Author Archives: mcaswatchdog

Rationalizing the cruelty of killing Sheba, a senior Aussie who exceeded her stay

1 Reply

Followup to: Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba

Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270

On September 23, 2024, the Rounds Review committee recommended Sheba, also known as Sundown, to be killed. Two days later on September 25, 2024, she was labeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable” despite all recorded evidence to the contrary.

Management does not justify their euthanasia decisions beyond labeling animals as “unhealthy and untreatable.” Rather than meet professional expectations of accountability, they have lowered expectations upon themselves making dogs pay the price.

The MCAS management has categorically rejected behavior and training, despite recommendations by formal audits in 2016 and 2018. Recommendations that had been glibly acknowledged in 2018, despite recent reporting by the Oregonian in 2023 demonstrating that there is still a dire lack of training throughout the agency’s personnel. This lack of training is especially problematic since the demographic the shelter serves significantly disadvantaged areas and whose adopters are often ignorant about animal behavior. Problems that all contribute to a protocol defaulting to euthanasia for convenience or ‘savings’ on space or medical care.

September 23, 2024, 9:45 AM Rounds Review:

“Rounds discussed and will move forward with humane euthanasia due to unpredictable aggressive behaviors outside of the shelter and lack of transfer resources.”

If Sheba’s behaviors were truly motivated by “unpredictable aggression outside of the shelter” then she would be very unlikely to be made available to rescue.

There was no evidence during Sheba’s extended stay at MCAS concerning “unpredictable aggression” with dogs or people in any notes despite the fact that she was in multiple play groups with other dogs. In every one she was friendly and tolerant of other dogs.

May 8, 2024, Behavior Notes, prior to adoption on May 8, 2024:

“PLAYGROUP

Greeting: Panting, walked over to fence with handler. A little avoidant of dogs initially, Turned and sniffed them. Small butt wiggles. Steerable.

Entry: Walked in, greeted handlers. Tolerated other dogs sniffing her. Sniffed them back.

Summary: Dog tolerant to dog social. Sniffing with dogs. Hung out by handlers. Friendly with people and interested in dogs. Limited energy.”

September 20, 2024, Behavior Notes, after being returned on September 10

“PLAYGROUP

Greeting: Brief snffs with with dogs. Went off and sniffed around and peed. Checking in with Runner, tail wagging.

Entry: Walked in. Tolerated sniffs from other dogs. Gave a few brief sniffs.

Yard Summary: Hung around Primary and Secondary [Playgroup handlers], sniffing their legs and wagging. Started whining, jumping, and soliciting pets. Some whining and panting next to handlers. Dog tolerance seen in play group.”

After the Rounds Review committee decided that Sheba should be euthanized due to “unpredictable aggression,” she was in another playgroup that showed exactly the same friendly behaviors she had consistently shown in playgroups prior.

September 23, 2024, Behavior Notes, after her euthanasia schedule was finalized

“PLAYGROUP

Greeting: Whining at the fence. Tail wags at all the handlers.

Entry: Walked in and sniffed with Mirage [Another dog], FDBD sniffs [muzzle sniffs and butt sniffs] with tail wags.

Yard Summary: Wagging tail and whining at the fence, soliciting pets from the handlers. Interested in other dogs but gets overwhelmed. Will greet new dogs, More interested in people. Solicited pets and attention.”

Nothing about her behavior met any standard for aggression at MCAS.

April 30, 2024, Intake notes after being held in protective custody for abuse and/or neglect.

“Behavior observations: Very overweight and severely matted along entire body. Somewhat nervous and avoidant during exam, but allowed all handling and readily accepted treats throughout exam. This animal is being placed under protective custody for further investigation into her poorly [sic] condition. Once cleared from PC [Protective custody] can be placed up for adoption inf not RTO [Returned to owner].”

On her adoption return intake notes, no personal aggression was observed. Nor was any aggression towards people observed throughout the remaining days of her shelter stay.

September 10, 2024, adoption return intake notes

“Exam performed when in admissions room – nothing appeared amiss, able to administer [de]wormer and flea control without issue. No aggression during time in shelter, able to easily kennel ( from outside, other dogs shut inside) and take off loop, no sensitivity shown.

Placing on rounds for review.”

All behavior notes before and after her return were positive.

Why was Sheba killed for “unpredictable aggression” outside of the shelter, when none of those behaviors were reported in a stressful shelter?

MCAS never sought clarification of the owners’ reports of “unpredictable aggression” towards people and/or dogs. The only information provided by the adopters was that during their 4 month adoption Sheba “had bitten 3 or 4 times during her time away, none causing bleeding to their knowledge, only ripping pants once…” and “that they cannot keep her because of her behavior.”

Had MCAS managers taken any interest in seeking to understand what was reported to be “unpredictable” about Sheba’s behavior despite the fact that there was no evidence of unpredictable behavior at MCAS, they could have easily discovered the likely challenge in other comments the adopters made in the notes:

September 11, 2024

“Wife of [adopter] called in and wanted to provide more information about their time with the dog. She said that the dog had pretty intense separation anxiety, doesn’t think dog does well with children, but says the dog bonds pretty intensely to the person to the person that brings her home. Also states that she thinks the dog would do well for someone who has a yard, because their place didn’t have a yard so she would take the dog out for exercise and stated dog reacted strongly to other dogs and people.”

MCAS’ failure to follow up with an informed interview transitions into failing its community and shelter animals. They are responsible for their welfare and fates.

“To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.”

—When It Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels, by Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D, CAAB, from DogWatch Newsletter, March 2006.

The behaviors that the adopters may have intended regarding the difficulties they reported with handling Sheba could easily be commonplace leash reactivity alongside being protective of the adopter. This is especially likely if the adopter was holding the leash tightly, exhibiting anxiety that led to Sheba feeling anxious and taking a protective stance.

Educating her adopter was one remedy. However, MCAS also considers owner, adopter and foster surrender counseling irrelevant to addressing behavior concerns. The primary way they have addressed behavior concerns has been over prescribing tranquilizing medication not unlike how unethical nursing homes drug out their residents to keep them quiet.

A different adopter with a better understanding of dogs and behavior would have also been an option. Scholarly research supports that most failed adoptions are about owners, not dogs.

“Study: Saving Normal: A New look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters

Findings: There is no compelling evidence “for the notion that the general population of relinquished dogs in shelters are there because of relationship-breaking behavioral incompatibilities in their prior home.” Most dogs labeled “behavior” are normal as “surrenders often say more about the people doing the surrendering – about ‘owner-related factors, needs, and expectations’ – than the dogs being surrendered.” As such, shelters should stop thinking of dogs as having “behavior problems” and instead refer to them as ‘behavior incompatibilities” with the person they were living with before being surrendered.”

—No Animal Left Behind, Nathan Winograd, October 25, 2024

Saving Normal: A New Look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters

“Being loved and cherished is not incompatible with having some behaviors or habits owners might prefer dogs not have, if given the choice.”

There was a time when parents following an incident with the family dog would ask: “What did you do to the dog?” There was nothing wrong with Sheba. MCAS never fact checked the adopter’s report. They then robbed her of her life because animal care isn’t a managerial priority, but saving on money and space is. There were multiple options and this is made clear in other parts of the record.

‘But the trains have to run on time.’

September 15, 2024,

“Emailed breed specific rescues.”

September 18, 2024

“Rounds met and we are waiting to see if a rescue comes forward. Will FU [Follow up] 9/23”

September 19, 2024

“HUNAH [Herd U Needed A Home | Border Collie And Mixed Canine rescue] declined due to lack of fosters.”

September 22, 2024

“Emailed senior dog rescues.”

“Took Sheba to Agility. Took treats eagerly at back of kennel. Mild pulling. Kept stopping to eat foliage. Back at kennel accepted pets, butt wiggling all the while.”

“Rounds discussed and will follow up 9/23 on rescue placement.”

When no senior rescue responded in the single day they waited, the managers ordered Sheba killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.” She was viewed as expired merchandise.

When managers prioritize securing vacation time, pay, and ease in work, they treat criticism as antagonism and see no reason to improve their performance so long as county officials have their back.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS Records for Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270 , Redacted

MCAS Records_315270 Sheba (Sundown)-RedactedDownload

MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

1 Reply

Updated from initial posting: TIME SENSITIVE/URGENT: Please protest Malaki’s impending death

Malaki, MCAS ID# 324511

Malaki’s death was ordered by MCAS on September 29, 2024 and carried out on October 02, 2024 despite his happy nature, quality of life, and the existence of realistic humane alternatives. The humane alternatives ranged from management to curative.

On September 30, 2024, the day after Malaki was ordered killed by the MCAS’ Rounds Review, his behavior notes in a play yard outing challenged their description that he was moribund, medically unhealthy and untreatable (DM-UU 2: Moribund/End stage disease). Public pleas for his life went unheeded.

September 30, 2024

“Brought him out to a play yard. Knows sit, sat to let me leash him up. Very friendly and wiggly boy. Ran around the play yards Sniffed everything. Some interest in tennis balls. Mostly just wanted to hold them in his mouth. Spent most of the time jogging and walking around. Flopped on the grass and solicited pets, loves belly rubs. Played a little in the pool water. Sy came to take him for a walk through Agility. Very sweet and friendly dog, loves dogs and people. Playful.”

September 29, 2024 Rounds Review.

“Due to severe medical issues affecting his QOL [quality of life] electing euthanasia with veterinary recommendations.”

Nothing in Malaki’s record supported killing him. The contrast between the two entries could not be more at odds. The agency’s veterinarian, a primary care veterinarian, Dr. A. Fischbach, never consulted with veterinary rehabilitation specialists or surgery specialists. This is despite describing medical conditions that are wholly objectively treatable, manageable, and correctable–if animal care was a managerial priority.

On September 12, 2024 Dr. Fischbach examined Malaki for reported lameness.

Animal Care Review (ACR):

“Mobility issues in hind end. Started Carprofen 9/8 for discomfort.

