs or adopters except “Tough for you.” They could have told the adopter that there was an option to return Florence to her owner; and indeed had she not done so it is a fact that fostering with training assistance, which MCAS denied as an option, would also have helped both MCAS and the adopter. It was an opportunity for both.

There are no shortages of training resources. Highly regarded resources are available locally. Instinct Dog training, a highly regarded behavior and training resource run by respected professionals with advanced degrees offers free online training for leash reactivity challenges that keep companion dogs safe in public spaces.

The adopter’s extensive detailed critique with compelling examples of a flawed system is worth reading carefully. Given MCAS’ habit of frequently avoiding questions (FAQ’s) it will never see the light of day.

Florence’s AI generated description fell short… “loves a cozy spot for a nap, a gentle stroll around the neighborhood, and plenty of quality time…” Only after her return did MCAS add “While Florence is incredibly sweet, she’s also a strong girl who gets excited on walks and pulls hard on leash, needing an adopter prepared to work with her on manners and comfortably manage a powerful dog.” AI can only work with what it has been provided. It is not nuanced if MCAS is not. MCAS should learn as much as it can about animals charged to its care before offering them to adopters, but the “Move them in, Move them out” protocol interferes with honoring that process.

After Florence’s return, MCAS called her owners regarding her June 25 return giving them one day, until June 26, to redeem her. They did.

MCAS prioritizes adoptions over pet retention (contrary to the funded mission), when Florence’s owners called to redeem her on June 16, 2025, they were told she had been adopted on the same day that they had called to redeem her. It was ‘too late’ according to MCAS. From that day forward it was a roundabout to get home.

Oregon property law allows far more time to redeem lost property when an owner is seeking that property than the county ordinance’s 3-5 day hold permits and Oregon law trumps MCAS’ stray and owner hold ordinance. But few can afford to sue when MCAS refuses to return a dog when his/her/their owner is seeking their dog and MCAS has adopted their dog out. It not only defies the state law, it also defies common sense and compassion. Once when an adopter refused to return an owned dog shortly after MCAS adopted the dog out, the adopter, did refuse to return the dog with the county’s reassurances. Six months later, after a lawsuit in which the owner was represented by Attorney Geordie Duckler, the owner won and the adopter had to return the dog and pay fees.

Before MCAS became hostile to and favored adoptions over redemption the MCAS practice was to return dogs to owners if an owner came to reclaim a dog within days after an adoption. It made sense and prioritized the agency’s mission. Now that has changed. Dogs are preselected for adoption during the stray hold time and because of preselection and the fact that MCAS has a perfunctory owner trace, owners seeking their dogs lose their rights more frequently.

Florence is an example of the humane and real costs of prioritizing adoptions over redemption and also of the frustrations adopters experience when they ask for help and MCAS tells them it’s not their problem: Go somewhere else or bring the dog back as a “poor fit.” Dogs, who are often vulnerable given MCAS demographic, often leave MCAS unprepared, to adopters who are also unprepared for a dog that has just exited a toxic shelter where nothing but waivers excusing effort, substitute for training plans. Once MCAS had trainers on site who could help adopters and also assist foster persons with dogs in need of training. Now all dogs go out with waivers covering every possible challenge.

Cheap is only cheap for MCAS management, not animals or people.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Florence’s MCAS records, redacted:

MCAS Records_355672 Florence-Redacted Download

Falsifying death certificates to kill shelter dogs: Petey, the Little Chihuahua

Leave a reply

Petey, ID# 357581

It’s easier to kill an animal by through false justifications than it is to create humane solutions that respect animals’ lives, and if an agency is killing for miscellaneous reasons it’s easier to call the animal “unsafe” and “unhealthy and untreatable” to expedite a goal: Getting rid of the animals. Owner surrendered dogs are almost always killed if there is any historical incident of any sort. The surrendering fee for the owner is $50, the cheapest price in town for a bundled sale for board and kill.

The reasons for killing are always grab bag lists that make no sense because they are often vague, non specific and non-descriptive. They are conclusions that skip over evidence, investigation and interventions that correct behavior challenges and instead charge animals with “crimes” that can only be dealt with, in their view, by killing. They mask “convenience euthanasia.”

Killing is simply preferred although even for bite incidents, seldom required to “protect public safety.”

“I have long suspected that many people perceive injuries from dog bites through a different lens (possibly a magnifying glass) than the one they use for injuries from other ordinary causes. In fact the data on ER and hospital treatment for dog bites bear out this suspicion. As a class of injury receiving medical treatment, dog bites, on average, are less severe (according to the accepted measurement, called an injury severity scale) than any other class of common injury. The average treated dog bite is rated as minor, at the lowest level, 1 out of 6. (a Level 1 injury is one from which the person recovers quickly with no lasting impairment, a level 6 is one likely to be fatal. Only one percent of all treated bites rate as more severe than Level 1.)”

— (“Dogs bite but balloons and slippers are more dangerous” Janis Bradley, James and Kenneth Publishers 2005, page 47)

Ironically MCAS does magnify all bite pictures as often enough to show that the bites that broke the skin are not clearly visible. In Petey’s case there are no bite pictures to magnify. None are provided as evidence in Petey’s public records. His two officially reported bite records, the first was left detailed injury, and the other amounted to a bit of bruising under a thumb nail.

Client mentioned getting dog from Oregon Dog Rescue since April 2024. She said dog bite [at] shelter when having collar placed.

Dog bit [owner] today when cleaning rear after stress defecating. Bite was to nail of thumb causing bruising beneath the nail.

The companion dogs described below were owner surrendered and subsequently killed. Petey’s is the first on this list. In every case there was no dedicated investigation, no questions asked or effort to validate owner claims. The owner’s word is taken on faith. Alternatives are not explored. There is also no owner surrender counseling to seek potential non-lethal humane solutions based upon training and education to prevent future incidents. Appropriate re-homing is not considered. The dog did the “crime” and the uniform penalty is death.

MCAS managers hark back to an ancient era when dogs were viewed as pests, nuisances and liabilities. Despite progressive animal behavior science evidence based solutions accompanied by the 2022 Oregon Values and Beliefs Center survey that “Nearly all Oregonians consider their pets part of their family (93%), MCAS managers defy their funded humane animal shelter mission.

Petey 357581, a 7-year-old, 19-pound, male Chihuahua Spitz mix:

-Impounded at MCAS on January 07, 2024,
-Transferred to Oregon Dog Rescue on January 22, 2024,
-Owner surrendered to MCAS on June 16, 2025,
-Awaiting euthanasia three days later on June 19, 2025
-Promptly killed the following day on June 20,2025.

MCAS specializes in speed of entry and exit, a singular efficiency. Their only method of addressing fearful dogs, commonplace among the MCAS demographic. is administering escalating doses of psychotropics followed by disowning all responsibility for a plan to help fearful dogs become less fearful. Adding waivers for handling and medical sensitivity is an escape hatch. The waivers are added to instruct the public how to manage and rehabilitate fearful dogs, while they ignore the written instructions advising others.

Petey was killed on June 20, 2025, designated “Unhealthy and Untreatable” with the following vague thoughtless remark:

June 19, 2025

“Rounds met and will move forward with euthanasia due to bite history and aggression.”

That is not a risk assessment. That is a meaningless pointless generalization. The history of bite incidents are not outlined. Aggression is multifactorial determined by many causes with many solutions once stressors are identified that serve to prevent recurrence.

Risk assessments are not a jumbled list of excuses. Risk assessments outline incidents, factors leading to incidents, and identify prevention interventions. They are not “My dog ate my assessment homework.”

Petey was first impounded at MCAS on January 7, 2024 after his owner died, then officially surrendered to the agency two days later on January 9, 2024, as the owner’s wife was blind and stated she was unable to care for Petey. On January 22, 2024, he was transferred back to Oregon Dog Rescue, the original adoption agency. Oregon Dog Rescue adopted him out again sometime in April 2024.

Petey was surrendered to MCAS again on June 16, 2025, after he was alleged to have bitten the owner while she was “trying to clean poopy butt at Paws and Claws [a veterinary hospital].” However no evidence is provided indicating a bite: No picture, no ER medical report.

If the alleged bite broke the skin then, by state law, that would require a 10-day quarantine. Petey was killed on the 4^th day of impound. We are left to guess the significance of the bite, if there was one, and whether or not it broke the skin. It is left to one’s imagination. A veterinary technician from Paws and Claws Pet Medical Center stated:

“…stated [about the bite incident that occurred while the owner was trying to clean Petey’s bottom], that dog was extremely high FAS [fear, anxiety, stress] when seen. It was their second attempt trying to look at him but they couldn’t touch him and that he spread poop everywhere. He also bites the owner, including in her sleep.”

The way to prevent biting the owner in her sleep, if an accurate statement, is to have Petey sleep in a separate area.

At veterinary clinics, the first rule of fear free visits is to not force handling when a dog is afraid or tense. It is unclear if any psychotropics, which help lower fear in stressful settings, were prescribed prior to this veterinary visit. This was not a ‘fear free’ visit.

The “bite” reported above after the owner tried to clean Petey’s bottom occurred because stressors were stacked, as a result of mismanagement.

On June 18, 2025, after Petey’s surrender by his owner for allegedly biting her during the veterinary visit, Oregon Dog Rescue declined to take Petey back except to euthanize him.

June 18, 2025, E-mail received from Oregon Dog Rescue

“Hi there,

We will sadly have to euthanize if he has a bite history. That is really sad as he was a staff favorite when we picked him up from you last time. He spent most of his time being carried around.

That woman harrassed us for over a month to let her adopt him and we didn’t want her to because he disliked her immediately when they met.

Our vet is out on medical leave until next week: can we pick him up next Monday?”

It is unclear what Oregon Dog Rescue considered a “bite history.” There are no quarantine or incident reports on record, and that is required if an alleged “bite” broke the skin.

It is from their own remarks that Oregon Dog Rescue knowingly adopted Petey to an inappropriate applicant.

MCAS’ single offer of help and intervention was we can do the euthanasia here.

June 18, 2025

“Sent another e-mail to Oregon Dog Rescue for clarification on if they plan on humane euthanasia for sure, as it would be more stressful to move him again when we can just do it here, pending we come to that conclusion for his pathway. At this time, I haven’t received a response back.”

It isn’t “humane” to call killing a small fearful dog “here” or “there” at a different location. That was the only point of interest between Oregon Dog Rescue and MCAS management. Not once was an intervention plan put in place to address Petey’s stress, escalated by owner and MCAS mismanagement. There are many examples.

Even MCAS’ attempt to scan Petey for a microchip on June 18, 2025, (Many dogs are fearful of wands going over their heads), was clumsy and misguided, putting a checklist ahead of a dog’s comfort.

June 18, 2025, Admissions Exam #2:

“Microchip Scan (Positive/Negative/Unable) Unable

Weight (lbs) 19#

Observations During Interaction: Approached kennel front, Petey was already tense on our approach with hard stare, ears flattened back, trembling and lip licking while sitting behind his kuranda bed near his water dish. JG had wand scanner and went into kennel, keeping his bed between them for safety. She took about 1-2 steps into kennel and Petey began growling, snarling with a very tight lip while baring all front teeth and continuing lip lick and did lunge forward multiple times towards JG id she reached towards him with the wand scanner. Due to his high FAS and clear safety concern, chose to end interaction.”

A normal agency would not put identifying whether or not there was a microchip ahead of a terrified little dog’s fear. A checklist took precedence over creating comfort. Nor would a normal agency escalate a little dog’s fear by their own provocative behavior. MCAS workers, who are not trained in dealing with animals in their care, improvise and force engagement. They created a “safety risk” through their insensitive forward advances then blamed Petey for the conditions they created.

MCAS has an “unhealthy and untreatable” culture where nearly every animal becomes afraid, and are then killed as a result of agency cruelty.

Petey was put to death 4 days after entering a monstrous shelter, where the only relief from suffering caused by MCAS management was to kill him.

Why is this called “humane?” Why do the County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of County Commissioners fund and support government sponsored animal cruelty?

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS Records for Petey, redacted

MCAS Records_357581 Petey-Redacted Download

The No. 1 Reason for Aggression, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, July 2014

The No 1 Reason for Aggression_Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_July 2014 Download

The Neurochemistry of Fear by Jessica Hekman DVM MS, Whole Dog Journal, December 2015

The Neurochemistry of Fear-Whole Dog Journal_December 2015 Download

MCAS Medical Handling Sensitivity Waiver

MCAS Medical Handling Sensitivity Waiver Download

Understanding Reactivity by Pat Miller CBCC-KA CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal,
June 2024

Understanding Reactivity-Pat Miller CBCC-KA CPDT-KA_Whole Dog Journal-June 2024 Download

Elektra: A fragile medically neglected French Bull dog lost at a park, neglected and killed by MCAS

Leave a reply

Where was Dolly’s Fund?

Dolly’ Fund donations intended by the public for the special medical needs of shelter animals is seldom accessed for animals. Despite audit concerns, and documented in 2024 of the diversion of the restricted funds elsewhere, Dolly’s Fund is still not reaching animals with medical needs a year later.

Multnomah County Auditor: Animal Shelter still misusing earmarked donations

The fund was named Dolly’s Fund in honor of Dolly, a medically fragile dachshund with a grave skin condition that MCAS veterinarians and animal care staff treated in 2010, restoring Dolly’s life. The fund was established as a restricted donation fund by the County Commissioners to be used to finance medical care for animal patients like Dolly, though, as reported in the Oregonian article, they have been using it outside that scope, including to pay for salaries.

Elektra, ID# 350281 and Reznor, ID# 350283

Dolly’s pictures, before and after care, are featured above alongside the pictures of Elektra and her partner Reznor. They were separated at MCAS; Elektra who came with a severe skin condition and evidence of other neglect, in addition to likely being bred for profit, was killed; Reznor went into foster care and a rapid $25 adoption.

Had Dolly been impounded today, the funds now donated in her name would have never reached her. Dogs with special medical needs are triaged and killed at MCAS unless other rescues, often with less funding but an investment in compassion will take them.