Musculoskeletal:

-Ambulatory x4 with hind end stiffness

-Resists extension of both hips; slight yelp on extension of left hip

-Mild crepitus [joint popping, caused by a number of things, including air bubbles, or Arthritis can cause bones to rub together, which can lead to pain and stiffness] in left tarsus [the bones of the ankle and foot]

A [Assessment]:

-Hind end stiffness- r/o OA [osteoarthritis] DJD [degenerative joint disease], hip dysplasia, IVDD [Intervertebral disc disease] open

P [Plan]

-Decrease carprofen to 200 mg PO SID and continue indefinitely

-Recommended adopter monitor mobility and for signs of pain and establish care with their vet to discuss diagnostic and management options


Medically clear: yes with indemnity for suspected OA/DJD”

On September 21, 2024, Dr Fischbach reviewed veterinary records and radiographs from a private veterinary clinic, indicating a concern for a bilateral cruciate ligament injury and chronic pain in October 2023. The owner at that time described Malaki as struggling to hold himself up to urinate and defecate.

Eleven months later, in September 2024, Maliki was able to run around and play with other dogs while at MCAS. The only intervention was carprofen for pain relief. There was no reference at MCAS about difficulties holding himself up. He was described as able to walk and even run, meaning whatever physical compromises Malaki had did not interfere with his current quality of life. He was not functionally disabled.

Nevertheless, Dr. Fischbach withdrew her previous medical clearance and recommended euthanasia if all of the speculative conditions and speculative care needs could not be provided. She did this without consulting specialists in veterinary rehabilitation medicine or surgeons knowledgeable about the physical compromises Malaki was reported to possibly have.

“Long term pt will need surgery for cruciate ligament disease as well as physical therapy, and additional treatments for chronic osteoarthritis (Adequan injections, Librela injections, joint supplements).”

“If unable to provide the above, recommend humane euthanasia due to chronic pain affecting [quality of life].”

Why?

Why were there no veterinary consultations when that is the purpose of Dolly’s Fund, a restricted donation driven fund for the special medical needs of shelter animals?

Why save Dolly’s Fund and not the dog?

Suspected cruciate ligament injuries can successfully be addressed through surgery. Pain from almost any condition, including osteoarthritis, can be managed and controlled through multiple modalities including medications and laser light therapy, among others. Even agility carts play a role in creating mobility options for dogs with mobility compromises. As far back as 2005, a Malamute was ironically featured in a report in Dogwatch March 2005, titled “Get Them Moving Again: Customized two-wheel carts can help dogs with mobility problems enjoy life. Carts introduce mobility back to dogs of all sizes. Carts are available for rent at low cost at Back on Track Veterinary Rehabilitation Center in Portland, Oregon.

It had already been confirmed throughout Malaki’s behavior described in agency’s notes that Malaki’s pain was already well managed even without confirmed diagnoses and curative treatment.

Dolly’s Fund was never accessed despite its availability and a large endowment that increases daily. That is because if MCAS cannot foist off dogs with medical needs to other rescues, their second plan is to intentionally mislabel them as “unhealthy and untreatable” because they do not want to provide needed care.

When Washington Malamute Rescue (WAMAL) declined to take Malaki, Malaki’s life ended despite that his condition was neither severe nor incurable. He became inconvenient.

September 29, 2024

“WAMAL Declined due to no space and they wouldn’t be able to provide the necessary care he needs.”

MCAS could provide care. It was dipping into Dolly’s Fund, the managers wanted to avoid because they have diverted the funds away from animal care. They could easily have paid for Malaki’s consultation through Dolly’s Fund and his follow up care through an MCAS foster. That was once practice. Afterwards they could have featured Malaki as an example of the good work Dolly’s Fund was providing sheltered indigent animals.

MCAS managers didn’t want to take care of him, so they killed him as a convenience. By mislabeling him as “unhealthy and untreatable,” they disowned their deliberate failure to provide care, and their cruelty, knowing he indeed had a fine quality of life. They took that away from him.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Malaki’s Records, redacted save for Dr. A. Fischbach’s references

MCAS Records_324511 Malaki-RedactedDownload

Priest: The shocking abuse of a street dog MCAS failed to protect

Leave a reply

Priest, ID# 272726

“The KGW news report that following the search-and-seizure warrant executed [October 8, 2024] from a home in the Portland’s Lents neighborhood, where 15 animals were taken, some people in the neighborhood said they had made several complaints to animal services over the last few years and nothing was done is familiar.”

—https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/there-was-a-threat-made-neighbors-still-living-in-fear-following-15-dogs-cats-rescued-from-portland-home/283-fd9eb5f7-cef2-4be4-a93c-115102196f0b

MCAS’ failed due diligence over animal neglect and abuse: When dogs bite people it’s news. When people hurt dogs, its not.

Priest (formerly known as Prince), a Labrador Retriever American Pit bull mix, first came to MCAS’ attention on August 16, 2022 when a social worker, who frequently visited the Prince’s owners, reported significant concerns about his physical care and welfare including knowing one partner had struck and physically punished Prince. Similar concerns were expressed on November 19, 2022, February 8, 2023, and June 11, 2023.

MCAS visited and did nothing despite the credibility of the reporters. Finally, on October 6, 2024, an unknown homeless party surrendered Prince claiming he was aggressive, pointing to scars on his arm that he reported required stitches. Since he was unlikely to have stitched the alleged bites himself, there would be previous medical and quarantine reports. None are on record. MCAS sought no corroboration of any of the alleged bite injuries or alleged incidents.

MCAS due diligence failures occurred at multiple junctures in Priest’s short life, including a deplorable failure to investigate the claims made by the homeless individual who surrendered Priest on October 6, 2024, tying him to a tree and alleging that he was at large trying to bite people. He reported that Priest belonged to another homeless person who had left Priest in his care because that individual was no longer able to care for him. No effort was made to verify that ownership was transferred. Priest’s known owner’s name and housing location was on record. When the homeless caretaker, not the owner, surrendered Priest he showed off scars on his arm describing them as scars from significant previous bites that required stitches.

There was no reported bite on October 6, 2024, despite the fact that the caretaker was chasing Priest, caught and tied him to a tree, so the officers photographed alleged previous bite scars from alleged previous incidents they made no effort to verify.

By state law, medical facilities must report bites for quarantine purposes. The officers sought no corroborating information, including prior quarantine or medical reports which would be on file at MCAS since the reported bites required medical care i.e. stitches. The officers also failed to ask questions about circumstances that led to the claimed bites for which no documentation apparently exists.

Instead, the responding officers unquestioningly transcribed whatever the surrendering individual reported, i.e. that Priest would bite without warning, and that he had allegedly acquired Priest from another homeless individual who had left Priest in his care because that individual was not able to care for him. They did not ask the name of that party to verify the report. Given that alleged dire warning, they allowed a woman familiar with Priest to load him into the truck without incident.

Why was Priest so compliant about being chased, tied to a tree, and then permitting another homeless person to load him into the animal control truck without incident, while the officers stood by?

“CAUTION! MULTIPLE bite history reported to be unpredictable and aggressive toward people and dogs!”

Where was the evidence? Evidence would exist if there were a series of severe dog bites requiring medical intervention, in particular stitches. The agency ‘s own records do provide clear evidence of repeated abuse towards Priest. There is not one bite complaint on file but there are multiple animal welfare checks from the public concerned about mistreatment towards Priest, beginning in 2022, including beatings and neglected care that MCAS addressed cavalierly leaving him unprotected to suffer.

August 16, 2022, Complaint 273770, Cruelty and Neglect:

“PR is social worker and has become increasingly concerned for the safety of a houseless couples dog. She visit [sic] frequently and has noticed that the dog is often without water and is tied to a tree consistently and appears to be underfed. She also states she knows that the boyfriend has hit the dog…. Jamie [The owner] is currently suffering from a mental crisis. I greeted a couple that were located next to the address in a tent. The man stated that he did not but was aware of the dog and dog owner in question. The man stated that the dog owners JAMIE and ANTONIO were a houseless couple who lived inside the Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge. …The man said the dog is known to be aggressive and is known to be tied to the trees for long periods of time. The man stated that he has watched the dog on several occasions for days at a time before Jamie comes back.”

The officer located the owner with Priest, saw Priest was leashed and had access to food, water and shelter. She took at face value the owner’s statement that when Priest was left, he always had access to water, food and shelter, discounting first hand reports of neglect from other witnesses. The officer offered food and a muzzle, closing the complaint stating no violations were found at the moment and resources were given.

November 19, 2022, Complaint 276216, Cruelty Neglect:

“PR states that she works for street response and has client who isn’t properly caring for their dog (small black dog with white patch on chest). PR states that the dog is owned by a couple and the male consistently hits the dog and the dog was ran over by a bicycle about two weeks ago and is limping… PR is requesting a welfare check.”

December 1, 2022,

“I arrived at the location listed and found Prince off leash while JAMIE was attempting to recall him. I asked JAMIE how I could help and she stated that “Prince” would not listen to her. JAMIE then stated she has a back injury and cannot move fast enough to get “Prince.” After some time, a person who “Prince” was fond of arrived and jumped into their arms. Jamie was then able to leash “Prince.” I explained to JAMIE that “Prince” needs to have a collar or harness on at all times. I also suggested that she keeps “Prince” on tie down with supervision if she is unable to handle him due to her injuries. I explained to Jamie that we can ticket for this and will let her off with a warning this time but further violations will lead to a citation. During this interaction, I observed “Prince” to be in ideal condition and was not limping.”

The officer made a welfare check regarding Priest’s limping weeks after the complaint and never addressed the primary complainant’s concern about physical abuse except for a mild suggestion:

“I then explained the reason of the visit to JAMIE. JAMIE explained that sometimes ANTONIO yells at “Prince” and can handle him rough but he does not abuse the dog. I then explained to JAMIE that “Prince” appears to be in ideal condition but suggested she tells ANTONIO to handle him gentler or we maybe have to visit them again.”

The officer was excusing the abuse, trivializing credible reports, and instead focusing on leash ordinances violations.

February 8, 2023, Complaint 278100, Source OHS:

“Our vet hospital staff relayed a concern to us this afternoon. I am checking to see if you have the resources to attempt a welfare check on the dog. OHS was contacted by a person looking for vet care for a dog that was apparently hit by a car yesterday in front of several witnesses. The caller is not the dog owner. The dog owner lives in a tent at Milwaukee and Mitchell, …I don’t have a description of the tent. The hit by car happened yesterday at that location. The dog is reported to be in the tent, not moving, not eating, crying. The caller thinks the dog is critically injured. The dog is a lab/pit mix, black in color, named Priest. Apparently the dog has been hit by cars and bikes before. …Caller stated the boyfriend of the dog owner is also physically abusive of the dog…”

On February 9, 2023 the officer arrived at the campsite, the tents had been relocated to the other side of the park where there were 3 tents, one with a crate outside. No one was present. He did not know which tent belonged to the Prince’s owner so he left.