In 2025, MCAS no longer saves the lives of dogs like Dolly, despite having the means through Dolly’s Fund and the ability to support dogs with special medical needs through medical and hospice fosters. Once they did. It has become a cull and kill operation devoid of all compassion. If words could resurrect Elektra’s life to save her I would, but it’s too late. She was summarily killed on May 2, 2025, 9 days after being left at MCAS along with her partner, Reznor, from whom she was separated and saw briefly only once on April 24 as he walked by. From Reznor’s records, April 24, 2025: “…Dog followed me to play yard, tail low, and ears back. On the way he had a good sniff with Elektra (350281).”

During her brief impoundment, Elektra was frightened, anxious, and avoidant.

The last behavior note was on April 30, 2025 when Elektra developed bloody diarrhea, an event so commonplace that MCAS has created a diarrhea waiver to “indemnify” (from their wording) themselves against it.

April 30, 2025,

“Passing by kennel in AM I noticed a large amount of blood. Dog was running back and forth, slipping and sliding, ears back, eyes wide, barking with whining growls. I went to outside door, and she approached, continuing to bark. When I cracked door she attempted to move through it, then backed away. I was able to toss leash over her head. Once leashed she walked out of kennel, pacing back and forth near my side. JB had called Animal Health, and CP [an Animal Care Technician 2] came to observe. I put her back in kennel, so they could sedate for an exam. Returned with snake hook to removed [sic] leash. She mouthed towards it once, retreating. I held door slightly cracked, and she approached. I was able to hook and remove lead. She retreated inside.”

Later on the day of April 30, Elektra was examined by an on site veterinarian followed by an assessment and plan.

“Assessment
-Bloody stool 4/29 and blood from anus today- R/O acute hemorrhagic diarrhea syndrome, open
-Prolapsed gland of the third eye lid (cherry eye) OD (right eye)
-Bilateral otitis externa
-LH lameness- R/O OA (osteoarthritis)/ DJD (degenerative joint disease, hip dysplasia, soft tissue injury, open
-Dermatitis- likely secondary to allergies
– Bilateral otitis externa- – likely secondary to allergies
-Mild dental disease
High FaS [Fear, Anxiety, and Stress] prior to sedation
2 long scars on ventral abdomianal midline -R/O previous C-section, OVH (Ovariohysterectomy, laparotomy, open)”

The treatment plan included fluids, applicable medications, a bland diet for 7 days or longer if needed and treatment of her ears.

But Elekra was allowed no time to recover and heal. Instead Elektra was ordered killed the following day on May 1, as “unhealthy and untreatable,” a diagnosis unsupported by veterinary assessment and in direct contrast to the available behavior reports.

May 1, 2025,

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to compounding behavior and medical concerns.”

Elektra’s death was not “humane,” as MCAS managers/leaders described. It was opportunistic and borne out of indifference.

The majority of the medical concerns were linked to allergies, none of which were remotely“unhealthy and untreatable.” The medical treatment program was interrupted and disrupted one day after it was prescribed. And Elektra’s fears and anxiety were more than likely linked to the distress caused by her severe skin condition which had not been treated.

Elektra’s medical and behavior concerns were compounded, only in the sense that her anxious and fearful behavioral distress were linked to and exacerbated/caused by her painful medical conditions. Research, as well as common sense, support that pain from medical skin conditions can cause diarrhea, while also creating anxiety/fear and aggression. Relieving pain and suffering from Elektra’s medical condition would have resolved stacked stressors causing behavioral fear and irritability

American Veterinary Medical Association Jul 11, 2022 — Pruritic, atopic dogs showed significant increases in fear- and anxiety-related behaviors as well as aggression compared with a large control)

It is clear that all of her behaviors described in the records were fearful and avoidant; and not aggressive at all.

April 25, 2025,

“Data Collection

Elektra was avoidant in kennel. Barking and huffing, stiff, ears back, eyes wide. Would retreat to far side. When I entered kennel she began small hops with her barks, and some whining growls. Glancing around kennel. I moved to inside door, and opened it, holding her leash and collar inside, she approached to sniff it, and I swung slip lead over her head. She barked at hopped, then followed me out of kennel. In play yard she began high pitched whining.

Followed me through yards for a few laps, then down to agility trail. On trail she began to paint [sic] tongue lolling out, walking at my heel. I crouched down, and she whined and moved away. I sat still for a moment, and she moved near my side for a brief sniff of my treat pouch. Startled and jerked back when I reached for it to offer treat, No interest in treats outside of kennel.

Any movement towards he [sic] would cause her to move away, flinch or whine. Returned towards outside of kennel, and she pulled towards the inside. I began to maneuver slip lead, attempting to open loop. She returned to her barking with small hops, ears back, eyes wide. Some whining growls, then retreating towards inside, tightening loop back up.

I had brought her leash and collar from kennel front, and was able to drop it through slip lead loop, using it to pull the leash over her head. She air snapped at it once when it was near her face. Once leash was off she ran to outside door, seeking exit. I was able to use leashed [sic] and door to block her, and exit kennel. No reaction towards leashes, just avoided them.”

There was only one previous behavior data collection on April 24, and described similar fearful avoidant behaviors, not aggression. Elektra’s behavior harmed no one. It may be that MCAS managers don’t know how to manage an animal’s fear, the majority caused by MCAS environment and policies. But mislabeling dogs to kill them is a deliberate evasion of responsibility and victimizes the animals they have targeted. They designate animals what they have proven themselves to be: “unhealthy and untreatable,” and it is another form of government created animal abuse.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS records for Elektra, redacted

MCAS Records_350281 Elektra-Redacted Download

MCAS records for Reznor, redacted

MCAS Records_350283 Reznor-Redacted Download

Study links skin allergies in dogs to problem behaviors, American Veterinary Medical Association, November 2019

Study links skin allergies in dogs to problem behaviors_American Veterinary Medical Association-November 2019 Download

Associations Between Atopic Dermatitis and Anxiety, Aggression, and Fear-Based Behaviors in Dogs, Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, July 2022

McAuliffeetal-2022-dermatitisandbehavior Download

MCAS Violence towards animals: Vengeance killing; Chronus and Rhea

Leave a reply

Chronus, ID# 349575 and Rhea, ID# 349576

MCAS’ Budgeted Mission

“Historically, the primary role of MCAS has been animal control enforcement and stray animal sheltering. In harmony with County equity goals and the MCAS North Star of providing quality care for animals and equitable services for the community, MCAS is shifting resources toward supporting pet owners to care for and retain their animals. The aim is to prevent animals from needing shelter due to surrender or abandonment, and to intervene prior to the need for enforcement activity.”– 2024 and 2025

MCAS does not support pet owners to care for and retain their animals. For $50 anyone can surrender their companion animals, fill out a check list, then leave them behind. There is no owner surrender counseling concerning alternatives to surrender and no education and prevention. It is a cull and kill dump site for unwanted animals.

Because there are no avenues for accountability, MCAS managers have destroyed the shelter’s compassionate mission and replaced it with their own: Killing animals for whatever manufactured reason they can to dispose of them, contrary to values the Multnomah county community shares with other citizens in Oregon.

An Eye for an Eye; A Tooth for a Tooth

At MCAS, if a dog kills a cat; then the dog should be killed even when there are many safe humane options and despite that owner carelessness caused the fatal incident. That was why Chronus, 5 years old, and Rhea, 3 years old, were surrendered. They were ordered to be put to death on April 18, 2025, one day after their surrender on April 17, 2025.

The agency’s Rounds Review Committee, managers who considered no humane alternatives, declared them “Unhealthy and Untreatable” and ordered them killed despite their positive traits and friendliness towards the other family cats. There was no apparent discussion. Both were promptly and efficiently destroyed in an assembly line one right after the other, Chronus at 8:26 AM; Rhea at 8:31 AM on April 19, the morning after they were ordered killed.

April 18, 2025

“Rounds met and will proceed with euthanasia due to uninterruptible aggressive drive towards other animals in the home, resulting in the death of the animal.”

It wasn’t “uninterruptible,” and the statement “uninterruptible” is not a reason to kill an animal. The statement “aggressive drive towards other animals in the home” was false and an intended over generalization to exaggerate an incident as if it were a willful crime. Both Chronus and Rhea were friendly with the 2 confident resident cats also in residence, but would chase the new fearful cat when it ran from them.

“Dogs killed AO’s cat today. Said they have three cats, have lived fine with the two that aren’t afraid of the dogs, but the newest cat is fearful and will run from them. Today -they chased, attacked and killed. AO had to beat the dogs with a metal pipe to break up fight/attack.”

The owners knew that there was a safety risk with the newest cat but had no plan in place to keep the dogs and the fearful cat safe and apart. There are many known ways to secure the safety of cats when living with dogs. And it is well known that an animal who runs can trigger prey drive in another. The incident was caused by carelessness. MCAS then killed the dogs for owner carelessness. That is retaliatory: To cost them their lives.

At MCAS there is no owner surrender counseling to generate and consider alternatives. This time was no different than any time at MCAS. Both dogs were killed so swiftly there was not even time to re-consider other courses of action after the immediacy of the incident. There was no time to reflect. In the past, former MCAS director Hank Miggins recognized that importance and would defer formal surrender until families had time to reflect so they would not act impulsively immediately after an incident and later come to regret their decision. Now three animals are dead despite effective humane alternatives.

Animals kill out of instinct. Multnomah County managers kill out of convenience, completely subverting the county’s animal services mission, first adopted in the 2000 Citizens’ MCAS Task Force findings, that directed the shelter towards consideration of euthanasia as a last resort. It is almost always possible to preserve an animal’s life and well being alongside public safety. Killing was to be a consideration only after all other options had been exhausted. After the Task force findings were implemented, animal control failed to follow-through with the findings. Now, community members and professional experts once part of the shelter have been excluded.

MCAS managers have subverted the county elected mission with singular efficiency. Their efficiency is rapid killing without cause or reasonable consideration of alternatives, followed in every case by falsely labeling the cause for their victims’ deaths as “Unhealthy and Untreatable” despite all evidence to the contrary. The animals have no representation. In-house managers can act with the authority of a dictatorship having ejected all community members and professional experts who were once part of disposition reviews.

Failing to protect animals

MCAS also fails to address animal welfare concerns. There were no questions asked about the evidence of neglect when Chronus and Rhea were surrendered.

Medical Intake/Update: Chronus

April 18, 2025

“… Dog appeared fearful when attempted to slip lead in kennel. Froze but walked with a loose leash at my side. Ribs are apparent and has obvious waist. 3/9 BCS [Body Condition Score]…

…Plan: Adding second feed to medication list for AH [Animal Health] to manage.”

No need. The next day he was killed.

Medical Intake: Rhea

April 17, 2025

“…Social with handlers and allowed all handling and treatments. Very food motivated and ate ravenously. ACR [Animal Care Review] to AH [Animal Health] due to body condition, and placing on rounds to determine appropriate pathway…

…Over all body posture: Loose, wiggly, accepting contact.”

Personality descriptions on owner surrender profiles

Rhea was described as easy going with strangers; playful with children under 10, a dog who liked playing with toys, snacks, going on walks, being with people, car rides, snuggling and attention.

Chronus was described similarly but also liked exploring his surroundings; might resource guard food from other dogs. Given his underweight, it suggested he was not getting enough food.

Why was the only solution lethal, to kill them, when the incident and other incidents could be easily prevented and they were overall such nice dogs? The county is the agency with uninterruptible prey drive.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Chronus’ records, redacted

MCAS Records_349575 Chronus-Redacted Download

Rhea’s records, redacted

MCAS Records_349576 Rhea-Redacted Download

MCAS Task Force Findings, June 29, 2000

MCAS 2000 Task Force Report Download

Celebrating the canine-feline connection by Pat Miller, Your Dog Newsletter,
August 2008

Celebrating the canine-feline connection_Pat Miller_Your Dog-August 2008 Download

How To Get Cats and Dogs to Get Along by Kathy Callahan CPDT-KA,_Whole Dog Journal December 2021

How To Get Cats and Dogs to Get Along_Kathy Callahan CPDT-KA_Whole Dog Journal-December 2021 Download

Peace and Harmony Among Pets from Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, May 2014

Peace and Harmony Among Pets_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dogwatch Newsletter_May 2014 Download

Living with Cats and Dogs from Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, December 2008

Living with Cats and Dogs_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dogwatch Newsletter_December 2008 Download

Make Safe Dog and Cat Introductions from Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, March 2011

Make Safe Dog and Cat Introductions_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dogwatch Newsletter_March 2011 Download

Understanding Highly Predatory Dogs by Mardi Richmond, CPFT-KA, Whole Dog Journal June 18 2010

Understanding Highly Predatory Dogs-Mardi Richmond, CPFT-KA_Whole Dog Journal, June 18 2010 Download

Killing Joey: When MCAS managers fail helpless animals are made to pay the price

Leave a reply

Joey, ID# 340953

Multnomah county government enthusiastically advocates for social justice and equity for its most vulnerable demographic, then openly denies that care. Respite programs, emergency board and pets in crisis that provide relief and safe haven for citizens and their companion animals facing life crises have been removed from the county’s animal control agency. The last reference to them was in 2020.

Helping the Pets and People Who Need the Most Support Wade Sadler Former MCAS Director, February 2020

“At MCAS, Sadler has championed programs to make services more accessible to the pets and people of the community. “For me, I care about being a good steward of our local government’s resources for the public,” Sadler says, introspectively. “Yes, I care a lot about animals, but I also want to be able to help the people attached to those animals. We’re considering the social justice perspective relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and what it means for the services we offer. How do we help the people who are struggling, who need the most support, or who aren’t accessing our services?”

It was propaganda.

Killing Joey

Joey was the faithful companion of an individual who had fallen on hard times, had lost his housing and had become homeless. After his owner became acutely ill and was hospitalized during a medical emergency with no time to find someone to assume his care, Joey was impounded at MCAS on February 21, 2025 The person his owner had hastily arranged to take care of Joey when he was hospitalized instead abandoned Joey in the hospital’s parking garage and animal control was called. At first his owner was considered to have been the perpetrator.

Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 297436 February 21, 2025

“I [the MCAS animal control officer] called Legacy Emanuel Hospital ICU..and spoke with Robert McQuade who I informed for the reason for my call. Robert became emotionally upset at finding out that his dog “Joey” had been left in a parking garage. Robert stated that he was recently evicted from his apartment, is experiencing houselessness, and experienced a stroke which landed him at Adventist hospital needing emergency treatment. Robert stated that due to his emergency need for medical care, limited time to find someone he knew to care for “Joey”, he asked for help in watching “Joey” at the encampment he was at, someone referred him to the male whom he left “Joey” with and who appears to have left “Joey” in the hospital garage…

…Throughout the call Robert was emotionally upset with “Joey” being left, possibly abandoned, and extremely concerned that he would not be able to get him back…I informed Robert of the 6 day boarding for emergency circumstances [the normal 6 day owner hold is standard, and not in particular for emergencies] such as the one he was currently in…I informed Robert that if he believed it would be past 2/27/25 that I suggested he have a charge nurse or social worker reach out to MCAS, speak to management, to see what options there were to for possibly extending the boarding…”

The officer concluded “Given…Robert’s multiple attempts to [contact] MCAS while in the ICU it is evident that he was concerned with the well being of “Joey” even as he attempted to find care for “Joey” while experiencing a medical emergency and having little or no time to find someone. If possible/needed I recommend assisting with boarding and returning “Joey” to Robert.”

That never happened. When Joey’s owner needed extended care for Joey, he was given none. MCAS extended the hold date until March 1, 2025, while Robert, Joey’s owner, was still hospitalized. Eight days after Robert’s hospitalization for a stroke, Joey became MCAS property and Robert lost his companion dog. A week later, after a fumbled adoption to inexperienced adopters, Joey was rapidly returned to MCAS.

Joey was adopted again on March 9, 2025 then promptly returned the next day on March 10, 2025. The owners had immediately bathed him upon bringing him to their home and he bit at a towel they used to towel him off. They returned him and were refunded their $25 fee. They were asked to describe their experience.

March 13, 2025

“JON stated that he only had the dog for a day and couldn’t question about the rest of the dog’s behavior, but in accordance to the bite, JON stated that he and his partner were bathing the dog. JON stated that while his partner was putting the wash cloth near the dog, the dog lunged and bit at the wash cloth, thus piercing it and biting his partner’s finger. JON stated that he was certain it was an unintentional bite and was not towards his partner. JON stated that they did not have any photos of the bite has [sic] it was minor and had since healed, Complaint closed.”

Joey was killed on March 25, 2025. Before he was killed, the managers made a perfunctory busy effort to contact his former owner, then at Cascade Terrace Rehabilitation where Robert, Joey’s owner had been transferred on March 18, for physical therapy critical to recovering from his stroke. The MCAS management’s plan was to ask him to assume Joey’s care. It was a plan dictated by callous indifference with very short timing; the appearance of effort and caring when none was intended. It was to ‘check a box.’ MCAS completely failed to convey the urgency of Joey’s predicament to Robert in their messages.

March 21, 2025

“Called Cascade Terrace Nursing…I left a [Voicemail] with [Animal ID] and my desk number asking for a call back regarding Robert [redacted last name] and his dog.”

Prior to this, MCAS management called the Rehabilitation Center twice on March 20, 2025 and were unable to leave a message. The reason for the call was not disclosed in the record.

On March 21, the “Rounds Review” convened at 2:30 PM and had agreed that Joey would be killed if they did not hear back from Joey’s owner by the end of the day on March 23. They made no other effort to contact him personally. No letter was sent. No one was directly spoken to at Social Services. It is very likely Robert never received any message at all. MCAS’ effort was not made in good faith. It was just the appearance of diligence so they could disown responsibility.

March 21, 2025, Rounds Review

“Rounds met and we have made several attempts to contact owner and left messages. We will give previous owner until end of day Sunday 3/23 to make contact. Due to server [sic] high anxiety leading to self harm in the shelter and handling sensitivity that lead [sic] to a bite will move forward with euthanasia if no owner contact.”

On March 24, Rounds followed up “Rounds discussed and MC [Marian Cannell, Operations manager] will clarify notes and will proceed with humane euthanasia 3/25”

The notes clarification, edited into the March 21, record:

“edit to clarify about self harm. Joey’s behavior is such that while on multiple high dosages of anxiety medications, Joey continues to display high anxiety in which he has nearly destroyed two kennel divider door [sic] in his attempts to escape kennels, as well as high signs of stress that are outside of normal stress behaviors observed in shelter dogs. Significant self mutilation causing long term damage to the body has not been observed.”

Clarifying a poor decision by explaining it away with poor reasoning is not a clarification. It is either intended to justify and excuse inaction or it’s a sincere demonstration of incompetence. Either way, when someone doesn’t know what to do, they ought to ask an expert.

It is clear from the records that Joey’s distress was caused by MCAS and was a departure from his baseline behavior shortly after he was impounded.

February 25, 2025, Data Collection

“Dog readily approached me at kennel door, ears perked, small tail wags. Took a treat from hand, a little snappy. Sat when asked, and took the next treat gently. Stood still while I reached in and placed slip lead, wagging his tail. Ignored all dogs as we exited kennels, sniffing sidewalk with ears back. Pulled off and on…I crouched and pet his head, he stayed still, looking towards me, then took a step closer, putting his chin over my leg, slightly closing his eyes while I pet his chin, neck, and head. Shook off, wagging his tail when I stopped. Took all treats gently on walk…When returning to kennels he moved close to sniff a dog, then ignoring and walked away when they became reactive and began barking at him. Removed leash and exited kennel kennel without issue.”

On March 3, 2025 the records noted Joey needed time outside MCAS for kennel stress. In the March 5, 2025 Play group Joey “spent most of the time standing next to handlers and leaning into them for pets.” He was lonely.

No solutions were sought beyond escalating doses of psychotropics routinely given to most impounded animals to address endemic levels of toxic shelter stress experienced by most animals at MCAS. If the routine psychotropics are ineffective, there are numerous resources available in the Multnomah county community to reach positive outcomes. MCAS primary care veterinarians once consulted a veterinary behavior expert for viable solutions who practices in Portland and is consulted nation-wide.

Outside of consulting with experts, even bare minimum improvements including altering the environment with music and frequent outings off site, park visits, and engaging Joey in activities that used his intelligence, for example, nose work. They were not employed.

The goal should have been to return Joey to his baseline. Joey’s subsequent distress at MCAS was a reaction to confinement and the shelter environment. They didn’t have to kill him.

Managers could have also put Joey in respite foster care until his owner, who was devoted to him, recovered from his stroke enough to redeem him and Joey could go back to be with him, but the support was just not there.

The deterioration of animals’ health and well being at MCAS is the management’s responsibility to solve. Instead they are overcome by an old attitude: Blame the animal for management’s failures. Joey was described as “unhealthy and untreatable” when he was killed, the disposition used to kill all animals who become inconvenient.

MCAS didn’t have to kill him. The managers could have learned how to be effective instead of burying the evidence of failure.

The time was short. Joey’s owner was never personally contacted; only the appearance of effort was made so it could be documented. The cure for a dog’s emergent high anxiety isn’t death. The reasons listed for euthanasia are in Joey’s and almost every case, based upon indifference intended to excuse irresponsibility.

A new proposed foster animal respite program (attached) has never been implemented despite promises by the Multnomah County Chair and Commission that it was on a short list well over a year ago. The need is urgent. Emergency Board and Pets in Crisis no longer exist at MCAS. Both are services critical to the MCAS demographic. Without public notice or discussion, both services were quietly and quickly eliminated by Operations manager Marian Cannell and Director Erin Grahek diverted the MCAS funded mission away from supporting pet redemption and retention and helping those in need to a cheap pet store: $25 a dog.

Creating a caring shelter

Many of the recommendations about how to successfully foster a shelter dog apply to sheltering itself (such as in the articles below). No specific instructions: Just understand and be kind.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Joey’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_340953 Joey Pitts-Redacted Download

Jason Renaud’s dog foster respite proposal, September 2022

Jason Renaud_Dog Respite Proposal Download

Whole Dog Journal, Beyond Food and Water, By Kelly Gorman, CPDT
July 2004 Issue

Behavior_Beyond Food and Water_Whole-dog-journal Download

Set of three articles for Setting stressed dogs up for success. Whole Dog Journal
July 2017 Issue

Article collection for Setting a stressed dog up for success-Whole Dog Journal_ July 2017 Download

Giving Out Good Vibrations, Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine, Your Dog, by Arden Moore

Giving Out Good Vibrations-Your Dog_Arden Moore Download

Killing Spud, a shy dog, for barking at strangers: Unhealthy and untreatable

Leave a reply

Spud, ID#338010

Spud’s adoption description on January 31, 2025.

“Meet Spud! …Spud might be a bit shy at first, but once he warms up, get ready for a whole lotta love! This snuggle bug enjoys belly rubs, yummy snacks, and leisurely strolls around the neighborhood. He is looking for a patient and loving family who will help him come out of his shell and show him the world. If you think you have the perfect couch for Spud to cuddle on, come meet him today!”

Three days earlier, on January 28, 2025, Spud had been found, likely abandoned, tied to a pole overnight in front of a grocery store. It is an unfortunate commonplace experience in Portland, Oregon. When he was picked up by MCAS the transporter reported that he was “…scared, not lunging or snapping, or aggressive but is growling not interested in treats.” (Complaint 296915).

On intake the same day, January 28, the staff who conducted his health exam described Spud as: “Easy to loop leash and walk to admissions room. Social and soliciting pets throughout time in admissions room, accepted all treats and pets.”

Four weeks later on February 27, the managers determined that the only cure for two poor adoption shows and environmental shelter stress was killing him the next day as “unhealthy and untreatable.”

February 27, 2025:

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to inability to show to potential adopters and showing aggression towards strangers in shelter and becoming a safety risk for staff and volunteers. There has been no interest from Transfer partners.”

After a poor showing on February 15, 2025 to potential adopters, Spud was moved back to intake and placed on data collection and psychotropic medication. MCAS places dogs under “data collection” three times for observation. But observing his behavior over and over again on walks and in the kennel or a play yard does not change a potential challenge. Studying the contextual events that lead to a poor showing provides the evidence needed for a future plan.

February 16 2015

“Spud was returned from a walk directly to Play Yard 1 for an adoption show, other dogs became reactive started barking and pulling towards dogs in kennel and continued to focus on kenneled dogs once in yard, other dogs continued to bark for duration of show. I was able to trade leashes with the volunteer and tried to switch Spud’s attention to potential adopters. He switched from barking at kenneled dogs to barking at to [sic] potential adopters, dilated eyes, hackles raised, fast high wagging tail, at some points standing on hind legs and yowling/wailing at them, During this time he continued to allow me to handle and touch him, at no point did he switch his attention to me.

I released the leash to see if he would settle with some distance. He walked around the group for a second and then returned to the behavior. I then retrieved the leash, once I had him he began lunging at 2 of the potential adopters 3-4 times. I was holding him back so no contact was made. At this point I ended show and returned Spud to his kennel, during which he continued to allow all handling and contact from me. I returned after about 5 minutes later to check on him, at this point he presented with relaxed body, relaxed eyes, heavy panting, slow low tail wags.”

Instead of reviewing and correcting how this happened, Spud was placed back on intake for “data collection” and observation. There was no plan to address and correct the mistakes made in the adoption showing that set up failure.

The negative circumstances of the showing had set Spud up to fail. He was already aroused and focused upon the dogs exchanging barks with him in the background of the play yard while simultaneously being introduced on leash and being held back tightly to a group of persons he didn’t know.

“…on leash they’re forced to come face to face—with other dogs, people. It’s considered impolite in the canine world to approach too head- on. And for some dogs that are fearful, the head on greeting may trigger aggression. They can’t get away—they’re tethered to you, after all—so they feel they have no other choice. They need to guard their perimeter. It’s a very common problem…” (“Leash Rage”, Your Dog, June 2019, Volume XXV, Number 6, Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine)

Already set up to fail then forced to meet the adopters on leash whose own reactions are not described, (friendly, neutral or fearful) Spud was overwhelmed and flooded with stress overload as one stressor stacked upon the other.

The second failed show repeated the same errors.

February 23, 2025

“When walking another dog past Spud’s kennel, Spud becomes extraordinarily reactive, lunging, snarling, and barking aggressively at the dog. Volunteer came to let me know that she had brought Spud out for a show and as soon as they got in the yard Spud lunged and barked towards the adopter (was a male). She ended the show at that point and reported that had she not held the leash well enough she felt he would have bit the adopter.”

It is not a good plan to introduce dogs while they are in a state of acute distress. Before anything can be attempted, it is best to create comfort first. Distress carries over. A person holding a leash tightly conveys their own anxiety to a dog and a dog may react by becoming protective.

February 22, 2025

“Placing on hold due to repeat of behavior towards strangers and safety concern for shows. Due to space will keep in adoption as not available due to volunteers still able to walk, just showing reactivity during shows.”

Spud’s aggressive defensive reactions during the two shows may not have been a specific reaction towards strangers, but rather how the shows took place. He met strangers during his intake exam right after he was found tied to a pole overnight. Furthermore, he was introduced to a stranger as part of data collection, the meeting occurred behind a building, not around other barking dogs. This meeting ended positively.

February 20, 2025

“…Used TS as a stranger for Spud. Had her wait behind the building and retrieved Spud from kennel….Ignored TS as we approached, sniffing around the area… TS attempted to get his attention verbally, and with movement. He continued to ignore her, maybe giving a glance or two. After a few minutes he glanced towards TS, giving a single tail wag and walked close to her. We continued to walk and sniff around. TS moved a trash can around, scraping it on the ground. He startled and shied away from it hunching body, ears back. Walked back to intake kennels, taking him close to kennel to the kennel fronts. He did some barking and fence fighting with reactive dogs as we passed, but remained neutral to friendly with humans. No stranger danger/reactivity noted.”