When the officer returned the next day on February 10, he learned someone had called the Portland Police and they had taken Prince to Dove Lewis. Dove Lewis did not do x-rays because the homeless owner did not have funds and recommended that if Prince was still limping in a few days he be taken to a cheaper veterinary clinic for follow up. The officer observed that day that Prince was still limping on his back leg, and advised the homeless owner to take Prince to a veterinary clinic for follow up because the injury could be a fracture. He would be back in a week to see that the owner had complied. He did not direct the owner to resources.

On February 16, 2024 the officer followed up, the x-rays had still not occurred. The owner had a voucher for a free x-ray but no transportation to collect it.

March 1, 2023, the officer returned to the park; the camp had been cleared. The officer had a telephone number for the owner’s partner but could not immediately reach him so he closed the case.

During this incident complaint, at no point did MCAS offer active assistance, for example, driving to redeem the free voucher needed for the x-rays and dropping it off to the owner when transportation was the restriction. They never addressed the frequent credible reports of abuse. Instead, they were bystanders to neglect and harm.

June 11, 2023,Complaint 281166, Officer report:

“I was greeted by the vet staff and the dog owner,…whom I had met previously for several complaint [sic] all unfounded. JAMIE stated that last night, her dog “Priest” stepped on a clamp the night before, she stated that she attempted to get the clamp off the dog but was unsuccessful.”

The officer transported Priest and his owner to Dove Lewis for care but had no questions about how a dog could become caught in a clamp. The dismissal of all previous neglect and abuse charges as “unfounded” beggars reality. What is fact is that reports of abuse were marginalized and dismissed without investigation.

On October 6, 2024 Priest was impounded and taken to MCAS, with an unchecked uncorroborated report by a caretaker that he bites without warning.

The day he arrived MCAS attempted an admissions exam despite his high levels of distress.

October 6, 2024 Admissions Exam Attempt #1

“…Did not want anything to do with treats, did not come closer than just outside guillotine door, Hardly registered hot dogs thrown in from a distance, simply stared. Due to this behavior and ACO notes regarding quick behavior changes and biting without warning, requesting behavior care and waiting a day before attempting any contact for safety.”

October 7, 2024: Admission Exam Attempt #2

“Approached kennel front, Priest was resting on bed in kennel. He raised his head and looked at me and began growling. I knelt down and called his name, he began to slowly get up with tense, forward posture while hard staring and continued whale eyed and growling. Given his history and current behavior, I am not comfortable attempting to interact with him beyond this today, ended interaction.”

No one should examine a traumatized dog the day of intake and “fail” them. At MCAS, management’s subjective fears replace establishing objective facts every time. Fear not facts drive employee and management behavior most of the time.

Nothing in previous complaints suggest Prince was a dangerous dog who bit without warning. In fact he was the victim of abuse. He was by report easily managed at the camp among persons who knew him. The bite reports were never verified.

Priest was repeatedly failed by MCAS and his story, the story of one homeless dog who lived unprotected by the animal control agency charged with protecting him and animals in danger, will likely end sadly, saving those who victimized him, killing him, the victim of abuse.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Priest’s Public Records, redacted

MCAS Records_272726 Priest-RedactedDownload

From Shelter to Prison: When MCAS creates its own “space” problem

Leave a reply

Operations Manager Marian Cannell, the current defacto MCAS director, came on board the Titanic in November 2022. Since then, a significant escalation of dogs held indefinitely in legal custody has occurred at MCAS. For example, September 29’s intake records show 25 out of 50 dogs were there on an indefinite protective custody legal hold (record attached). Dogs on protective custody legal hold are subject to the shelter’s notoriously poor animal care. It is as though the dogs are being punished for the alleged misdeeds of their owners.

The dogs held indefinitely on protective custody legal hold represent a dramatic escalation. The rationale behind why they are being held is worth asking. The reasons they are being held cannot be reviewed since these are legal cases and the records, including the animal care records, are redacted until the case is closed. In two recently released cases where the records have been released (attached below) the dogs were the victims. MCAS killed both once the legal cases were resolved, lending ironic meaning to the term “protective custody.”

Managers will tell anyone who asks that they are holding the dogs in custody for the city and county but it is MCAS that seeks and filing the charges most of the time. It seems a zealous focus on enforcement over sheltering, without any clarity about why so many more dogs are on legal hold, lending to the perception that the agency has been repurposed as a dog prison. Like a prison, the shelter suffers from over capacity issues because so many become long term residents, but unlike a prison, dogs don’t have the rights to not be killed for space because the prison needs “room.”

Marian Cannell, with Director Erin Grahek’s full cooperation, has redirected the agency’s mission away from its funded intention of prevention, education, and service to one of treating animals not as companions whose lives deserve respect but as potential pests, nuisances and liabilities best killed.

The kill rate for dogs judged “unadoptable,” for reasons that are not professionally justifiable, has escalated dramatically. For example, a distressed dog who snapped when a muzzle was forced on him and also when a loop leash was swung over his head, was judged “unsafe,” unhealthy, and untreatable, then killed. He was not. There were solutions short of killing him for signs of agency stress.

No one in government has meaningfully addressed the regression that fails to meet the needs of this community, let alone national standards for animal care. There are less draconian solutions than impoundment, followed by execution, for dogs placed on protective custody legal hold. The shelter is uninterested in alternatives and has not explained why there has been such a dramatic increase in enforcement cases and custody holds. Is it a need or just a matter of preference?

When MCAS complains about space limitations, in large measure it is self inflicted. The response from a failing agency that makes poor choices has not been creating a system of accountability, but more funding to support failure after a pointless review process.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Two records, formerly protective legal custody holds. Redactions have been applied to protect the identities of private persons and non-managerial staff.

MCAS Records_283892 Trooper-Updated September 4 2024-RedactedDownload
MCAS Records_273529 Shadow-RedactedDownload

MCAS In Care Inventory snapshots: September 30 2024 vs September 25 2023.
Redactions indicate dogs in protective custody legal holds.

MCAS In Care Inventory September 30 2024Download
MCAS In Care Inventory September 25 2023Download

TIME SENSITIVE/URGENT: Please protest Malaki’s impending death

1 Reply

Updated in: MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

Malaki, ID# 324511

Malaki is a sweet-natured senior Alaskan Malamute mix set to be euthanized due to ambulatory compromises. Malaki qualifies for Dolly’s Fund and foster care.

Under the current management, MCAS has discontinued accessing the over one million dollars in Dolly’s Fund restricted to the medical needs of shelter animals. Instead in violation of the intent of the public fund, they have re-directed donated monies to spay and neuter vouchers and, at most, comfort care should dogs with medical concerns be transferred to Dove Lewis for care.

Concerns about management conduct

1. Inappropriate behavior testing

While seeking rescue options, why did the management place Malaki in 2 dog play groups, one on September 20, 2024 and another on September 23, 2024 to assess his dog compatibility skills when chronic pain affects behavior and when physical activity aggravates a bilateral cruciate ligament injury?

2. Not valuing the lives of dogs with disabilities

Why are the only options MCAS considers rescue or death for handicapped animals even as the agency continues to gather public monies for the special medical needs of shelter animals but instead redirects it elsewhere?

The Oregon Humane Society declined to take Malaki back on September 14, 2024 after obtaining veterinary radiographic records taken in October 2023 for Malaki. The attending veterinarian suspected advanced bilateral cruciate compromises that the OHS medical team does not have the capability to treat. Now MCAS managers are seeking senior dog rescues to take Malaki with a follow up on September 26, 2024, which usually implies a literal deadline: Euthanasia.

On September 21, 2024 the on site MCAS veterinarian outlined a treatment plan that if other rescues could not take him, Malaki should be euthanized. Why?

“Long term [physical therapy] will need surgery for cruciate ligament disease as well as physical therapy, and additional treatments for chronic osteoarthritis (Adequan injections, Librela injections, joint supplements). If unable to provide the above, recommend humane euthanasia due to chronic pain affecting [Quality of life]”

Nothing in the record suggests Malaki now on pain relief and other osteoarthritis support medications is suffering at all.

September 07, 2024, Intake notes:

“Behavior observations: Dog was easy to loop leash and walk to intake room. Did well for all handlings and treatment. Paced throughout time in exam room and continued to look for a way out of room, scratching door at times. Overall was social with handler. Adoption pathway once medically cleared if not reclaimed.”

September 23, 2024, ‘Behavior Walk’ notes:

“Malaki greeted me at his outside kennel with a wiggle butt and a smile, no issues leashing. We did a loop in the front parking lot, he pulled moderately. Accepted contact and leaned in for pets. Returned to kennel and exited without issue.”

September 23, 2024, Play Group notes:

“Yard Summary: Had him out for a little while but he kept trying to run around and mount other dogs so we felt it was better to bump him.”

Why kill a happy, well adjusted dog whose pain is controlled and who has a quality of life even without extraordinary measures and interventions?

Live Options

MCAS can pay for specialist consultations with Dr Bianca Shaw of Back on Track Veterinary Clinic who has assisted with MCAS dogs before. They can also pay, often at discount, for a veterinary orthopedic surgeon for a detailed or even cursory review of options from practical management to rehabilitation. Having gone to Back on Track for dogs with far greater compromises than Malaki—one being Tash, an MCAS Akita/Husky mix with significant ambulatory problems—I know compromises can be managed well, from carts to medications, even if they are not cured.

MCAS has claimed it has no resources when it does: Dolly’s Fund. MCAS also has a foster care system that can manage a dog with Malaki’s physical compromises. People are willing to adopt compromised dogs.

They just don’t want to take on the ‘chore’ involved in taking care of medically compromised animals despite having funding through Dolly’s Fund. Even though success stories of animals that are rehabilitated through Dolly’s Fund would directly encourage the effectiveness of the donation driven fund.

If MCAS is unwilling to spend Dolly’s Fund for its purpose, please distribute it to private non-profits and clinics who will help dogs with disadvantages.