If Spud did very well when introduced to a stranger in a calm setting, why was that not the plan: A calm setting? Why wasn’t he allowed time to decompress before meeting potential adopters? Why did the adoption show occur while he was exposed to a constant bombardment of other barking dogs in the background?

Spud became more and more agitated in MCAS’ toxic environment surrounded by other equally distressed dogs. There was no plan beyond medication to dampen reactivity as constant exposure to stressors escalated. Repeated continuous loud noise bombardment is one strategy used to break prisoners of war. If there were safety risks, MCAS created the “safety risks” for staff and volunteers by never addressing the causes at the agency. Instead the managers’ conduct was not an intervention plan but to label Spud a “safety risk,” one that they created.

“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.” (“When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels”, Dog Watch March 2006, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine)

February 25, 2025, Supervisor/Manager notes:

“Spoke to a volunteer today who reported that as they was [sic] attempting to place a collar on spuds and remove harness, they [Spud] turned and bit them on the hand. There was still a hard mark indent where I could see the bite on the back of the hand, but no skin was broken. Move to no walks and placing on rounds, as notes seem to indicate this pet may be a safety risk.”

On the same day, at management’s request, staff were able to remove the harness without incident using patience and treats.

Instead of directly addressing the stressors MCAS had created, MCAS sought rescue transfers on February 25, 2025. When no one stepped forward two days later, on February 27, they ordered him killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.” He wasn’t. His behavior was provoked by an unhealthy and apparently untreatable environment for which managers have disowned all responsibility.

Rounds Review once included community experts, trainers, rescues, staff and volunteers. Now it is a closed group of managers who overwhelmingly have no credible animal behavior knowledge or training. They clear space by nominating unlucky dogs for death or allowing adoptions incompatible with the dog’s needs that are known ahead of time that are doomed to fail.

Their reasons for killing meet no professional standard. Every unwanted animal is labeled “unhealthy and untreatable” when by every professional objective standard they are not. A dog becomes inconvenient. The label is intended to deny any responsibility. Their demographic is poor and vulnerable. They make no effort to help them.

The county government looks the other way promising a multi million dollar new building without accountability.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Spud’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_338010 Spud-Redacted Download

Whole Dog Journal, Why dogs bark and how to stop them, by Pat Miller, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, Published: February 15, 2017

High-Risk Behaviors Of Smart Dog Owners

Are You Familiar with the Protector Position?

“When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels”, Dog Watch March 2006, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.

When It Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels-Behavior_Dog Watch 2006 Download

Is Your Dog Getting Fearful or Anxious? Tufts University, Your Dog Newsletter, 2012

Is Your Dog Getting Fearful or Anxious Download

Almight: An urgent call for a humane animal shelter

Leave a reply

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 3^rd 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 Records_345682 Almight-Redacted Download

MCAS Task Force Findings, June 29, 2000

MCAS 2000 Task Force Report Download

The Shocking Truth About Shock Collars, Three Oaks Animal Behavior Counseling, by Karen Holman

Shock Collars: Barbaric, Ineffective, and Unacceptable – NAVTA, by Steve Dale

Shock Collars_ Barbaric, Ineffective, and Unacceptable – NAVTA_ Steve Dale Download

Whats the problem with low-dose Shock collars, Tufts University, July 2006

Whats the problem with low-dose Shock collars-Tufts University_July 2006 Download

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite, Your Dog, December 2008

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite-Your Dog_December 2008 Download

Words That Wound Your Dog, Tufts University, August 2016

Words That Wound Your Dog-Tufts August 2016 Download

Even Mild Punishment Has a Negative Impact, Tufts University, November 2020

Even Mild Punishment Has a Negative Impact-Tufts November 2020 Download

How to Pet a Dog, Tufts University, September 2020 Update

How to Pet a Dog-Tufts September 2020 Update Download

Lethal incompetence: The major cause of animal deaths at MCAS; Killing Millie

Leave a reply

Millie, ID# 335233

The Rounds Review managers reject behavior science and training, see safety threats everywhere, or just make safety threats up to meet a kill quota for space. They kill to keep themselves safe from planning and thinking of solutions. In that respect, you can never be “too safe”

Their power to kill is unchecked. Professional participation is no longer a part of this process, in fact is not invited or allowed when offered, nor is there oversight of the Rounds Review managers. Professionals were once integral to the animal disposition and planning. Now they are perceived as a threat to the culture at MCAS. Rounds’ discussions occur behind closed doors. Their decisions may not be questioned.

Every dog goes through this unchecked process. Millie is just one of many of those dogs killed as a consequence of this process.

Millie, first found as a stray on December 31, 2024, was killed two and one half months later, on March 15, 2025 after two very ill considered adoptions. Despite her success in foster care, she was falsely labeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable” by management, and destroyed when records clearly showed that she wasn’t unhealthy or untreatable.” All unwanted dogs are automatically labeled “unhealthy and untreatable” to allow management to dispose of them without taking any responsibility.

The last walk and play groups before killing her were consistent with all other observations in these records.

March 12, 2025 Walk notes

“Millie met me at her outside kennel front, jumping and barking, panting. Confident exit, pulled moderately. In agility she sniffed around, another dog entered agility and Millie pulled moderately. In agility she sniffed around, another dog entered agility and Millie pulled towards them whining. We walked to the field wheres Millie pulled less,she sat on command and took treats gently. When she became fixated on something I would gently nudge her or brush her side and she would keep moving, No mouthyness [sp] or handling sensitivity noticed. Returned to kennel and she sat to be unleashed, exited without issue.”

March 12, 2025 Playgroup

“Yard summary: Ran in, loose body, tail wagging. Running around with dogs, Some corrections. RR [Rough and Rowdy] to PP [Push and Pull] play with other dogs, especially Clint 335649. Out with 7 dogs, Rough and Rowdy to Push and Pull play.

Millie was never seen or evaluated by a credentialed trainer. The only summaries of her behavior were written by the failed adopters who returned her, in one case after one day, and in the other after three days. All of her foster care notes were positive. Staff notes were positive as well.

After OHS declined to take Millie as a transfer she was ordered killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.”

March 14, 2025

“Rounds met and we have exhausted all options reaching out to placement partners. We are unable to adopt out due to unsafe behaviors in pervious [sp?] adopters home. We will be moving forward with euthanasia at this time.”

Placement partners weren’t needed to succeed. A responsible adoption would do. And Millie could have returned to foster care. The “unsafe behaviors” nipping at young children in the first failed adoption but doing well with adults and the 13 year old, and biting the hand of someone with Parkinson’s who reached out to her with trembling hands had non-lethal solutions. The incidents were the result of careless adoptions, easily addressed by proper placement.

Millie’s First adoption

Millie was first adopted on January 12, 2025 then returned 3 days later on January 15, 2025 reported by the adopter for snapping at the 5 and 8 year old children without breaking the skin. According to the adopter there was no discernible provocation. Millie was reported to get along very well with adults and the family’s 13 year old child.

Whenever there are incidents there are always stressors or provocations. But one must ask questions. Dogs are often uncomfortable around young children because of their quick movements and unpredictable behavior.

MCAS asked no questions preferring elective ignorance. They just transcribe whatever is told to them. During this brief adoption Millie was fine with adults and the 13 year old in the home and was noted to otherwise be very well behaved and eager to please.

Between the first and second adoptions Millie was in foster care from February 7, 2025 that ended with the ill fated second adoption on February 27,2025 after which she was immediately returned. When MCAS couldn’t locate a rescue to take her they killed her despite other responsible solutions. Get a training assessment. Adopt appropriately. The significant numbers of MCAS adoption returns make clear little care or thought goes into adoptions.

Millie’s Foster care

Millie was in foster care from February 7, 2025 until February 27, 2025 where she was reported to have behaved very well and was described as “super smart,” crate trained, listened well; does well with other dogs as long as high value resources are not around; walks well on leash, cuddly, very soft mouth taking treats; guards her food and toys.

That is just a short list of her positive traits. The one caveat was “I would suggest she not be around toddlers in her home….” The concern was resource guarding. There were no reports about nipping or bite attempts over the nearly 3 weeks Millie was in foster care.

Millie’s Second Adoption

Millie was adopted on February 27, 2025 and returned one day later on February 28, 2025 following an incident when the adopter who suffered from Parkinson’s disease reached out to pat her with a trembling hand and Millie bit his hand. The adopter attributed the bite to his hand to his trembling as he reached out to her stating he believed he scared her.

It was an unsafe adoption. The stressor was very clear.

There are no reports of nipping during her stay at MCAS from December 31, 2024 to her death on March 15, 2025 other than a “bite” to a wand scanner that frightened her on her return to MCAS on February 28, 2025.

But when the managers could not find a rescue to take her they ordered her killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” when every evidence indicated she was not and she was not “unsafe.” What is unsafe are MCAS careless adoptions to anyone with $25. No one is ever turned away. They lacked initiative and made it her “problem” in order to kill her.

Options

Millie could have been adopted to an adult responsible home. She could have gone into foster care and a trainer could have been consulted if further planning was needed. That requires actual investigation into fully understanding what contexts lead to an animal incident, especially including what decisions a person made in handling their animal, and MCAS doesn’t. If there are questions trainers find solutions instead of destroying animals like broken toys. Trainers once actively participated at MCAS. Now they are not allowed

Nothing is more lethal than elective ignorance and unchecked power at a government agency. MCAS is a killing success. MCAS managers exhaust all options quickly because they do not care and there is no accountability so it has become a quick and easy dump and dispose site for unwanted animals. Now they want a new building to continue the same careless indifference. A new building doesn’t fix the historic institutional failures brought on by an uncaring management that they have chosen to cover up and ignore.

They have been allowed to ignore accountability because the commissioners that are supposed to oversee them are more interested in decorum and complacency. In a recent Koin6 article, Volunteers spoke out about agency failures, indicating that the management has failed to improve in the ways that matter: the critical animal health and safety, alongside shocking mismanagement of volunteers and staff.

The County Commissioners are more concerned with keeping MCAS management from feeling like those failures are their fault, than actually addressing those failures. “It’s not your fault, there’s just not enough space.”

Animals at MCAS are “unsafe.” The managers use the word “unsafe” as a convenience cover for excusing their opportunistic cruelty. Professionals are excluded because they might interfere with the fast progress of the trains running on time to the crematorium. They would be community “intruders” who might question their conduct. Everyone, all of us, animals and people alike, are “unsafe” because of this agency. The solution isn’t ‘let’s get a new building to house cruelty.’ Correct the cruelty.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Redacted records for Millie, 335233

MCAS Records_335233 Millie-Redacted Download

The Oregonian: Multnomah County moving forward with $85M animal shelter rebuild

Leave a reply

In response to the article from The Oregonian:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/03/multnomah-county-moving-forward-with-85m-animal-shelter-rebuild.html

To whom it may concern:

The commissioners believe a visit to the shelter prepped by errant managers tells them all they need to know about operations deserving a new building. One is needed. The public and animals do. The managers don’t deserve one. They need a new attitude. There is no “creative use of space.” And one guided visit to impress commissioners does not create “expertise.”

How shocking that the county hears none of citizens stories affected by MCAS, don’t pay attention to data, citizens reports, and public records, do not pay attention to long term volunteer concerns, and don’t realize that funding has been redirected from pet retention and redemption to sales of unneutered and unspayed animals for $25 dollars to anyone and the kill rate is escalating. All of that will be transferred to a new building when what is needed first is new management.

I have never read a more shallow opinion about MCAS’ “creative” use of limited space made by the respondents who believe a one time guided visit creates expertise. It’s like saying “I went to a seminar once about doctors so now I’m a doctor!” MCAS has no creative use of space except killing when under past administrations they did have multiple outreaches and made a greater effort to care for and place animals they now kill as “unhealthy and untreatable” to get rid of them when by any objective standard they are not. It is called lying. This article about the managers “suffering” in an old building would be best titled “The art of the con.”

Over 80% of the MCAS demographic, over represented by low income working people, homeless and minorities live in Portland. Transportation by MAX and bus ends several miles away and MCAS has unfriendly policies and working hours to the public making redemption difficult. So why would you build a palace in Troutdale instead of purchasing a building in Portland?

Once again the County Board of Commissioners have made clear they don’t care about their constituents at all. They are there to parrot and protect managers only. They don’t hear nor do they solicit the public voices of those whose animals end up at MCAS. The tune out workers. Interview those who have left traumatized by working in an inhumane authoritarian environment.

A new easily accessed building for the public is needed. But most of all what is needed is a county commission that cares and a working shelter. We order and read about 2000 pages of MCAS public records weekly. I have personally read these records for 25 years. What is happening internally now is shocking. The county commissioners should read them too instead of abandoning those most affected by MCAS while protecting their own. Grahek herself fails to reach standards set by national animal shelter guidelines. She had no experience whatsoever in animal sheltering before assuming the directorship after failing to advance at the Department of Aging and Disabilities. She was nominated anyway. That is the definition of the art of the con.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhDCitizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog

Convenience euthanasia and MCAS’ lethal abuse of the power to kill: Kismet

Leave a reply

Kismet, ID# 331471

Kismet, one year old, should have had her life ahead of her, and her finder thought she did when he took her to MCAS, mistakenly believing that MCAS is a shelter, not a disposal and culling site for unwanted animals. She was killed for shyness at the instruction of the MCAS managers’ Rounds Review whose professional failures and incompetence are routinely taken out on vulnerable dogs. Never once, given their inadequate qualifications and complete lack of knowledge about animal behavior science and training, do they think about contacting community experts who would help.

On November 27, 2024, a stray was turned into MCAS after being found on Halsey Street in Fairview by a Good Samaritan who had named her Kismet (based off “Kiss”).

He had kept her for over 24 hours, but less than 7 days and checked boxes that she had been an indoor only dog, was easy going, playful and shy greeting strangers; playful, easy going and shy when left alone or crated; playful and shy over house and litter box training. With regard to other animals she was listed as afraid of meeting new dogs, playful with known dogs, easy going with new cats; shy with known cats. Kismet was also described as playful, easy going and very loving towards children under 10 years old.

Why was she killed on December 6, 2024, 9 days later, marked “Unhealthy and Untreatable” when strangers found her easy, safe and loving?

Kismet encountered a hostile, impatient, and toxic agency that did not have time for her, so they killed her and misrepresented the disposition reason.

December 5, 2024,

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to behavior in shelter and inability to handle.”

The behavior in question at MCAS is theirs.

First, Kismet’s conduct in the world outside was friendly and joyful. That was her baseline. At an agency operated by competent managers with integrity, the goal would be to directly address what was making Kismet avoidant and fearful at MCAS. The only tool at MCAS is copious amounts of psychotropic medication prescribed by veterinary assistants and technicians checked off by agency veterinarians.

On November 29, 2 days after admission, a veterinary assistant prescribed 150 mg of trazodone twice daily; on December 1, 300 mg of gabapentin was added twice daily; and on December 2, the trazodone dosage was increased to 200 mg twice daily. Nothing else was included to address the terror that Kismet was feeling. Furthermore on December 2, animal care notes recorded Kismet had not been eating the prescribed medication.

No or irregular training causes skill disparities in staff

The shelter’s lack of formal and consistent dog handling training for staff has been an official problem ever since it was reported in the agency’s 2016 audit, in the followup 2018 audit, and in its recent 2024 audit.

In the 2016 audit, less than half of staff had received any training at all on how to comprehend signals to animal behaviors let alone how to humanely handle them at all.

MCAS Audit, 2016, Page 5
Animal Services Audit

In the followup audit in 2018, the shelter did not meaningfully address this failure. Sure, they did some training for existing staff in 2016 following the audit, but they have not repeated this training for new staff since. They had not yet begun to make a plan to develop a training program.

MCAS Audit, 2018, Page 14
Animal Services: Important issues still need to be resolved

In the recent 2024 audit, management still doesn’t have a training program. They claimed that it had been “delayed” due to a wider training initiative within the Department of Community Services. The report also mentions that there are “plans” for training in place, but several staff had indicated that there was still no formal dog behavior training. Worse, the only training they received was through watching videos.

A “delay” that has lasted 6 years is not a delay. For 8 years, there has been no formal training, aside from bursts so occasional they come off as a reaction to their lack of formal training being called out. Trainers and diplomates from the community have repeatedly reached out to help the shelter provide regular and meaningful training to staff. Every time, they are met with silence, outright rejection, or nominal acceptance by way of an inconsistent burst of training for existing staff that is not repeated or incorporated into a formal training program. No reasonable person can assess this to be anything short of intentional institutional indifference.

MCAS Audit, 2024, Pages 10-11Recommendation Status Evaluation: Animal Services: Several recommendations implemented, some still in process

These inconsistencies are why the “behavior notes” in animal records can paint a very different picture regarding an animal’s relative ‘treatability.’ Some staffers coincidentally have more experience in handling stressed out animals than others, as is seen in Kismet’s behavior notes between two different staffers on two different days. On December 2, one staffer’s report indicated that they approached Kismet with a relatively relaxed and disarming demeanor. Another staffer, a day later, directly stared down and was confrontational with Kismet, which earned them her growling and lunging at them.

On December 2, the data collection notes read:

“Kismet has not lunged and snarled at me since taking her meds (was able to get her to take meds late this morning using liver. Mostly trembling on bed, barking when you approach. Will still retreat at time [sic]. If the kennels are quiet she will slowly approach me and take treats, keeps her distance when the barking is loud. Ears down, trembling. I continued to treat her throughout the day. She was less inclined to approach me later in the day, she kept her distance but did growl, just a few hollow barks.

At one point during the afternoon I had the door cracked open and she came over and ate treats near the door. I was not facing the right way to attempt to slip leash her, but she stayed near the door and sniffed the opening. When I moved to attempt to let her smell the leash or leash her she retreated outside, trembling and gave a couple of barks.

Note: There have been improvements to behavior, but delay due to her not eating meds and high FAS [Fear, anxiety and stress].”

On December 3, 2024, another staffer’s data collection notes:

“Attempted to interact with dog a few times throughout the day. She would retreat with ears back, head low, tail tucked, low growling. If I looked towards her, and remained close to kennel she would bark sharply, sometimes accompanied by a lift lip, or small single step lunge forward. Once I looked away she would continue to grumble and retreat inside, laying down on bed. She trembled hard and throughout all interactions, and most of the time I interacted she would retreat inside and avoid.”

A major stressor appears to have been the very loud noise in the kennels dogs are forced to endure. A stressor that the Association of Shelter Veterinarians has already assessed as being harmful to shelter animals in their report, Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters (Section 13, Noise Exposure). Standards that Shelter Director Erin Grahek claims she follows. A claim made without any animal shelter experience, but with the promise that she’ll make up for it by following the leadership of shelter managers. Whether those same managers are central to the long-standing institutional failures at the shelter, aside.

There was no plan to mitigate the noise or even ask the finder to help move her to a quieter location.

Staff are not trained in ways to humanely manage distressed dogs. The management leaves them with a kit consisting of: Pet Corrector, Shaker cans, advice on how to shout commands loudly, and when all else fails, how to use the most force they can in an attempt to trap and subdue animals. A kit that is in complete opposition to what they were supposed to work on in that first audit from 2016: how to humanely handle animals with the least amount of force necessary.

Plans for handling animals are not created beyond ‘observe several times then kill as a solution.’ This is the very definition of lethal incompetence. Nothing is done to make the environment more hospitable. Managers ignore the kennels as they sit enclosed in their offices.

This is not a shelter. Dogs do not deserve to die this way. Workers do not deserve to be traumatized because their efforts to save lives end in needless killing where all that matters is the management’s schedule: ‘The trains have to run on time.’

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Kismet’s records, redacted

MCAS Records_331471 Kismet-Redacted Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2016

Animal Services Audit Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2018

Animal Services_ Important issues still need to be resolved Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2024

Recommendation Status Evaluation – Animal Services_ Several recommendations implemented, some still in process Download

Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, 2022 Edition, full copy

Guidelines_Summaries_w-TOC Download

For Bob,“Robert,” Nixon, my Irish brother in arms, who died mid morning November 15, 2024, without permission.

Leave a reply

Attribution: et.vorsteh.liv on instagram
https://www.facebook.com/reel/528550513279540

On October 9, 2024 at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Bob Nixon, always active and on the ready for any adventure to save lives, called to say he had been in hospital for 4 weeks and then later on October 14, called again. I missed the call. He said he was still ill and then out of the blue going back to his past, he remembered that his mother had asked him once why he had been so sad as a child and how he would try to prove her otherwise by jumping up and down on the couch. Then he added how miserable and frustrating being handicapped was, he could not use his legs and the doctors could not sort out why. When I returned the call he wasn’t there.

Today I learned he died, that he died on November 15 in the early morning hours, a time I, and many others who loved him, were completely oblivious of his moving on to another unknown territory. On November 21, I had sent him an annual wreath which he advised me he always kept on his door until April and also the first of several installments of Christmas panetone as well as Oregon Growers Marion-berry jam; sometimes Strawberry Rhubarb jam too. I hope they have that in Heaven, a very important staple.

I had met Bob in 2000 when out of the blue he called about a dog named Nadas (Pictured above), a Malamute condemned to death in Jackson County for chasing a horse. Not knowing what to do, I did everything to try to save Nadas’ life. I was just a novice, but no one was going to do anything, so I had to try. Then having learned of this incident and effort somehow, Bob just called and stepped in off the internet. Bob with his irrepressible humor, optimism and skill was very active and instrumental in creating a happy ending for Nadas. Chris de Rose at Last Chance for Animals and Best Friends in Utah where Nadas spent the rest of his life filled in to complete the missing pieces to save Nadas’ life.

Bob was a tireless warrior for the rights of animals: an enforcement investigation arm for animal abuse and neglect in Illinois, a professor of economics at a community college where he taught through stories, and was once a hobo who rode the rails and could teach you how to do it and not get caught.

I had hoped he could cheat death as so many of us who loved him had hoped too. He had been so active: a black belt in karate, running ten miles a week, driving half way across the country on a moment’s notice to fetch a dog no one else wanted.

How do you cope with a loss like that? In illness, his body became a prison he could not escape. So he found an exit to be a free spirit. His known nickname was Indy, leader of the Raiders of the Lost Woof for adventures rescuing animals in danger.

Long may he live: Our sorrow relieved only because his spirit is no longer trapped by his body. The gift was knowing him.

We will meet again some day of blue skies, all of us who loved him, dogs and people too. It will be a huge gathering. All of his friendships were one of kind, unique. He had no generic friends. I remember a saying Bob once quoted when someone scolded him for monies spent on rescuing animals. His response was “Well, have you ever seen a hearse with a luggage rack?”

MCAS’ deprivation of care: The deaths of newborn puppies.

Leave a reply

Buffy, ID# 329918 and Walker, ID# 329916
Puppy, ID# 330764 and ID# 330766

MCAS holds others to minimum standards of care that they themselves fail to meet. Unlike many in the demographic they serve, they have not the excuse of poverty. They have done nothing to improve MCAS’ unsafe toxic environment where stress is normalized and infectious contagious diseases continue to be rampant and unchecked. Citizens are cited for deprivation of proper care. MCAS is given a “free pass” by those charged with oversight.

The story of Buffy, Walker and eight puppies born at MCAS is just one among many examples concerning deprivation of proper care.

Buffy and her partner Walker belong to a homeless person living in his truck. Both Buffy and Walker were found alone in a fenced yard by the renter living there on November 20, 2024. The records at the time noted that Buffy appeared to be pregnant and Walker had a left shoulder injury. MCAS impounded both dogs, placing them under “protective custody,” “due to concerns of either suspected neglect or concerns on care of pet.”

On November 26, MCAS spoke to Buffy and Walker’s homeless owner who explained he had been ill and had asked the person on the property, the renter whom he knew, if he could temporarily care of them. The renter confirmed that he knew the owner of Buffy and Walker, but had not agreed to caretaking responsibilities.

Buffy, known to be likely pregnant from her impound notes, did not go through the standard intake process the day she arrived at MCAS. Her puppies were born on November 22, 2024 while she was held in protective custody. This happened in the general intake kennels, an unsafe area, where temperatures are erratic, contagious disease is rampant, and oversight is lacking.

After the birth of the puppies, there was no attempt to move them to the shelter hospital or any safer area. How many puppies were born is unclear: 8 puppies are listed in Buffy’s medical report, only 6 puppies are listed with MCAS identification numbers on November 22, 2024 Intake Found Reports. One sequential number 330767 is missing without explanation: 330763, 330764, 330765, 330766, 330768, 330769.

Medical follow up

Buffy was separately examined in the hospital away from her puppies by an onsite veterinarian on November 23, the day after the puppies were born. She was prescribed twice daily feedings for being “under-conditioned” and also prescribed medication for a chronic bilateral ear infection.

On the same day that Buffy was examined, veterinary assistants examined the puppies and described them as “apparently healthy.” The recommendation was that they should be fostered until weaned but the search for a foster was not permitted until Buffy’s bite quarantine ended on December 4, 2024, a minor bite that occurred while a worker cleaning kennels was moving dirty blankets around Buffy and the puppies on the morning of November 23, an activity that would have been best conducted while Buffy and the puppies were being medically examined because dogs’ maternal protective instincts are high around newborn puppies.

The bite was understandable, there were many ways to serve quarantine without risking disease to the newborn puppies, but blind enforcement rules trumped animal welfare. A creative solution intended to meet both concerns was too much trouble.

November 23 2024, Kennel cleaning that led to a minor bite to the worker

“During morning cleaning I entered Sally’s [Buffy’s] kennel to clean around her and her puppies. I started mopping around the whelping bed where they were all laying together, after the floor was mopped I left and returned with clean blankets, I started to peel back the dirty blankets around her slowly at first, she showed some signs of discomfort, slight tenseness of body, staring, and twitching nose, I stopped and reached out my hand to allow contact, she sniffed my hand and then turned back to her puppies.

I returned to slowly moving blankets around her and she again turned to look at me this time lunging at my face, open mouth contact was made and one of her teeth punctured my left cheek, afterwards she did not bite down and immediately pulled back and returned her attention to her babies. I stood up and left the kennel without further issue to notify the management.”

The “puncture” bite pictured above is very minor. The incident was caused by management negligence. They failed to train the worker. Workers are left to fend for themselves, making their own on the spot decisions. They are armed with pet corrector, radios, shake cans and spray water bottles. The worker was never trained on how to manage dogs, especially dogs protective of their new born offspring. Training is important. So is compassion and common sense about welfare. Buffy and her puppies should never have been left, their care abandoned, in general intake.

Four days after birth, on the morning of November 26, 2024, two of the puppies, 330766 and 330764 were found cold and unresponsive, deceased in the kennels.

No necropsies were ordered. The policy that has continued since 2017, by then Director Jackie Rose, leaves the order of necropsies for “unassisted deaths” up to management discretion. In this case Buffy, Walker, and the puppies were owned animals. They were not MCAS’ property. The puppies died while under MCAS care. Their deaths were unexpected, and the cause of death concerning, given the unsafe environment under which they were housed where in addition to poor temperature control, failed supervision, and disease rampancy.

All shelter animals are put at risk when unexplained deaths cannot be investigated via necropsy without the direct authorization of an uninterested management. Without proper investigation, causes of death cannot be identified, and all other animals are put at risk. The managers have given themselves a free pass from accountability by denying investigations. Animals’ lives are disposable property sent to the incinerator. They, the managers, are never going to elect an investigation that might reflect on their own conduct.

Aftermath

The owner spoke with managers on November 26, wanting to redeem his dogs and puppies. He was not charged with negligence. He was given a report of their impoundment at MCAS that did not allude to or admit to the deaths of two puppies. Yet those were his puppies, ironically in their protective custody. The agency forbade Buffy’s departure until after the end of her quarantine on December 4, 2024, leaving her and her puppies at risk for illness, without any explanation to the owner regarding why she had been quarantined at all.