This is a community of compassion in fact with mandates directing respect for all lives including those of the handicapped. Please don’t kill Malaki. He deserves his life, unjudged by others.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


The general number is 503-988-7387, it is a hard number to get through sometimes.   Every manager’s phone number and email is listed below:

MCAS Director  Erin Grahek erin.grahek@multco.us, 503-988 6233
Monday through Friday
She took over as interim director starting from the first week of July 2024. She was appointed director in September without a background in animal sheltering.  MCAS has been in crisis with massive staff departures ever since. 

Operations manager Marian Cannell  marian.cannell@multco.us, 503-988-6763
Monday through Friday  

Animal Care Operations Manager andrew.mathias@multco.us,  503-988-9989
Tuesday through Saturday  

Field Services Supervisor Jennifer Turner   jennifer.turner@multco.us, 503-988-9079

Animal Care Supervisor  dalynn.torres@multco.us, 503-988-4610 
Sunday through Thursday

Client Services Manager echo.gill@multco.us,  503-988- 9086
Tuesday through Saturday

Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba

1 Reply

Updated in: Rationalizing the cruelty of killing Sheba, a senior Aussie who exceeded her stay

Sheba, ID# 315270

Sheba (also called Sundown) was a senior Australian-Shepherd mix found severely neglected on April 29, 2024. She was described in her adoption biography as:

“Introducing Sundown, the courageous 8 ½ year old Australian Shepherd with a story of resilience. Sundown’s journey has been marked by medical challenges, but her spirit remains unbroken. Despite her obstacles, she exudes warmth and affection, captivating everyone she meets with her soulful eyes and gentle demeanor…”

Awaiting euthanasia

How did Sheba go from the adoption floor to death?

As the death rate ticks up at Multnomah County Animal Services, more and more animals die needlessly because of MCAS’ leadership incompetence and venality. The leaders no longer mask their incompetence with plausible deniability. Instead they look for baseless excuses and quote senseless unverified statements to justify the inexcusable killing of shelter animals under their care. Multnomah County government places absolute trust in the agency’s explanations, allowing any excuse to disown its historic failures.

Sheba is only one of the increasing numbers of victims from this county shelter.

On September 23, 2024 “Rounds discussed and will move forward with humane euthanasia due to unpredictable aggressive behaviors outside of the shelter and no rescue options.” They also forgot to add that the moon is made of blue cheese.

Once Shelter Review was a robust meeting that included a diplomate in behavior veterinary medicine, independent trainers, workers and rescues, anyone who had an idea. It no longer does.

Sheba’s plight

Nothing in the records support the claim that any of Sheba’s behavior was at all “unpredictable.” When the managers become restless about which dogs to kill next instead of seeking resources they hunt for excuses. Sheba could have been a foster dog and an adoption with additional requirements but all she really needed was a responsible owner.

The ‘behavior expert’ they consulted was a $25 adopter who opined that during their brief adoption from May 09, 2024 to September 10, 2024 “…she has had bitten 3 or 4 times during her time away, none causing bleeding to their knowledge, only ripping pants once. They stated she’s unpredictable, and is either great with others or terrible, acting aggressively, and that they cannot have keep her because of her behavior.”

The unprofessional managers asked no questions. They took adopters’ remarks at face value because they too know nothing about animal behavior. Animal behavior is not “unpredictable.” It is situational and context driven. But they can’t ask questions because they don’t know what questions to ask. No amount of managerial training can correct this misconduct when they are looking for excuses to take a life.

A follow up statement made by the adopters suggests that the behaviors Sheba was exhibiting were leash reactivity. Behaviors that are commonplace, wholly manageable, and correctable.

September 11 2024,

“Wife of [adopter] called in and wanted to provide more information about their time with the dog. She said the dog had pretty intense separation anxiety, doesn’t think the dog does well with children, but says the dog bonds pretty intensely to the person that brings her home. Also states she thinks the dog would do well for someone who has a yard, because their place didn’t have a yard so she would take the dog out for exercise and stated the dog reacted strongly to other dogs and people.”

Sheba displayed no aggression in any playgroup or other setting since the time of her initial impound on April 29, 2024. The very day the managers signed off on her Euthanasia on September 23, 2024, she was noted as being “…interested in other dogs but gets a little overwhelmed. Will greet new dogs. More interested in people. Solicited pets and attention.” She was placed into protective custody hold for severe neglect, not aggression.

Her other playgroups on May 8, 2024 and September 20, 2024 did not suggest the dog aggression the Rounds Review Committee used to justify her killing. The only notes that relate were the vague remarks of the owner taken at face value, despite Sheba’s behavior at the shelter to the contrary.

May 8, 2024

“Play group summary: Dog tolerant to dog social. Sniffing with dogs. Hung out by handlers. Friendly with people and interested in dogs.”

September 20, 2024

“Greeting: Brief sniffs with dogs. Went off and sniffed around and peed.
Entry: Walked in. Tolerated sniffs from other dogs. Gave a few brief notes.
Yard Summary: Hung around [playgroup staff], sniffing their legs and wagging. Started whining, jumping, and soliciting pets. Some whining and panting next to handlers. Dog tolerance seen in playgroup.”

After Sheba’s return to MCAS on September 10, 2024, all of the information about her from the intake, data collection, and walk notes were uniformly positive.

September 10, 2024

“Exam performed when in admissions room- nothing appeared amiss, able to administer wormer and flea control without issue. No aggression during time in shelter, able to easily kennel (from outside, other dogs shut inside) and take off loop, no sensitivity shown.”

September 18 2024, Walk notes

“I had never interacted with Sundown before this interaction. Sundown had a loose wiggly body when I approached her outside kennel. When I entered she kept the loose body and let me easily put the slip lead on her. She ignored the dogs in other kennels. She pulled a little bit, but walked well on lead and wanted to smell around. She responded better to Sheba when recalled She was returned back to her kennel without issue.”

Every record of Sheba’s behavior, as noted on the 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, and 22nd, described a very social and friendly dog who loved being with others.

On September 15, MCAS emailed breed specific rescues. On September 19, one declined due to lack of fosters. Another call to senior rescues went out on September 22. Just one day later, the managers declared they had exhausted all options. Their false narrative of inexcusable lies and lack of initiative were the reasons for their decision to kill her. She will be declared “unhealthy and untreatable” to preserve their status as infallible in the eyes of the county government. Sheba was made to pay the price of their failure with her life.

Nowhere else in the county are such well funded managers given so much latitude without accountability to kill helpless animals. Animal care is not improving at MCAS. Its failures are hidden behind smoke and mirrors.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS’ protocol for handicapped dogs; Tic Tac: Kill unless rescued

Leave a reply

Tic Tac, ID# 325340

Before 2016, caring for the special medical needs of animals in the community was an actively implemented part of MCAS’ mission. On paper, their Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 budget, it still is.

“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.”– Community Services FY 2024-2025 Adopted Budget, page 11.

Current MCAS management ended its quality care commitment to shelter animals, passing off its responsibility to independent rescues. Rescues that, despite lacking the resources of a well funded government agency, are successful in providing quality care to their animals. MCAS has rejected its mission without any public notice and under the cover of silence.

Dolly’s Fund is a public fund restricted to the care of shelter animals with special medical needs now stands at well over a million dollars, with donations increasing daily. It has been intentionally diverted to unrelated expenditures, taken away from animals in need and is now directed in part to fund the agency’s spay and neuter voucher system and, on occasion, emergency visits to Dove Lewis where most commonly MCAS does not approve funding for additional life saving care.

MCAS managers’ refusal to allocate Dolly’s Fund dollars towards the care of its shelter animals with special needs was accompanied by ending the medical and respite foster program. Unless the agency hands off its responsibility towards its special needs animals to a rescue, they are killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.” They do this despite these animals being fully treatable and rehabilitatable.

Physically handicapped animals are denied necessary care unless a rescue or humane organization responds before the Rounds Review, often within days of an animal’s intake, decides to kill the animal. Jackson 322762, a very personable physically handicapped dog, was thriving despite his handicap, was denied care and recently killed despite humane options. If Dolly’s Fund were allocated to his care, his story would have fully captured the letter and spirit behind the donation driven fund.

MCAS should have at minimum provided medical foster and rehabilitation consultation itself, or looked for further options. Instead of the initiative and commitment they purport in their mission, their approach uses short deadlines in which animals are killed unless a rescue intervenes.

Tic Tac, a disabled puppy’s rescue in progress

Tic Tac, a three month old, is a social Chihuahua mix full of vim and vigor. He was taken to MCAS on September 13, 2024 and diagnosed with a bilateral carpal deformity. Meaning that his gait was abnormal; he had difficulty walking because his limbs were fixed in a flexed position and could not be extended.

On September 14, 2024, the county animal care veterinary department medically assessed Tic Tac. The plan was to seek transfer to a rescue for consultation with a neurologist and/or orthopedic surgeon, pending a followup radiograph of the spine and limbs on September 15, 2024. That radiograph showed no overt fractures or dislocation, or evidence of trauma.

September 14, 2024, Vet Consultations Notes:

“– Recommend seek transfer to a rescue that can provide further care for severe gait abnormalities; this would involve scheduling a consult with a neurologist and/or orthopedic specialist to discuss surgical treatment options and/or physical therapy/rehab options to see if abnormalities can be corrected/managed; if unable to improve gait with surgery and PT/rehab, the only alternative option would be fitting pt for a cart.

– If no transfer options available, recommend humane euthanasia as abnormalities forelimbs are particularly severe and will affect quality of life if not able to be addressed; not an adoption candidate. …

… Medically cleared? (Yes/No): clear for transfer; not clear for foster or adoption.”

Why wouldn’t MCAS pay for a consultation with a veterinary rehabilitation clinic, when Dolly’s Fund is more flush with money than ever been? Why would MCAS assume that nobody in a progressive city and county would adopt or foster a special needs dog after a treatment and care plan was in place?

Tic Tac showed everyone that handicaps are not the end of life. His feisty personality is so clear in notes on September 15, 2024.

“… Approaches kennel readily. Whimpers, grumbles and howls to solicit attention. Prefers to be at front of kennel to watch hospital staff members. Cuddly, did great in medical swing carrier while entering data at desk. Allows treatment and handling readily including unsedated rads. Dog selective- suddenly stood up and began barking and growling loudly while treating large lab in hospital next to kennel. Redirected and quieted after several minutes with positive verbal reinforcement…”

Tic Toc’s record illuminates another enormous vacuum at MCAS: Waivers dismissing responsibility replace training and behavior that address challenges thoughtfully with a plan. Waivers, including “dog selective” waivers, are intended only as cautionary warnings that don’t inform or teach. Their primary intention is to protect the agency management by ensuring that the adopting parties ‘have been advised.’ A positive reinforcement plan is about seeking change and would include rewarding a dog for responding positively not fearfully as the distance to stressors is incrementally reduced.

MCAS has the resources to care for Tic Tac and other dogs like him and once did care for them. Whether a rescue has stepped forward for Tic Tac is not known yet. MCAS has the resources, they just don’t want to put out the effort. There are no consequences for killing as a convenience.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS hijacks its humane mission: Negligence at a high kill shelter

Leave a reply

Harley, former shelter dog

From a dedicated worker no longer at MCAS: Workers stay as long as they can. Many are broken in the process.

“I will be honest with you in saying that I am not dealing very well with the changes at MCAS. I was always hopeful, looking for the light at the end of the tunnel and the rainbows after the storm. Now I am angry, stressed and feeling so very defeated. I stay for the animals, the people who care [for] the animals and humans that need help. Before I always thought the work I did was for the good the pets and people now I’m not as sure. I do feel like a robot-processing, documenting, no emotions allowed. The only time I have with the animals is cleaning and “admission”.

To make it worse we are being blamed with bad time management because admissions take too long. We are literally taking animals in, poking, prodding shoving deworming into their mouths, vaccinating and putting them in a kennel. If they aren’t relaxed and compliant with all of that they are flagged and medicated with trazadone or gabapentin. How do we let them feel comfortable or safe? We don’t, it’s wrong. It’s disgusting. I hate it… They’re never there [management]only barking (pun intended) orders and snapping the leash on us when we ask questions. It’s bad. Really bad… We have no behavior department, no trainers, no behavior modification and no enhanced enrichment. We have broken animal care staff doing our best under military like rule. I wonder if this is really what [University of Wisconsin] does.”

The subversion of MCAS’ funded mission began when Jackie Rose was hired as MCAS director in October 2015. Policy by policy, then Director Rose, revised the agency’s democratic government and humane mission, eliminating input from the community and exerting singular control. Her abuse of power and her public safety views that public safety is best served by killing not education and behavior training despite being contradicted by research, became the new norm. Ms Rose took the agency backwards to a time well before the 2000 a citizens’ task force decided upon a humane shelter based in prevention, education and training.

The Multnomah County Chair and Board of Commissioners have failed to hold managers accountable. They have doled out more money following every failure. MCAS has deteriorated further under the direction of Operations manager Marian Cannell, originally from Dallas, Texas, Animal Control. Director Erin Grahek, formerly from Aging and Disabilities, served as MCAS interim director, later appointing herself as the most qualified to continue to run MCAS. She then promptly deferred all of her authority to Marian Cannell, an individual whose public safety views are primitive: ‘Swat and kill.’

Staff are untrained and are left to deal with distressed animals made anxious by a hostile negative loud environment. Animals are killed as “unsafe” when they are simply victims of poor management. When internal appointments are based upon loyalty to management not proper credentials, expect failure.

The “public safety” risk used at MCAS to justify killing animals is greatly exaggerated. The best public safety cure is a sane shelter where animals are not rushed and staff are not forced to get the dogs out of here quickly adopted to anyone with $25, a “sale” that has been ongoing for 2 years. Intrusive intake exams should never be conducted on frightened dogs, muzzled and tied to the wall. Know and befriend them first.

Finally, it is important to remember there are few dangerous dogs and many dangerous situations caused by uneducated people. MCAS has no owner education diversion programs.

“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 1 % 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, Berkeley, 2005.

Year after year MCAS is awarded more funding, now at over $15.6 million dollars for failure. How does this continue in a liberal humane county, a grifter’s paradise.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Dogs playing for their lives

Leave a reply

Boulder, ID# 318191

Boulder’s short life started as a tale of compassion and a lost dog’s incredible progress and ended at MCAS in a series of unconscionable excuses and poor decision making to justify killing him. But none of the evidence in the records supports the managers’ conclusions that Boulder was extremely dog aggressive or “unhealthy and untreatable.”

History

Boulder was found abandoned at the Troutdale Truckstop on June 04, 2024. His single medical condition was alopecia (hair loss), caused by allergies. His finders, who became his adopters, described him as smart, playful and easygoing with strangers, high energy, learning to run next to a bike very well and “learning ‘whoa’ for stop and right and left for turning.”

He ran on a bike 2 miles a day, three times a day, 4 days a week. His adoptive family reported in the owner surrender personality profile that he was not afraid of fireworks, stayed home alone very well, was learning to relax and really loved massages. They reported also that sometimes he became mouthy when excitable. He did well with the adopters’ female dog, was not afraid of fireworks, stayed home alone very well, was learning to relax and really loved massages.

His single reported challenge in his adoptive home was reciprocal displays of aggression between the family’s unneutered male dog and Boulder. Although they never formally met, they fought through barriers. The family believed it was a challenge they could not resolve in a shared home. It was the reason that after adopting Boulder on June 11, 2024 they returned him a month later on July 11, 2024. That was the only month that he had a good life. After his return, Boulder never left MCAS. He was killed a week after his return on July 17.

11:10: 03 AM, July 17. 2024

“Rounds met and elected to move forward with euthanasia due to significant dog aggression.”

He was killed two hours later at 12:48 PM on the same day that he was sentenced to death, denied foster and rescue options, labeled “unhealthy and untreatable.”

The Rounds Review Committee decision ordering Boulder’s euthanasia alleging “significant dog aggression” is a strange illogical decision. No reasoning is provided. He had lived in an adoptive home for a month where he got along well with the resident female dog but the aggressive relationship between himself and the resident unneutered male dog was reciprocal.

Part of MCAS animal data collection process is to put dogs into playgroups with other usually unneutered and unspayed dogs and see how they react. No one monitoring the play groups has any animal behavior and training background. The purpose of Dogs Playing for Life, a nationally recognized program, is to create compatible play groups to alleviate the stress and boredom of kennel confinement. MCAS has robbed it of that purpose and converted Dogs Playing for life into an opposite version from its intention becoming “Dogs Playing for their lives.”

After Boulder’s adoption return for incompatibility with the adopters’ male unneutered dog, Boulder was placed, sometimes forcefully, because he was reluctant to enter, into a series of play groups with male unneutered dogs.

In his case, he was tested in 2 Play groups held on the same day. If the record is correct, they were held minutes apart. Though data entry errors could be responsible for that short gap between playgroups, since they are commonplace at MCAS.

On July 12, 2024 Rounds recommended playgroup, following up on July 16, 2024.

July 16, 2024 was the day Boulder was playgroup tested and killed.

July 15, 2024 Behavior Notes:

“As we have been unable to get dog into playgroup,[no reason listed; no noted effort recorded] his presence is poor (growls, barks), and he hasn’t been out of kennel since return, I wanted to work with him before trying PG tomorrow.

Boulder was lying on bed. I approached outside kennel door, tossing teats [sic] He slowly got up and approached, eating treats. Once at door near me he gave some low growls, and slight lip lift. Continued treating, and had him sit for a treat. He moved away from door, and I unlatched, asking if he wanted to go for a walk. He came running back with loose body and wagging tail, pushing out as leash. Crossed into yard where he walked straight to far gate, as if seeking exit. Remained loose, allowing all contact. Returned to kennel after a few minutes, tossing treats to exit without issue.”

The only exercise and personal contact Boulder experienced at MCAS from July 11 onward, a dog who loved running alongside a bicycle several times a day, was a walk lasting a few minutes on July 15, 2024.

5:02:57 PM July 16, 2024 PLAYGROUP: Attempt 1

“Greeting: His greeting to the dogs at the fence was OK. He hesitantly approached and sniffed with dogs, some tail wags. Stiff, furrowed brow maybe some whale eyes and huffing. Started to loosen up and sniff dogs with quicker wagging tail. A bark and pawing when he wasn’t let in. Body loosened some. We debated letting him in unmuzzled due to his greeting, but felt more comfortable trying the muzzle- unfortunately the muzzle work was not successful and we wanted to give him time to recover.

Attempted muzzle work. Very strong and hard to get it on him, once on he would completely focus on the muzzle. He would rip the muzzle off and get it stuck in his mouth. Got very amped up, especially when the Fedex truck came. When Caleb was working to get the muzzle on and off, he mouthed at Caleb’s hands a few times- warning nips with no growling. Did not bring him into the yard due to lack of muzzle and his reactions.”

In short, at the instruction of inept managers, the staff felt compelled to use force to accomplish a delayed order. When someone sees a dog is uncertain, one does not force a muzzle on a frightened dog in as inept a way as possible. At MCAS, an animal’s distress is never considered an important factor because the order is that the ‘trains must run on time.’

5:07:15 PM July 16, 2024 PLAYGROUP:

“Greeting: Came up for sniffs, tail wagging. Mildly steerable when you spray his feet, looking towards the exits.

Entry: Walked in and allowed FDBD sniffs [face and bottom] from other dogs. Zeus 320026 was sniffing him and he froze, whale eye. He allowed it but then after a little bit without let up he growled and chased after Zeus. No real contact made. Zeus retreated away from him. Not steerable with water or shake cans but one spray of pet corrector in the face stopped him. He did try to re-engage with Zeus. Bumped him from the yard and he barked at the fence. He did not show any interest in Sapphire for the brief time he was in the yard.”

Dogs Playing for Life was never intended to be used as Dogs Playing for their lives.

It is cruel and unusual inhumane conduct to use negative interventions to purposefully set dogs up for failure by taking them past their limits in order to justify killing them. Forcing a muzzle on Boulder and spraying his feet after forcing him into playgroups, as if “play” were the main intention when play groups at MCAS are testing to decide which dogs to keep, which to kill, is deviant and unprofessional management behavior. Even under those deliberate unfavorable circumstances, Boulder behaved well.