The agency decided to monitor and ‘wait and see,’ instead of placing Buffy and the puppies in a safe environment. This leaves them at risk because kennel cough often progresses into pneumonia and is highly contagious. Let alone the agency’s historic failures with managing disease spread at the shelter.

November 30, 2024, veterinarian note following a check up,

“Monitor for progressing respiratory signs daily due to concern for puppies being exposed to kennel cough.”

November 27, 2024, Supervisor/Management notes; the day after the puppies died

“Spoke with AO [ Animal owner] … Discussed that a few of the puppies did not thrive in the shelter and if at any point after reclaim, the puppies are not doing well, to please bring them back to MCAS. Advised that we would not be able to guarantee reclaim at that point, but that we would be able to take them if needed. Advised that Buffy is on BQ and can be reclaimed on 12/4… jkt [Jennifer Turner, Field Services Supervisor.].”

The puppies who died did not “thrive” because they were deprived of proper care in an unsafe environment. To even describe the situation as a “failure to thrive” suggests a fundamental flaw in the moral values of the institution.

On December 2, 2024 the Field Services Supervisor offered the owner an ‘opportunity’ to surrender Buffy and the puppies, which he declined, noting he had help for the puppies and that a friend was driving from the East Coast to take Buffy. It is difficult for MCAS to claim any high moral ground.

The Field Services Supervisor continued,

“I told [Animal Owner] that we will consider this litter of puppies to be an accident. And that if he plans on “Buffy” having any more litters that he will need to get a breeding facility license. [Animal Owner] stated that it was an accident for her having puppies and that he is planning on getting her spayed. I gave [Animal Owner] the information of OHS low income Spay and Neuter Program.”

When MCAS management err they always move to one-upmanship as a show of superior authority in order to hide their errors in judgment. Why, when someone is homeless, advise them that if it happens again they will need to purchase a breeders’ facility license? Why not offer a free spay and neuter for Buffy and Walker instead?

The irony of the shelter’s focus on limiting breeding in the community is MCAS adopts most animals without spaying or and neutering them first, instead adopting them with spay/neuter vouchers whose rate of redemption is low.

MCAS current spay neuter voucher system based upon a “trust” that adopters will comply; a “trust” rooted in expediency. Given the high risk of non-compliance for voucher redemption, the borderline free gift ($25) of a ‘low fee’ ‘fertile animal’ should be accompanied by the required payment of a breeding facility license until proof of voucher redemption is provided. Otherwise redemption rates will remain low. Or they could return to past practices by securing a path of spaying/neutering animals on site before they are released to the adopter.

Referring low-income owners to OHS, as was done in this case, is off loading responsibilities that the shelter itself has funding for, funding that has been reported by the county’s auditor as being underused. That report showed that for the 5 years prior to mid-May 2023, the shelter only spent about $42,000 with about $316,00 left unspent in its Spay/Neuter Fund. In the 2024 followup report, the shelter has substantially increased its use of this fund, but “consideration of financial need was not a factor in the spaying or neutering of these animals.” An abdication of the intent behind the program to support low-income adopters in order to ‘comply’ with recommendations. MCAS can afford to spay Buffy; her owner cannot. MCAS’ mission is a vacant promise.

As of December 1, 2024 public records, Buffy and her puppies were still in Intake Kennel 9 at MCAS in the general population. MCAS still fails to give workers the training necessary for their daily interactions with shelter animals. This training is especially needed given these animals are often subjected to environmental stress. The workers are on the front lines. That management’s abdication in providing training should be held to account.

Failure to investigate unexplained deaths has happened before. In the linked Oregonian article, LeeLoo survived with emergency care, but another dog, Bear (ID# 297341), did not. Bear was a one and a half year old gentle and playful Labrador Retriever adopted from MCAS in ostensibly good health on October 13, 2024. On October 14, the adopter noted that he seemed unwell, then on the 15^th, they called a veterinarian for advice. The veterinarian recommended that the adopter keep watch on Bear. Bear collapsed and died suddenly that evening. MCAS offered condolences and were willing to cover the costs for a private cremation, paw print and pickup. However, they completely neglected to offer paying for a necropsy to study why Bear, a young, supposedly healthy dog, suddenly suffered from lethargy and loss of appetite rapidly deteriorating into collapse and then death a day after he was adopted.

One year later nothing has changed. Managers are given too much discretionary power without oversight to develop policies that are not reviewed by anyone else in government. When dogs die “unassisted deaths” they make note of the occurrence for statistical data keeping, and promptly move on. There is no interest in discovering causes, just as there is no interest in treatment.

Prioritizing an efficiency defined by speed has been the primary motivation for this shelter. Whether that’s in the establishment of the spay/neuter voucher program, where “the change was intended to move pets out of the shelter faster,” or in minimum qualifications for hiring animal care and veterinary leadership positions in order to “quickly fill vacant roles,” according to MCAS Director Erin Grahek’s own words in an article by April Ehrlich on Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS’ policy on Necropsy, continuing from 2017

MCAS Necropsy Policy–Feb 2017 (Unchanged as of December 2024)Download

Buffy 329918, redacted records

MCAS Records_329918 Buffy-Redacted Download

Walker 329916, redacted records

MCAS Records_329916 Walker-Redacted Download

Puppy 330764, redacted records

MCAS Records_330764 Buffy’s Unnamed Puppy-Redacted Download

Puppy 330766, redacted records

MCAS Records_330766 Buffy’s Unnamed Puppy-Redacted Download

Bear 297341, redacted records

MCAS Records_297341 Bear-Redacted Download

The brutal killing of Rune, a Street Dog: a victim of MCAS’ mistakes

Leave a reply

Rune, ID# 328701

Rune, a 5-year-old American Pit Bull mix, was impounded on October 28, 2024, after he was found running down the streets and allegedly bit 2 persons. Only one could be identified, a child whom Rune had knocked down and was bruised. He had no apparent owner. A houseless person claimed to have been feeding and providing him shelter for a week, but disclaimed ownership and stated he could not keep him contained because he just kept chewing through leashes.

On November 08, 2024 during his intake exam Rune was described as:

“…Social and easy to handle. He did turn around a couple of times to see what we were doing when scanning/vaccinating but overall did very well for exams and treatments. Sending back to round review with updates after data collection.”

On November 11, a worker’s poor judgment prompted an incident. The incident escalated and was further compounded by a series of negative management interventions that only created more frantic behavior on Rune’s part, his stress already amplified by barking dogs on either side of him and across the aisle. Rune was ordered to be killed at the end of quarantine on November 21, 2024, due to a single injury to one worker’s hand when she was holding the kennel door to force Rune to stay inside. There was no management review of unsafe conduct rooted in poor practices that created an incident. They just ordered Rune, the evidence of their errors, killed after quarantine.

MCAS staff are not trained in positive safe practices, including how to manage and deescalate stress when animals are uncomfortable. Their incentive management tools are limited to treats; there are no training plans to teach fearful animals to willingly comply. Unwanted behavior is addressed with verbal warnings (“No”), Pet Corrector, water spray bottles, and shake cans which are a coin flip on whether they momentarily interrupt unwanted behavior or escalate distress in a fearful dog. “Data collections” are intrusions on an animal’s space to identify how ready they are for adoptions. Prioritizing speedy processing comes at the cost of compassion for an animal’s comfort, setting them up for failure.

November 11, 2024 Behavior note from Play group runner:

“Attempting to get Rune for playgroup. He was at his door, tail up, panting. Unlatched door and he watched me calmly, then darted to bark towards neighbor. Poked the toe of my shoe through the door and he immediately lunged, grabbing on and tugging. I was able to hold door closed against my foot, and radioed for help after 20-45 seconds. A coworker helped pull my shoe off, as he continued to tug, and pet corrector was used. He redirected towards the pet corrector, then grabbed my shoe as I tried to pull it back out of the kennel. Airhorn was used and he snapped towards that, then jumped up and bit MH’s fingers as MH held door closed. We were able to remove my shoe and latch door. No damage to my foot.”

The damage to the worker’s hand is pictured in the record described as:

“…After the shoe was retrieved from Rune’s mouth, through the crack in the door, I continued holding the door as it had not been latched. Rune then re-directed onto my hand, biting my left middle and ring fingers, briefly before letting go. The result was four tares [sic] in the skin on my fingers, two on each of the two fingers, all less than about an inch in length. I also have what appears to be a blood blister.”

Rune’s reactions caused little damage when he was wholly capable of a greater reaction given the escalation of stressors, one stacked upon the other. They were understandably based in fear after he was assaulted when he was in his kennel with no way to get away.

There was no reason for a worker to poke his foot through the kennel. The worker took off his shoe after Rune grabbed it, initiating a tug of war over that shoe. In an effort to get it back, the worker used Pet Corrector, and when that failed, an air horn. Most shelters have warning signs advising visitors to not put their hands or thrust objects into kennels because it’s an unsafe intrusion.

Why was it more important to get the shoe back than to deescalate the incident and create calm? Why not calm down and give the fearful dog space? Did anyone even try to use Counter-Conditioning and Desensitization to change Rune’s association with fear from a negative stimulus to positive with treats and a calm demeanor? Why resort to flooding animals with fear-provoking stimuli like Pet Corrector and air horns at all?

Where does the fault belong?

Both the staff and animals are victims of a protocol requiring that all interactions are compelled instead of invited. The staff are told to process the animals as efficiently and quickly as possible. When a fearful reaction occurs, instead of attending to and accommodating a dog’s fear, the worker is trained to engage in repeated aversive action. All this does is create escalation.

November 7, 2024, Data Collection/Behavior Notes:

“Approached outside kennel door. Rune was barking, snapping and jumping against shared kennel wall where Galaxy (272836) was standing and barking. Ears back, tail high and wagging. Held my hand up to door and he snapped at it, contacting the door. He did this several times, resuming fence fighting with Galaxy in between. Closed all barking dogs around him inside, returning to outside of kennel 5 minutes later. He ran out to me, panting, tail high. Snapped towards my hand again, when I held it to the door. Readily accepted treats taking them hard.

He paced and circled around the end of the kennel, looking at the walls, occasionally barking. I poked my leash through the kennel, he sniffed it, then snapped at it. Treated for a minute. Cracked door, throwing some treats on the ground, and attempted to reach in and leash. He grabbed onto leash and began tugging. After 10-15 seconds he let go to eat a treat. Did this twice but was able to leash on 3rd attempt. Once on leash he nosed at door. Pulled a little on leash … Tolerated contact on head, back and sides, but did not acknowledge me when I pet him…Returned to kennel…Reached in and removed leash. He ran inside and began barking at Galaxy.”

When a dog is snapping at an action, waiting just to repeat the same action, instead of taking a different approach, is not accommodating to a dog’s fear.

Continuing the same forced interaction only reinforces that fearful response.

The follow up data collections on November 8 and November 9 were friendly and positive. Rune welcomed all contact and didn’t display any of the previously noted leash biting behaviors. But now he was clearly limping on both back legs and was reported to be having multiple bloody stools. He was friendly and cooperative during the animal health exam addressing the new medical concerns.

Rune was killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” on November 22, 2024, when he wasn’t. The system failed him.

Multnomah County Animal Services managers cause incidents by failing to address toxic levels of stress at the shelter, including unsafe levels of continuous noise bombardment, failure to allow off-site enrichment activities, and failure to teach staff how to manage dogs proactively when the majority of intake dogs at MCAS come from traumatic backgrounds, only to be further harmed at MCAS.

The acute failure by management to improve practices that lead to unsafe incidents through review directly sets the foundation for repetitive failures. Their solution has been to dispose of the “bad” dog, frequently even when a “bad” dog’s behaviors have turned around from fearful to friendly.

Incidents are already primed to occur against a background where significant numbers of animals live in a chronic state of unremitting stress. Untrained workers are pushed to rapidly assess how much contact an often distressed dog will allow. Animals’ stress reduction is primarily addressed by escalating doses of psychotropics while the management chronically fails to provide all of the minimum requirements critical to the mental health of sheltered animals.

The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2022

MCAS managers reject positive animal training for staff, including how to address and manage animal distress. The staff are left on their own to sort it out, e.g. repeatedly pursuing a scared dog who is avoiding them in order to leash him; patting a starved dog while the dog is eating then labeling the dog defensive, a “resource guarder.” Or they are equipped with negative interventions intended to scare or frighten a dog into submission. Negative methods of addressing behavior only work momentarily, often having the unintended side effect of escalating stress.

It is the ‘Perfect storm’ where every element of failure is gathered into one place.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Rune’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_328701 Rune-Redacted Download

When fast processing trumps animal welfare no matter the cost

Leave a reply

Gretchen, ID# 327982 and Holly, ID# 327983

“Shelter life is a prison for dogs. It’s stressful, scary, and confusing. Some are on death row and will never make it out. Some are afraid and withdrawn in the cage. Others shut down. Others bark and cry, confused as to why they are there and not living the life they once new – even if that life was not one of a happy home. It’s hell for every dog in there. And they respond in different ways. Given that they are masters of reading energy, they KNOW this place is not good.

Whether its abuse, trauma, lack of early developmental support, or simply being completely overwhelmed by the shelter or loss of the only way of life they have ever known, and now having to interact with strangers or dogs they have never experienced – it can be too much for some dogs….

…Fear shows up in a number of ways. Retreat and hide and just pray we’ll all leave them alone. Bark and growl in the hopes we’ll leave them alone. Pressed far enough, a bite may occur in the hopes you will just leave them alone. These dogs don’t want to bite…Most people put far too much pressure on the dog way too fast. Even though your intentions are good, you’re pushing the dog further in their fears.”
—Building Bravery In A Fearful Dog, K9 Coach

On October 19, 2024, Holly and her partner Gretchen, both young German Shepherd mixes were found on the streets, by a Good Samaritan who said he just opened the door to the car and they hopped in. Once at MCAS both Holly and Gretchen were carried into the kennels. On October 26, a shelter manager asked a staff person to see if both dogs could be walked or picked up to assess them for foster care.

At MCAS, every dog’s welfare is sacrificed for speed when those it’s supposed to serve are vulnerable from depressed areas, disadvantaging them at the start. Instead of approaching each dog individually, MCAS focuses on streamlining its vaunted “data collections” to meet expedient deadlines and goals without regard for their fear.