Nothing in any of Boulder’s history justified killing him; nor did anything in his history qualify as “significant dog aggression,” requiring the diagnosis of “unhealthy and untreatable.” He had an amicable relationship with the female dog during his brief adoption, and a reciprocal hostile relationship with the family’s unneutered male dog. The diagnosis of “unhealthy and untreatable” at MCAS is deliberately assigned to all dogs, not just to Boulder, regardless of merit, dogs they want to dispose of quickly without responsibility.

The Multnomah County Chair and Board of County Commissioners tolerate a cruel and harmful public agency, where everything turns to ashes all of the time. Indifference to public service and to animals’ lives is so commonplace it has become normalized.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Update: Jackson; MCAS’ Brutal indifference to handicapped animals

Leave a reply

Jackson, ID# 322762

Updated from a prior post.

Subsequent records confirm that Jackson, a loving, happy dog unaware he was handicapped, was promptly killed on the morning of September 05, 2024 for what was called a ‘lack of resources.’ There were humane options, some at MCAS itself.

On August 25, Stumptown Strays had responded that they were unable to take dogs that week but they were not contacted again. And on September 05, a highly regarded veterinarian, founder of a veterinary rehabilitation hospital, asked to foster or adopt Jackson immediately after learning of his plight, and then stopped by MCAS to see if an in person visit was possible and to verify her sincerity in this case.

The manager responded the next day, on September 06. A partial response is noted below; the full response is available upon request.

“The decision has already been made and the procedure completed. If you are interested in any further information on his case you can fill out a public records request, information on how to do is located on our website as well.”

Jackson was a good dog, an inspiration to all who knew him and to all who knew his life story. He was failed by a well-funded public agency that no longer follows its advertised  humane mission. 

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

The leading causes of animals’ deaths at MCAS

Leave a reply

Gross incompetence and convenience euthanasia

Cora, ID #323294

MCAS managers do not know how to manage distressed or sick animals who most often enter MCAS with normal behavior. On record, their only management tools are the use of force and/or psychotropic medications. If a dog does not take the psychotropic medication, then they kill the dog claiming ‘distress got in the way of medical care.’ They do not call in experts to address how to successfully treat distress when it is a barrier to care.

Cora was 11 months old when she was surrendered by her owner on August 23, 2024 for intractable diarrhea and vomiting. He believed Cora might have been poisoned due to the spray from the landscapers. She had been sick since the previous Sunday, August 18, 2024. He had been force feeding human food to get calories into her. He could not afford her care.

One day after admissions, on August 24, Cora was killed for “behavior,” secondary to agency stress after a veterinary exam under sedation. In order to sedate Cora who was fearful a catch pole was used to hold her in place.

There were alternatives to euthanasia including calling the owner to assist; consult with a behavioral veterinary specialist; refer to Dove Lewis where they successfully treat animals with behavior challenges. One was a street dog of ours, Harley, who had a behavior challenge (fear of strangers) who underwent surgery for lung cancer and lived to tell the tale. Most veterinarians are trained to deal with distressed dogs. MCAS does not permit behavior training critical to the welfare of shelter animals.

After finding no evidence of Gastrointestinal obstruction or foreign material, the veterinarian on duty ordered Cora killed for behavior and medical reasons:

“-Due to behavior, unable to provide supportive care pt needs for vomiting and diarrhea.

-Concern for QOL [quality of life] given severe FAS [fear, anxiety and stress] as well as medical condition for which she will not tolerate treatments.

– Recommend humane euthanasia for both behavioral and medical reasons”

An 11 month old dog ill, terrified, separated from her owner and everything she knew should not be killed for “behavior,” described as “unhealthy and untreatable” for a treatable illness she had already lived with and tolerated for a week.

Veterinary professionals at MCAS have no professional independence under the current management. They must obey the directives dictated to them, even as they contradict the agency’s mission and the purpose of Dolly’s Fund.

The agency’s decision to kill Cora instead of transferring her to Dove Lewis or seeking expert advice indicates its management’s fundamental lack of interest and unwillingness to spend public money on ownerless animals. Even Dolly’s Fund is stipulated to be used precisely for cases of special medical care needs dogs like Cora.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS leaders sponsor animal abuse and neglect

1 Reply

Trooper, ID# 283892

Trooper, a victim of circumstances

MCAS runs an unhealthy and untreatable agency, marked by a hostile environment that profoundly affects the mental health and physical well being of animals unfortunate enough to be incarcerated here. Inevitably, the reasons given by managers for killing them describe the effects of what the agency has done to them. MCAS then kills its victims labeling them as “unhealthy and untreatable” through convenience euthanasia.

On March 10, 2023 Trooper was taken to MCAS after his owner was arrested for animal abuse. The owner’s sister had called the agency on March 13 to inquire about Trooper what she could do to help, including a request to contact her if he were scheduled to be killed. They did not.

The Animal Control Summary for that date described how Trooper was inside a carrier when the police blew off the door to the apartment where his owner lived. Although reported to be shaken and growling at the police officers walking by, the animal control officer described that he easily took him out of the crate on a lead. When out of the kennel he was described as “wagging his tail and friendly with the officers,” “knows sit,” and “he even liked pets.”

On intake that same day at MCAS, the intake exam behavior observations read:

“Was shaking a little, slow, to approach but loved pets once he did. Seemed to like women a little more than men. Knows sit. Was a very sweet dog until I looked in his mouth at his teeth and he snapped at me for this. Therefore I did not put him, in adoption kennels for this.”

When a dog snaps at someone for looking into his mouth after surviving an acutely traumatizing incident the same day, the reserved nature of that reaction is amazing. It’s not, under any reasonable circumstance, a disqualification for adoptions. Peering into a dog’s mouth better describes the handler as insensitive. It is intrusive stressful behavior.

Trooper was killed at MCAS with the following astonishing statement:

April 17, 2023

“Moved to ER for continued over arousal in shelter combined with inability to handle safely.”

He was incarcerated and deprived of exercise and human contact for 5 weeks, from March 10 to April 18, 2024, surrounded by a toxic atmosphere. He only got out of his kennel twice: Once on March 30, 2023 and again on April 12, 2024.

April 12, 2024, Behavior notes:

“…Trooper was very worked up and jumpy inside the kennel…Using a tennis ball to hold focus I easily leashed, then tossed him the ball to carry. He pulled very hard, but carried the ball to the play yard, played fetch for 5-10 minutes, then used the same tactics to bring him back to his kennel, tossing a ball to exit without issue.”

Why was Trooper denied proper care then killed as “Unhealthy and Untreatable” the effects of MCAS management’s incompetence? It is easy to reverse stress but not cold calculated cruelty.

MCAS harms animals then covers their mistakes up by victimizing animals in their care, day after day after day. Multnomah County, a self-proclaimed “liberal” and “humane” county, looks away. That is animal abuse. Multiple records confirm this cruelty and are available upon request.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS eliminates “Humane” from its mission

Leave a reply

One example, Saving Dolly’s Funds: Killing the animals for which it’s intended

To: Director Erin Grahek
CC: Marian Cannell
CC: Chair Jessica Vega Pederson; the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners
CC: Margi Bradway, Director, Department of Community Services Director

Dolly’s Fund’s re-directed monies: A 2-pronged approach.

The strategy was to first eliminate medical and hospice fosters long in place at MCAS, intended to provide support to implement Dolly’s Fund. Second, once these were eliminated, the euthanasia protocols were revised to reflect a “lack of resources” when the monies are there. What Director Grahek and Operations manager Marian Cannell have hijacked Dolly’s Fund by eliminating that care system, leaving “free cash” for other purposes.

That is chicanery: A dishonest diversion of publicly donated funds with a restricted purpose to be used as stipulated by County Board Resolution 2015-024. They have other donation driven funds for other purposes, but Dolly’s Fund is flush with cash ‘so why not dip into it?’ It is an illegal theft of donated dollars that has gone on for years, and is still continuing.

The same holds true for the rejection of a behavior and training program critical to the well-being of shelter animals who are disproportionately from an under-served demographic. A behavior and training program is also critical for the training of staff and volunteers and serves additionally as an important resource for adopters seeking to return animals and surrendering owners. Before 2016, behaviorists and trainers were welcomed at the agency, including as an integral part of the Rounds Review process to determine whether to authorize euthanasia. The current euthanasia policy specifically does not require the expertise of behaviorists and trainers.

What the rejection of a Behavior and Training Department accomplishes is leaving managers unaccountable, free to kill animals as “unhealthy and untreatable” when they are not while disowning all professional responsibility. Animals are now killed because of agency generated stress and care less adoptions when the fault is management. To avoid challenge, MCAS eliminated all members of the Shelter Review Committee in particular behaviorists, trainers, volunteers and anyone with a thought about humane options. It is a private club limited to managers only.

MCAS now operates as a legally convenient cheap pet resale shop. If the shelter were not a government institution, it would have been shut down for animal abuse.

Why is the Director of MCAS and the managers of MCAS allowed by the County Chair and County Board of Commissioners to hijack and destroy the agency’s humane mission?

Public records support the observations reported. Anyone can read and see these trends through public records. Albeit the routine request of greater numbers of public records comes at a greater cost ($68.13/hour of work) compared to smaller requests.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD

Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog

MCAS’ Brutal indifference to handicapped animals

2 Replies

Jackson, ID# 322762

Jackson, awaiting euthanasia on September 04, 2024

On September 4, Jackson, a very friendly valiant young dog who had learned to navigate and compensate for hemiparesis and blindness, was scheduled to be killed because MCAS managers claimed to have exhausted all options for his care

They had not. They simply prefer the expediency of killing the helpless.

These were the options

On September 02, 2024, The Humane Society of SW Washington had accepted Jackson for medical care but were over capacity and asked to be contacted in a few days. On September 03, they declined due to their current population.

MCAS could have placed Jackson in foster care until space opened up at the Humane Society of SW Washignton or another option was found elsewhere. MCAS once had medical fosters but the current management claims to have eliminated the program, despite it still being part of the Dog Foster Handbook (FAQ, “What are the common reasons that dogs need fostering?”, page 29).

Jackson just needed a foster, it didn’t have to be a medical foster. Jackson’s medical condition was stable and his case could be managed even without an extensive neurolgical consultation. One can manage a case clinically without diagnostics. There was no consultation to even determine if extensive diagnostics are needed. Partial paralysis and blindness can be managed even if they can’t be cured.

MCAS could have accessed Dolly’s Fund, a restricted donation driven fund established by a County Resolution in 2009 and further specified in 2015 as part of another resolution, for the special medical needs of shelter animals. Instead they have continued to illegally divert it to fund spay neuter vouchers, despite both the county auditor and the Oregonian reporting on its misuse.

A consultation with a veterinary rehabilitation specialist could have been arranged about rehabilitation for dogs with semi paralysis. It is affordable. Back on Track Veterinary Rehab once collaborated over MCAS dogs in past times. And after reading about his case online, the veterinarian and founder of Back on Track on September 02, 2024, inquired on how to contact MCAS about fostering or adopting Jackson.

The timeline to his planned death on September 04, was close to the date of inquiry. Regardless, there were no lack of options, only a lack of caring and initiative.

The following statement by the Rounds Committee recommending euthanasia is inexcusable in its sophistry and jaded inhumanity. After all, MCAS believed that his life was worthy but was asking others with less funding to conduct a neurological consultation when in fact management might have been all that was needed and in any event they could well afford any associated costs from Dolly’s fund intended for that purpose.


September 4, 2024

“Rounds met and we have exhausted options and will proceed with DVM recommendations of humane euthanasia given that extensive work up would be needed to reach a diagnosis.”

Since Rounds is so easily exhausted, they should be placed on bed rest, while competent professionals are sought to enable a humane shelter.

Veterinarians at MCAS once recommended legitimate expenditures of Dolly’s Fund through consultations under leadership of former Director Michael Oswald until his retirement on April 30, 2015 (Public records examples available upon request). Michael Oswald was the only long-term Director at MCAS, as since his retirement the position has been a revolving door where people come and go every 1 to 3 years.

The current MCAS managers since 2016 have routinely rejected access to those funds when veterinarians have requested them. The effect has been that veterinarians no longer ask for referrals. The instruction is to off load medical concerns onto another organization.

A forlorn hope exists that Jackson made it through the Committee and was allowed to live, but what I know of the current management at MCAS is that they are dedicated to population control with brutal efficiency.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

The uninterruptible ignorance of MCAS Marian Cannell

Leave a reply

Cream, ID# 322411

The pointless scheduling of Cream’s death

Since Marian Cannell was appointed as operations manager in November 2022, salaried at $100,000, life for animals and staff has dangerously deteriorated; deaths have gone up and adoptions have failed as salaries increase.

Animals are being ordered killed for correctable stress created by MCAS when humane alternatives exist. They are ordered killed by managers with no background in animal behavior science and training. As a result MCAS has become the $15.6 million dollar prison on the hill where increasing numbers of shelter animals do not leave alive.

Cream came into MCAS from the field with the following note on August 11, 2024. “Hyper sweet. Bonded with female at Dove Lewis. Both found on I-84 together.”

On August 29, 2024, he was scheduled to be killed as ordered by the Rounds Committee, a clique of insiders whose regulations for euthanasia decisions have progressively lax from when they were a robust committee that included experts in animal behavior sciences and trainers. The reason he is scheduled to be killed is excitable non aggressively motivated behavior that resulted in a puncture wound and scrapes.

“Rounds Review Rounds discussed and will forward with humane euthanasia after bite quarantine due to uninterruptible behaviors in shelter that have now resulted in a bite incident that was uninterruptible. Follow up 9/7 for sign off.”

The above statement is unintelligible.

It was very clear at the outset that Cream’s excitability was secondary to kennel stress from prolonged confinement in a shelter with uninterruptible noise and dogs across and beside each other about which MCAS has done absolutely nothing.

The effects of a toxic shelter, distressed dogs, and no staff or volunteer training

Staff and volunteers are untrained leaving them without tools to manage distressed dogs. Currently, the primary tools for entering a kennel are crouching, looking sideways, throwing treats, advancing upon scared animals and pushing them back if they attempt to exit the kennel. Physical striking, i.e, “bopping” a dog on the nose is on record. Pet corrector (a noxious over the counter spray) has been used to “correct” jumpy mouthy behavior. There are multiple management and training programs for leash reactivity, including articles provided for free by Instinct Dog Training, in particular their article about using positioning and body language to alleviate leash reactivity.

The shelter’s mismanagement of Cream’s excitability and leash reactivity is not unique. These are 2 descriptions on August 21, 2024 with a different MCAS dog, records available upon request. It is a demonstrable fact that many dogs at MCAS become jumpy and mouthy secondary to the agency’s unacceptable uninterruptible toxic environment:

“ … After he had the treat he was immediately jumpy and mouthy, trying to grab onto the leash and pulling my radio and key chain off my belt. I used my pet corrector, first 3 inches away from his chest, and then directly at his chest, which re-directed him, but he would immediately go back to jumping and snapping…”

“On exit [from the play yard] he started to bite his leash when I took him out, then became more excited, continuously jumping and snapping with a high raised wagging tail, and began mouthing at my sweater sleeves and bottom, latching onto the fabric. Pulled out my pet corrector and tried to re-direct, spraying 3 inches away from and then at directly at his mouth…”

Incredibly, the solution for stress driven excitability was not a plan, but a waiver “A 12 [year] and over restriction to allow better potential matches.”

Cream is suffering from a mismanaged agency where unqualified managers run a store for cheap pets, rarely neutered or spayed, on public funds. The descriptions of Cream’s behavior make clear the incompetence is in management: First, the failure to attend to the stress they create; Secondly for not training staff or caring for dogs.

Cream

August 22, 2024

“Data collection: Dog readily came to greet me with wagging tail as I approached kennel. I opened kennel and was easily able to place slip lead. We went for a walk in agility. He walks pretty well on leash, and happily accepted all pets and in head and body. He would repeatedly come to my side, rubbing against my legs with a wiggly body to solicit attention. Returned to kennel, removed lead and exited without issue. Very sweet boy!”

Six days later, August 28, 2024

“Recap from staff member from incident in yard. Had dog out in play yard, dog became over stimulated and began mouthing at arms, was able to use treats and have him focus and sit, did well with this for awhile and took a break, staff went back with toys, dog had no interest in toys and became even further over-stimulated where he could not be re-direct [sic] with treats. Staff member called for help on the radio and was able to get into adjacent yard. Sustained injuries as follows: Single deep tooth puncture to left forearm causing SQ tissue exposure, scratches to right forearm, tooth scrapes with bruising to right ankle, one superficial (chest) and one deep (abdomen) scrape on side.”

An incident should not define the life of a nice dog. An examination of what led to the incident, and how to prevent recurrence should define the next step. But at MCAS, an unqualified management kills the victims of their mistakes.

“Data collections,” where behaviors are observed with little to no intervention, are pointless when confounded by the increased stress accrued just from being at this shelter. A behavior and training department equivalent to the veterinary department is critically needed to train dogs, staff, and volunteers and counsel owners and adopters facing challenges.

Marian Cannell and Erin Grahek reject that life saving need. They should be removed from office.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS covers up failed animal care

Leave a reply

Budget’s death in a triple occupancy kennel

EDIT: Updated the dogs’ return to the shelter due to the owner’s ongoing medical emergency.

“In response to Monday’s audit, Vega Pederson said she was pleased with the amount of progress that’s taken place at the shelter since she took office. ‘This timely assessment provides us an opportunity to see how far (Multnomah County Animal Services) has come in a short amount of time,’ she wrote.”

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/multnomah-countys-long-troubled-animal-shelter-improved-pet-care-record-keeping-but-still-has-more-work-to-do-auditors-say.html

Background

Budget, ID# 320453; Gizmo, ID# 320452; Phoenix, ID# 320454

On August 08, three dogs were taken into MCAS custody when their owner was hospitalized: Gizmo, MCAS 320452, a Labrador Retriever mix; Phoenix, MCAS 320454, a Labrador/Rottweiler mix; Budget, MCAS 320453, a dachshund.

At first, the 2 large dogs were housed together apart from the small dachshund. The MCAS contract worker who picked up all three dogs from a temporary caretaker, providing care for them while the owner was hospitalized had run out of resources. The worker housed the 2 larger dogs together in one kennel, placing the dachshund in a separate kennel after describing him as very fearful.

July 16, 2024:

“I loaded up the three dogs and transported them to the shelter two of the dogs were friendly and easy to handle and I cannot them together in a large kennel. Their belongings are in a labeled bag behind the adoption desk. The third dog was fearful on arrival at the shelter and I had to use a control pole. That dog is kenneled separate in intake 14.”

At some point during their stay at MCAS, management decided to house all 3 dogs together.

August 8, 2024:

“Arrived MCAS 22:51m placed all 3 dogs into intake kennel #16 (double kennel), they are very much bonded to each otherwise”

On August 12, Budget, the small fearful dachshund was found fatally injured, deceased in the shared kennel. No one noticed any commotion until then.

August 12, 2024

“Phoenix 320454 and Gizmo 320452 were housed in a double kennel with Budget 320453. All three dogs had come in together. Budget was found deceased in the kennel today; he had bite wounds on his ventral neck and blood coming from his mouth. He had most likely been killed by either Phoenix or Gizmo. Phoenix and Gizmo were placed in separate kennels and added to Rounds Review to determine pathway.”

The fact that all 3 came in together doesn’t justify kenneling all 3 together when grouping in small kennels is generally unsafe. Especially when the small dog was kenneled separately on that July 16 intake.

A day later on August 13, the contact person for the owner called and MCAS reported that the Budget had been attacked and killed by one or both of the 2 other dogs in the shared kennel. The contact person responded that the owner:

“would occasionally mention that Phoenix would pick on Budget and that she was not entirely surprised that Gizmo jumped in with her sister. I let her know that we planned to proceed with Euthanasia in the morning of 8/15, and gave her a telephone number telling her to contact prior to 5:30 PM 8/14 if they had heard from the owner.”

Earlier on August 13,“Rounds met and due to kennel incident that resulted in death of 3rd dog, electing euthanasia at end of hold time unless reclaimed. [Follow up on] 8/14.”

Phoenix was redeemed by the owner on August 14, 2024.

These are nice dogs. MCAS created the circumstances that led to Budget’s death. They took no responsibility whatsoever. Instead, they planned to kill both of the dogs after they failed to protect all 3 dogs. That was their misconduct. They had no plans to review their culpability or hold themselves accountable. The only plan was to conceal misconduct and destroy the evidence.