At the outset, a dog’s first experience at MCAS is an intrusive physical exam with vaccinations. This fear-inducing experience becomes the tone setting experience for every dog at the prison we call a shelter. Often fear is met with an over reliance on excessive psychotropics instead of fear-free management practices. No matter how frightened the dog, the goal is a rapid completion of the protocol, e.g. “allow pets to face, neck, muzzle and shoulders without issue.” For example, when a dog is cowering and submitting to intrusions out of fear instead of happily accepting them, they simply treat the protocol as completed and check off their data collections box and move on to the next step.

October 26, 2024; Behavior Notes for Holly,

“Data Collection:

Andrew [Mathias] asked me to see if I was able to walk and/or pick up in able to assess for foster placement. Holly was avoidant of slip lead, but I was able to lasso after a couple of minutes. She attempted crawling up kennel wall, flailed, and pancaked when leash was on, so still unable to walk on lead. I was able to pick up. She froze and was trembling, but displayed no other negative fear based responses to being picked up.”

October 26, 2024; Behavior Notes for Gretchen,

“Data Collection:

Andrew [Mathias] asked me to see if I was able to walk and/or pick up in able to assess for foster placement. Gretchen was avoidant of slip lead, but I was able to lasso with relative ease. She flailed and pan caked when leash was on, so still unable to walk on lead. I was able to pick up. She froze and was trembling, but displayed no other negative fear based responses to being picked up.”

Note that both of these data collections are almost word-for-word exactly the same. No compassion or care goes into these data collections. It’s just a question of how much force is necessary to ‘get the job done.’ It’s a process more fitting with a privatized prison or an assembly line, than a shelter.

On October 31, MCAS separated Gretchen from Holly “to see if that will help them bond more with handlers.”

November 4, 2024; Holly’s Medical update,

“Assessment:

Has recently been separated from kennel mate and her FAS [Fear, anxiety, stress] raised again. Will continue FAS meds for new environment.”

Unsurprisingly, both of their levels of stress increased, especially for Gretchen as this contributed to her developing kennel cough.

November 4, 2024; Gretchen’s Medical update,

“Assessment:

Currently being treated for KC [kennel cough], also recently separated from kennel mate. Will accept some treats near a hand but not from a hand, will continue FAS meds through treatment and transition to new environment.”

MCAS believed that they could force the dogs to rely on the handlers and instead took away an important source of comfort, amplifying their stress. What Holly and Gretchen needed was a thoughtful management plan addressing their fear. What they got was a program that amplified their fear. MCAS has rejected all behavior and training expertise critical to the care of its dogs in favor of force-based practices.

Both were forced into Play Groups, part of MCAS’ “data collection.”

October 31, 2024; Gretchen’s playgroup experience,

“Greeting: Carried into yard by CT.

Entry: Carried into play yard by CT…

Yard Summary: Remained pressed into corner of play yard for some time. Accepted nose to nose sniffs from Athena 328695. More interested in handlers, placing herself near or behind us to avoid other dogs.

Exit: Bumped as she is overwhelmed by other dogs playing.”

October 31, 2024; Holly’s playgroup experience,

“Greeting: Carried into yard by CT, avoidant of coming to fence.

Entry: Resistant to coming into yard. Let Galaxy 272836 into yard to greet her, lifted leg, rolled onto back and showed belly when came in for sniffs.

Yard Summary: Possibly seeking an exit, she darted into play yard. Moved around perimeter of yard on her own, some lip licking at Galaxy. Came in for nose to nose sniffs with Athena 328695. Nervous pacing of play yard throughout and not much interest in other dogs.

Exit: Not enjoying playgroup.”

Their goal should be to keep stress at the lowest level possible, not to overwhelm and flood a fearful dog. At MCAS, uniform protocols precede animal welfare. It is entirely possible to gather information about a dog without forcing stressful encounters. All that is being gathered is how a dog responds to stress.

On November 4, both Gretchen and Holly went to a foster home, with a foster that does care about pacing and allowing them the time to decompress from their traumatic shelter experience. A shelter is not a prison but it is at MCAS where the needs of traumatized animals take second place to the trains running on time.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Other sources of guidance about taking care of fearful dogs:
http://fearfuldogs.com/, http://strayrescue.org/

Gretchen’s MCAS Records, redacted

MCAS Records_327982 Gretchen-Redacted Download

Holly’s MCAS Records, redacted

MCAS Records_327983 Holly-Redacted Download

MCAS’ self inflicted shortage of volunteers harms animals and the community

Leave a reply

MCAS Volunteer Manual June 2024

“…it is also important to note that the shelter environment can also be difficult for some. Volunteers are expected to be able to mentally and emotionally process the reality of serving in the shelter environment and we ask that you make an informed decision about your ability to volunteer with us.”

Nathan Winograd on volunteer rights

No Kill Advocacy Center_Section 1983 to the Rescue Download

MCAS managers show that they assume that all shelters are run as authoritarian organizations and that killing animals is an inevitable part of shelter reality when they claim they are just like any other shelter. That view means that volunteers must adapt, leave voluntarily, or be fired… if they care about animals. Freedom of speech is forbidden.

It is false that all shelters are authoritarian and must be run on discarded “control” models. That was not the choice of the community. It is one imposed by sitting managers. When MCAS had a higher save rate, anyone—volunteers, rescues, staff, and ordinary citizens—could offer and also help seek resources for dogs at risk. They were not told to ‘know their place.’ That is why there was a higher rate of participation and saved lives. Animals with special needs received training addressing their needs, not death sentences.

It is MCAS’ management that is at fault. And it is their decision to run an agency as an authoritarian organization against county standards.

MCAS has 46 volunteers listed for October who routinely walk dogs. It is not enough. That number is consistently very low. Volunteers are critical to MCAS. They primarily address the welfare needs of dogs at the agency. Because volunteer numbers are so low, MCAS is currently failing all minimum mental health standards for dogs.

The effect is not ‘change and correction’ but to kill more animals and tell the community to accept that is inevitable. Most animals become distressed at MCAS and MCAS only treatment plan is to kill dogs who are the victims of the agency’s toxic environment, not correct the environment, not welcome volunteer active participation, and not help animals thrive. It is about smothering compassion. Volunteers are advised to get used to it or they can leave.

The entire volunteer manual is about authoritarian control. It reflects a failed agency culture under current management. Unless that is changed the agency will not thrive and more importantly, the workers, volunteers, animals and community will bear the consequences of that failure.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2022

The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters-Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2022 Download

MCAS Volunteer Handbook, June 2024

2024 MCAS Volunteer Handbook Download

MCAS Volunteer Hours for October 2024

October 2024 Volunteer Hours Download

MCAS’ toxic environment: The cause of Winnie’s death

Leave a reply

Winnie, ID# 300464

Winnie is a neglected six year old German Shepherd mix found as a stray on October 17, 2024. She would have been better off left on the streets in the care of strangers, not left instead at MCAS where disease and indifference are rampant. Winnie was hospitalized at MCAS after developing kennel cough and pneumonia on the same day that she was approved for foster care on November 11, 2024. By then, she had been at the shelter for 24 days. On November 12, 2024, the managers rejected life saving medical care in favor of expedient killing. They assigned her to immediate euthanasia that day.

November 12, 2024,

“Rounds met and due to multiple previously diagnosed chronic medical conditions with the current medical concerns causing a concern for her QOL [Quality of life], rounds elects to move forward with euthanasia.”

The managers’ justifications for euthanasia are self serving and dishonest. More time is dedicated to finding reasons to transfer or kill animals than to save their lives, despite having over a million dollars in Dolly’s Fund, a historically misused restricted fund for special medical care needs of shelter animals. It is the managers’ quality of life that might be affected if they were to work towards their funded mission. Winnie had “…multiple previously diagnosed chronic medical conditions,” but they were treatable, manageable, and even correctable. Winnie’s quality of life depended upon and required medical care. They denied it.

On November 12, 2024, the on site veterinarian recommended:

“Rounds Review to decide next steps: Recommend starting IV fluids and IV antibiotics (at MCAS or DLEAH [Dove Lewis Emergency Animal Hospital]) or euthanasia.”

The only mention of the significance of prior chronic conditions occurred during an earlier stray intake in February 2024. They were described as treatable and manageable and were considered so until Winnie contracted preventable kennel cough and pneumonia at MCAS. Which then became a rationalization for wanting to clear space with as little effort as possible.

On February 6, 2024, Winnie was brought in as a stray exhibiting signs of neglect (with similar concerns noted on previous stray intakes: August 2020; October 2023).

February 6, 2024, Health Exam; Veterinary recommendation:

“OK to be adopted by finder at end of hold time if they can continue treatment/ management of skin and ear conditions which will likely need long term (potentially lifelong) management.”

From multiple MCAS record entries, it is clear that Winnie had a fine quality of life with chronic medical conditions.

October 23, 2024, Data Collection:

“Readily approached me at outside kennel door, wagging tail with perked ears. Easy to reach in and leash. Pulls a bit on leash, sniffing and wagging tail. Readily accepted pats on head, back, chin, and neck. Wiggling back and forth in front of me as I pet her. Sniffed dogs in neighboring kennels, whining and bumping kennel door with nose, high wagging tail. Tossed treats which she ate as I exited kennel.”

Even with chronic medical conditions, Winnie was a happy dog interested in the world around her with a quality of life. Chronic, treatable, manageable and correctable medical conditions, most secondary to neglect, didn’t become a management “concern” until MCAS managers were hopping around seeking to pile on excuses to kill her out of their indifference.

MCAS managers changed the rules to legitimize and normalize killing for space and convenience. They have no compassion for animals and the public they serve. Those in charge of MCAS supervision go along to get along and look the other way.

Veterinarians and others serve the managers, not the mission.

Before 2016, veterinarians had a more central role being part of the Rounds Review (formerly Shelter Review) committee. They were mandatory presences, part of the minimum 3 parties necessary to form a quorum. These meetings were open to invested parties such as trainers, staff, volunteers, rescues. The meetings also included a specific diplomate in behavioral veterinary medicine on contract to the agency twice a month. After 2016, former Director Jackie Rose changed the language such that Veterinarians were no longer required to be present, being relegated to optional advisory roles.

Under Director Erin Grahek, the Rounds Review meetings are supposed to include staff veterinari ans and certified veterinary technicians. However, as is seen in Winnie’s record, these meetings are far too short to possibly include any meaningful input from veterinary staff. The Rounds Review met and decided Winnie’s fate over the course of 4 minutes on November 12, 2024, and immediately after the managers signed off on her euthanasia. The speed with which these decisions are made is consistent across many records, and public records requests regarding what parties are present are ignored.

Staff veterinarians could and did frequently consult with other community veterinary professionals and were actively part of critical care decisions including final dispositions. MCAS used to have medical and hospice fosters to support animals with special needs. Handicaps and illness were not considered the end of life.

MCAS is no longer a public shelter but a private preserve. That is why Winnie died. The managers, trusted to care for shelter animals, did not want to put in more time or effort than is necessary to sign off on her euthanasia. 4 minutes could never be enough time to weigh a life. The money was there, in Dolly’s Fund.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Winnie’s MCAS Records, Redacted.

MCAS Records_300464 Winnie-Redacted Download

MCAS Rounds Review Policies, 2014; Working Draft under Former Director Michael Oswald

MCAS Shelter Review Guidelines-2014-Working Draft Download

MCAS Rounds Review Policies, 2016; under Former Jackie Rose

MCAS Shelter Review Guidelines-2016 Download

MCAS Rounds Review Euthanasia Policies, 2024; under Director Erin Grahek, Page 3

MCAS Euthanasia Policy-2024 Download

MCAS uses ultimatums and threats instead of compassionate solutions: Buba

Leave a reply

Buba, ID# 327482

Buba, a 2-year-old German Shepherd, was surrendered to MCAS on October 12, 2024. His owner, who had taken care of him for a year, was in jail and the family could no longer continue Buba’s care. On the owner surrender form, Buba was described as fearful and shy, afraid of strangers, new dogs and cats but easy going around children under 10 years old. Buba was also described as protective, afraid of car rides, and being at the veterinary office. He liked walks and solicited pats and attention.

The circumstances that led to his owner’s family no longer being able to care for Buba are not documented in the report. MCAS offers no counseling to owners surrendering their animals about resources that might allow them to keep their dogs. Nor do they provide respite fostering for persons and families in crisis. On the day of impound, October 12, Buba’s owner was unsure when he would be getting out but gave the names of the family permitted to redeem him.

After 3 admissions exams attempts on October 13, 15, and 16, he was forwarded on October 17 to what is called “data collection.” “Data collection” in this agency refers to visits to a kenneled dog in order to gather more information about its willingness for contact, for being leashed, walked, and how far their personal boundaries can be pushed. Buba was scared, retreated, and avoidant. They made no effort to accommodate for Buba’s mental state beyond prescribing behavior medication. There no intervention plans to address a dog’s fear. Instead, untrained staff do the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. The only interventions for fear, anxiety and stress are escalating doses of psychotropics.

Buba’s fear was visible.

October 13, 2024; Admission Exam Attempt # 1

“Observations During Interaction: Approaching dog on outside run, dog immediately raised his hackles when he saw me, started growling and barking, and retreated quickly into his inside run. From his inside run he was hard staring at me with a tense body and whale eye. Given this behavior, I am not comfortable attempting an intake exam/treatments today. Ended interaction.”

On the evening of October 12, a veterinary assistant had prescribed psychotropics for Buba with the following note: “High FAS [fear, anxiety, stress] with safety concern on Intake.”

MCAS staff are not taught skills to help them befriend anxious dogs who become afraid in a strange environment. “Treat and retreat” is an exercise based upon the premise that one does not advance on a dog afraid of the person in front of him, but gives the dog space to make decisions on his own. Unsafe conditions are created by staff and management who then assign blame for their actions to a dog calling the dog they have just made more fearful by their advances “unsafe.”

October 14, 2024; Admission Exam Attempt # 2

“Observations During Interaction: Approached inside run and shut guillotine when Buba did not see me yet. I stepped into his line of sight and tried to speaking to him softly – he began growling, barking and retreated quickly into the furthest point of his kennel. Throughout interaction he was giving me a hard stare, whale eye. Again, I am not comfortable attempting an intake exam/treatments today and believe this dog is a safety risk. Ended interaction. ACR for Behavior meds: 10/12/24. – on meds now.”

The staff person made the same errors of engagement as during the first admissions attempt that escalated fear instead of creating space and comfort. They trapped Buba in a narrow confined space, shutting the guillotine door of his kennel so he could not retreat.

The staff worker escalated Buba’s fear, then called him a safety instead of reviewing his/her own behavior as a stressor.

October 15, 2024; Admission Exam Attempt # 3

“Observations During Interaction: Approached outside run after closing guillotine, dog retreated to furthest point of kennel, he began barking repetitively, growling, ears semi flattened back and was urinating on himself. He would not come forward to handlers, and did not want any treats that were tossed to him. Same behaviors as last 2 attempts. Per protocol, removing from awaiting intake and placing on rounds review to determine next steps.”

Instead of reviewing what they were doing and could do differently to be effective, staff repeated the same approach over and over again and expected a different response. There was no pause to consider or review how they could change their approach in the exam process. They’re utter lack of training set Buba up to fail.

His psychotropic medications were not readjusted from initial levels to address Buba’s escalating stress. MCAS Veterinary assistants and technicians independently diagnose and prescribe medications in violation of Oregon State Laws. Their veterinarians that then sign off on the prescriptions are also not in accordance with the law. They need to be present to make the diagnosis themselves, not just defer to assistants and technicians.

ORS 686.360,

“All duties of a veterinary technician must be performed under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. The Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board shall promulgate rules regarding the services a veterinary technician may perform, including, but not limited to:

(1) Obtaining and recording information cases.
(2) Preparation of patients, instruments, equipment, and medicants for surgery.
(3) Collection of specimens and performance of certain laboratory procedures.
(4) Application of wound dressings.
(5) Assisting the veterinarian in diagnostic, medical and surgical proceedings. [1975 c.619 §8; 1989 c.171 §79; 1993 c.491 §13]”

ORS 686.130 (15),

“(15)Permitting the veterinary technician, preceptee, or student intern to perform a duty, task or procedure not specifically permitted by the board. [Amended by 1975 c.619 §5; 1979 c.744 §57; 1993 c.491 §7; 2009 c.756 §60]”

On October 16, MCAS failed again when the family members who had brought Buba in on behalf of the owner had returned to reclaim him, planning to rehome Buba to a cousin. Instead of facilitating a reclaim by the same persons who had brought him in, MCAS told the family that they must tell the owner, someone with a noted possible language barrier, to call in and give permission to reclaim Buba. The agency could have made that call and contact immediately while they were at MCAS. Given the circumstances, this was an acceptable option. Instead they prolonged Buba’s stay, continuing their “data collection,” despite having an immediate effective solution.

What is clear in cases like Buba’s is that MCAS managers run an authoritarian agency governed by contempt towards the public accompanied by the use of threats and intimidation. The agency told the family they must be the ones to get Buba’s owner to call the agency and give permission. Requiring permission normally wouldn’t be problematic, but Buba’s owner was in jail. The Agency would have had far more leniency and flexibility in being able to contact the jail, from one governmental agency to another, than the family ever could.

This requirement turned out to be entirely unnecessary, as the Rounds Review Committee authorized Buba’s reclamation to a family member anyways 2 days later on October 18. The same day of this authorization, the Shelter directly threatened that if the family member didn’t show up by the end of that business day, they would kill Buba the following morning.

These threats are exactly how the managers at MCAS believe their public service is meant to be fulfilled. They govern with irrational fears, impatience, blatant ignorance, and a total lack of compassion. Their conduct is the absence of any knowledge about public service whatsoever.

October 17, 2024; Data collection

“Dog barks and runs as far away in kennel as possible, sitting out of sight. Would only eat treats with no one present. Attempted to interact from inside, then outside door. If I opened door to get a look at Buba he would begin to growl and tremble. Closed him outside and sat by kennel door, he barked and leaned back into wall, ears flat, lifting paw. Bounced a tennis ball, and his ears perked up for 1 second, then he returned to barking, same reaction to squeaky toy. Cracked door, and asked if he wanted to go on a walk, showing my leash. He began to tremble heavily and growl. Left lots of treats. Ended interaction.”

On October 18, two events happened within an hour of each other. Buba began to become less fearful.

“Morning interactions

Closed out for morning cleaning. Sitting against the back wall of outside kennel, against building. Ears perked, furrowed brow, looking at me. I tossed a few slices of hot dog, he looked at the ones that got close to him. I walked away to interact with another dog, when I came back he was in the same spot but all the treats had been eaten. I started to toss more hot dogs and he stood up and slowly walked around and ate them. Willing to come up to fence, ate a few treats through the fence but skittish and would retreat back to the back of the kennel if I moved too quickly. I feel confident could get him out of the kennel.”

The record does not mention if the owner was able to call out from the jail to allow his relatives to redeem Buba from MCAS. On October 18, the same day Buba was making behavioral progress. MCAS called the family of Buba’s owner, who was still in jail, advising them that Buba was scheduled to be killed the following day, October 19. They said the family had until the end of the day, October 18, to redeem him, telling him he was scheduled to be euthanized due to “behavior.” They stated that Buba was “dangerous.” But the Buba’s records document otherwise: he was avoidant, fearful, and retreated at every turn because he was scared. The worker, during the last interaction on the same day he was called “dangerous,” stated “I feel confident I could get him out of the kennel”. But MCAS uses fear and intimidation to bully as motivations at every turn.

October 18, 2024, 2:31 PM

“… Called finder [family] Eloise at… and asked if she wanted to pick up the dog, stated expected outcome. She stated she wanted to reclaim dog. I told her she would need to get this dog out of the kennel because its dangerous for our staff. She said she can do that. Advised of hours of operation and outcome tomorrow is she does not reclaim dog.”

The finder and relative of the owner redeemed Buba on October 18, 2024, a week after he was surrendered. MCAS management never met with the family before his surrender. There was no owner surrender counseling to ask what resources they might need as alternatives to surrender. They both harmed the family and harmed Buba at their overfunded animal prison on the hill.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS Guiding Principles, formally in effect since 2016

Guiding Principles Policy–Sept 2016 Download

Buba’s MCAS Records, Redacted

MCAS Records_327482 Buba-Redacted Download

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community

1 Reply

Jasmin, ID# 292723

The February 2023 investigative report by OPB April Ehrlich, addressing MCAS’ failures could be published today. A year and a half later there has been no substantive change.

“In a 2018 report, auditors noted that multiple staff were concerned the shelter had adopted out unsafe dogs.”

MCAS does not adopt out “unsafe dogs.”They adopt dogs out unsafely because of bad policies that disregard animal welfare, including low standards and $25 adoptions, when ‘cheap’ is an invitation to impulse buys. Markdowns are intended as incentives. When ‘discount specials’ never end, save changing their name, that speaks to the agency’s failure and the corruption of its values.

Adoptions: How adoptions go wrong.

Over the protests of staff and volunteers, Jasmin, a wonderful dog whose history included a severe attack by another dog, was to have an adoption restriction requiring that she be the only dog in the prospective family. Instead, management overrode that restriction and adopted Jasmin to a family with another resident dog. Days later she was returned by the family after a dog attack. MCAS managers killed her for their careless indifference. The practice of facilitating poor adoptions and killing dogs who have been sent to unsafe homes and returned happens all of the time.

Playgroups: What was intended to relieve the stress of constant confinement after working with Dogs Playing for Life, has been repurposed into an evaluation about adoptability based upon ‘observed’ social skills in the play group, filtering out dogs that, in their assessment, can’t be adopted and so should be euthanized.

This test is deeply flawed because of the debilitatingly stressful environment fostered by this shelter’s management policies. Dogs known to be reactive to other dogs are included in playgroup tests, often muzzled, increasing their anxiety and fear. Playgroups include dogs in heat, injured dogs, dogs suffering kennel cough, disabled, blind, and deaf dogs, diagnostic categories whose illness or vulnerabilities place them at risk.

Intake: Dogs are rushed through intake regardless of their levels of distress, a process forced by the management’s edict for speed efficiency. If distressed, they are attached by leash to an i-hook, escalating fear and anxiety by trapping them, and then the intrusive exams proceed. They are then labeled with ‘handling sensitivity’ and/or ‘fear’ or ‘jumpy/mouthy’ waivers for defensive reactions brought about by insensitive handling. For example, if they “head whip” when intrusive exams are conducted. When staff behaves insensitively, on the orders of management, the dogs are blamed for their reactions. Everything becomes the dog’s fault.

Data Collection: “Data collections” are visits to kenneled dogs, usually but not always up to 3, to evaluate how many personal space intrusions, including checking teeth, ears, and physically checking spay/neuter status, a dog will tolerate from a complete stranger in a shelter environment. Staff are not trained about animal behavior, how to recognize stress and how to gain safe compliance for physical exams. The emphasis is always on speed. Pushing dogs down or pursuing them to leash is unsafe conduct. The only tools management provides are negative: The word “No”; Pet Corrector, spray bottles and shake cans all of which can backfire by escalating stress.

Fosters: Are not screened, except to make sure their companion animals are licensed, and chosen randomly. They receive no training and are not provided behavior training resources. The absence of professional guidance creates safety risks. If an incident occurs it is again the dog’s fault according to managers, not their own poor policies.

Adoption Returns: Adoption Returns are commonplace because of poor and indifferent adoption standards. Only the dog pays the price.

“Multnomah County shelter has a policy to offer emergency boarding services for up to a month.”

Director Erin Grahek and Operations Manager Marian Cannell ended emergency board and respite fosters a while ago without announcement, excusing this with the statement that they have insufficient space. ‘Space’ is a matter of creativity. Respite fostering and emergency board have been replaced by the ‘ 6 day hold mandatory’ for owned animals, after which MCAS assumes ownership.

Redemption and retention are their funded missions. When one lacks the skills to honor it, one does not just get rid of the mission. MCAS accommodated for respite and emergency board in the past despite an equal or greater intake, smaller budget and fewer managers. What did previous directors do differently when space was available? The funding is there. The imagination, will, initiative, and values are not.

Attached is a proposed respite foster program County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson placed on a short list over a year ago. Why hasn’t it been funded? Other space limitations are the result of multiple adoption returns, as many as 6 times in one case.

Owner surrenders outside the scope of those that the county is mandated to take are often about owners’ deficits and mismanagement. Issues that could be managed by providing counseling before accepting a surrender, as former Multnomah County Animal Control Director Hank Miggins once required.

There is no veterinary social work position to proactively help people keep their animals when a crisis occurs. Frequent adoption returns and high intake from owner surrenders are challenges that should be met with policy change, but the management instead chooses to prioritize speedy intake with speedy adoption to create space.

“‘I will bring on strong professionals who have the animal welfare background that I don’t, and marry that with my experience as a manager and a leader in Multnomah County,’ Erin Grahek said.”

That program has failed completely. First, a leader must know the difference between competent effective sheltering and poor sheltering. A distinction that is not learned from following the managers’ lead. It has to come from a director’s lived professional experience or they will not be able to lead, and instead be relegated to a director in title only. Operations manager, Marian Cannell hired in November 2022, and the supervisory managers demonstrably lack the skills and background necessary to run a humane progressive animal shelter that meets this community’s needs. Management positions have been filled based not upon skills proficiency and a broad-based search, but upon personal loyalty to existing management.

The community and homeless animals bear the costs of government failure. The February 2023 report from OPB April Erhlich could just as well be today’s report.

Service to managers is more important than serving the community, what is really needed to return service to the community is a system of accountability.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Jason Renaud’s Respite Program proposal from September 2022

Jason Renaud_Dog Respite Proposal Download

Cornell University: Shelter’s Move Towards Alternatives, Dogwatch Newsletter, Vol 4, No.20, April 2016

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives_Cornell University Download

Jasmin’s [292723] records, redacted

MCAS Records_292723 Jasmin-Redacted Download

MCAS Shelter Shock

Facts that the public doesn't know about Multnomah County Animal Services, Oregon

Author Archives: mcaswatchdog

MCAS management: The gang that couldn’t shoot straight, and the sharp increase in animal deaths: Mia the Great Pyrenees/Retriever

Toby: a 12 year old Pomeranian killed for “Quality of Life,” a.k.a. ‘Old Dog Syndrome’

MCAS: Using AI generated adoption descriptions sets Florence up for failure

Falsifying death certificates to kill shelter dogs: Petey, the Little Chihuahua

Elektra: A fragile medically neglected French Bull dog lost at a park, neglected and killed by MCAS

MCAS Violence towards animals: Vengeance killing; Chronus and Rhea

MCAS’ Budgeted Mission

An Eye for an Eye; A Tooth for a Tooth

Killing Joey: When MCAS managers fail helpless animals are made to pay the price

Helping the Pets and People Who Need the Most Support Wade Sadler Former MCAS Director, February 2020

Killing Spud, a shy dog, for barking at strangers: Unhealthy and untreatable

Almight: An urgent call for a humane animal shelter

MCAS rewards abusive owners: Almight traumatized by constant abuse of electric shock collars

Lethal incompetence: The major cause of animal deaths at MCAS; Killing Millie

The Oregonian: Multnomah County moving forward with $85M animal shelter rebuild

Convenience euthanasia and MCAS’ lethal abuse of the power to kill: Kismet

For Bob,“Robert,” Nixon, my Irish brother in arms, who died mid morning November 15, 2024, without permission.

MCAS’ deprivation of care: The deaths of newborn puppies.

The brutal killing of Rune, a Street Dog: a victim of MCAS’ mistakes

When fast processing trumps animal welfare no matter the cost

MCAS’ self inflicted shortage of volunteers harms animals and the community

MCAS’ toxic environment: The cause of Winnie’s death

MCAS uses ultimatums and threats instead of compassionate solutions: Buba

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community