According to the records, they had planned to kill the other two dogs immediately at the end of the legal hold time of 6 days, on the morning of August 15. They planned this despite knowing that the owner was placed on mental health hold at the hospital. They knew the struggle she was going through, and cruelly decided that killing her dogs while she couldn’t possibly respond to their calls was an acceptable decision. The owner reclaimed her dogs before the deadline on August 14, but was unfortunately hospitalized again on August 22. Her dogs are back at the shelter, and likely to be scheduled for euthanasia on August 29.

That is what they do day after day. If careless adopters harm animals then return the dogs, MCAS managers don’t review what went wrong with their adoption. They just destroy the victims and move on. Nothing changes.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

The story of a man and his dog after losing his wife and home

Leave a reply

Meeting the homeless crisis with expedited killing

Jaxon, MCAS ID# 321726

Jaxon was killed very early into the 10-day state mandated quarantine rules, his body sent to Oregon State University for necropsy, an expense paid by the public. There was no noted urgency, other than for another animal to replace him, suggesting MCAS prioritized his kennel space.

The housing crisis in Multnomah County affects animals living with homeless persons too. Despite advertising itself as invested in helping those living on the streets, often in crisis, MCAS has refused to participate or involve itself in any solutions, except for swift and lethal outcomes. They quietly discontinued Pets in Crisis and Emergency Board programs since about mid-2022, though the application forms exist without explanation or purpose. There are no outreaches into the community. Advertisements about reaching out to honor justice, diversity and social justice mandates are empty promises and false propaganda. No public funds are directed towards finding solutions for, or offering assistance to, homeless and impoverished owners. That is why Jaxon was killed as an expedience. No one cared.

County false propaganda and failed promises are rampant. These are just 2, five years apart.

February 20, 2020

“How do we help the people who are struggling, who need the most support, or who aren’t accessing our services? A high priority for Sadler is strengthening partnerships with other county agencies and community groups to better serve community members experiencing homelessness, living with mental health concerns,and other vulnerable or underserved populations.”

2024 and 2025 Adopted budget mission statements

“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.” — Community Services FY 2024 / 2025 Adopted Budget.

Five years later between the first and second grandiose promises, nothing has been accomplished while MCAS receives annual budget increases. The adopted budget for 2025 is funded by the highest budget ever, $15,684,375, 2 million up from the previous year’s budget. At MCAS, funding and failure go hand in hand.

The short tragic life of Jaxon, 5 years old.

After Jaxon’s owner’s wife died in 2021, leading to his becoming homeless, Jaxon, described as sweet natured and friendly, had a stable life. Those traits carried through to the present. On his owner surrender personality profile, Floyd, his owner, described him as well behaved, having lived with cats, easy going and playful with strangers, new dogs and cats, children under 10 years old.

On the streets he spent a great deal of time secured in Floyd’s truck when Floyd was not there in the truck with him. The only complaint on record were the incidents leading to his surrender on August 02, 2024. The first was when Floyd left his truck momentarily and, on his return, saw that Jaxon had gotten out of the covered bed of the truck and was lying down in front of the vehicle. The stranger approached Jaxon, put his hand out to pat him and Jaxon bit him. When he went to intervene, Jaxon redirected and bit him on the hand, a single puncture described as requiring one stitch. There is no confirming bite report or medical report. MCAS no longer considers it protocol to seek objective confirmation part of their investigative due diligence obligation.

Other second hand reports from the owner involved persons reaching over to pat Jaxson without permission, for example at a homeless shelter. It is known that reaching over, staring into a dog’s eyes and patting dogs on the head is not comfortable for dogs but considered an aggressive intent in the canine world, at best tolerated.

The next day on August 02, Floyd planned to leave the truck for awhile, leaving Jaxon behind. As an extra caution he planned to muzzle Jaxon as he was leaving. During that effort, Jaxon bit his hand again, requiring 3 stitches. For the owner that was the last straw. His owner surrendered Jaxon to MCAS on August 02, 2024.

A killing efficiency

On Sunday, August 04, two days into quarantine, Enforcement Supervisor Jennifer Turner, ordered Jaxon euthanized: “Due to behavior, Rounds elects euthanasia.” He was killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” when all evidence shows he was not.

Prior to policy changes by MCAS Director Eren Grahek on November 2023, decisions to euthanize animals required a minimum of 3 persons, including “…a minimum of the Director or Shelter Manager, a representative from the species-appropriate behavioral team, and one other manager” (MCAS Euthanasia Policy, November 2018). This shift in policy allows for completely unrestricted freedom to take an animal’s life, contrary to the intention of the agency’s mission.

Jaxon’s behaviors that led to the managers designation of him as “unhealthy and untreatable” aren’t articulated. Alternative solutions are efficiently eliminated as unnecessary. But every dog killed at MCAS now is described and killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” without providing supporting evidence corroborated by credentialed experts.

Euthanizing dogs during quarantine is highly unusual. Jaxon was euthanized on the third day of quarantine without any recorded explanation requiring his remains to be set aside and transported to OHS Diagnostic Lab on 08.05 for necropsy. It was an unexplained convenience and unnecessary public expense.

There is no evidence Jaxon was not a “dangerous dog.” His owner described him as being very sweet natured and friendly to everyone until they became homeless. On the streets, life circumstances were insecure and uncertain. His behavior challenges: protectiveness of his owner on the streets, and fear of hands reaching out uninvited to pat him on the head were correctable; future incidents preventable but life on the streets, living in his owner’s truck and in a homeless shelter is rough.

MCAS has no solutions for assisting the dogs of homeless persons, except for culling and killing. When they come into the agency, often traumatized, they are immediately examined and observed during 3 “rapid data collections”—3 attempts to informally assess an animal’s suitability for adoption by untrained staff. If they “pass,” they are routed to adoptions or rescue. If they fail they are scheduled to be euthanized, even euthanized on the same day.

MCAS managers have not met with other community agencies to plan programs for the safety and welfare on the streets for the dogs of the homeless (For examples, see a Los Angeles program www.downtowndogrescue.org)

The county has no plans for the dogs of homeless citizens. While some homeless shelters allow dogs, few have provisions, such as crates or stand up kennels to house persons and their dogs individually for safety and welfare reasons. There are no support programs for the animals of people experiencing homelessness. Petco granted to MCAS a mobile veterinary van to provide veterinary and spay/neuter services to underserved areas, yet all it has ever done is idle, unused, in its lot.

All Jaxon’s owner needed was safe housing and training help.

MCAS failure to care for special needs animals

Leave a reply

A betrayal of public trust, Lukai the 4 year old Shepherd

Lukai, MCAS ID# 316130

August 22, 2024, Update: Despite a veterinarian evaluating and prescribing an anticonvulsant for Lukai on July 27, 2024, Lukai’s adoption promotion by MCAS still notes, 26 days later, that his history of seizures do not require treatment.

MCAS has considerable funds for the special medical needs of animals: the 2025 recently awarded $15,684,275 budget is the highest figure ever, and Dolly’s Fund, monies donated by a trusting public month after month now over 1 million dollars is intended to be spent on the special medical needs of shelter animals. Instead the majority goes to Dove Lewis Emergency care, while some has been diverted to spay neuter vouchers. Little goes to animals with medical needs often related to poverty, which is the majority of the MCAS demographic.

Before 2016 with a far smaller budget, dental cleanings were part of standard care. In the place of needed care MCAS has waivers that disclaim any responsibility for care they are funded to provide, turning the public shelter into a cheap discount store for homeless animals. MCAS once provided critically needed dental care. Now the agency will adopt a dog in need of care, sales priced for $25 with a dental waiver with a recommendation that the adopter arrange a dental cleaning under dental anesthesia with a veterinary specialist.

MCAS also engages in dishonest promotions, downplaying an animals’ medical needs. Lukai’s owner had surrendered him after a seizure, afraid of his post seizure disorientation and temporary confusion during which he failed to recognize and lunged at a family member. His promotion adoption advertisement makes light of his undiagnosed condition; seizures are a symptom multiple possible diagnosis:

“Lukai, a 4 year old German Shepherd looking for a fresh start after his previous owner could no longer care for him.”

MCAS accepted the owner surrender but provided no counseling about seizure disorders or affordable consultation referrals. When facts replace fear, owners can be aware of reasonable alternatives to surrendering their animal to the shelter. This had been his family for the entire 4 years of his life.

The same promotion, also noted “Lukai has a history of seizures, which currently do not require treatment.” Surrendered on May 08, 2024, Lukai’s documented medical care, diagnosis, and treatment planning were conducted by veterinary assistants and veterinary technicians, not a certified veterinarian.

Lukai’s seizures were not evaluated by a board certified veterinarian until almost three months after he was surrendered on May 08, 2024 for a seizure of unknown cause. While in MCAS care he had seizures on June 18 2024 and July 21 2024. On July 27, he was evaluated and prescribed an anti-convulsant medication.

How can the county honestly claim he received appropriate care and that no further assessment was needed at the outset when his care was under the guidance of veterinary assistants and certified veterinary technicians?

The treatment and care of dogs with seizure events, such as in Whole Dog journal’s Canine Seizures article, indicate the need to work with a specialist (e.g. a certified veterinarian). Diagnostics ordered by a certified veterinarian can identify and treat causes that lead to seizures. Veterinary technicians cannot fulfill the role of a certified veterinarian by performing diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning. Doing so is in violation of the Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board’s regulations detailed in OAR 875-030-0040, as authorized by ORS 686.210 and ORS 686.350 – 686.370.

MCAS has funding through Dolly’s Fund for Lukai that would pay for any costs associated with an evaluation so clearly within its scope. Their 3 month delay, during which 2 more seizures occurred, strongly suggests that the lives of shelter animals aren’t worth the effort. The statement in the record is troubling: “Electing to seek transfer to rescues beyond OHS [declined] due to medical exceeding our resources.” The misappropriation of Dolly’s Fund is a known fact, acknowledged by the Multnomah County Auditor’s office. The funds are there. The will and compassion are not.

Lukai was advertised for adoption on May 25, while waiting in foster care for someone to adopt him “as is” for $25 because MCAS refused to pursue an affordable neurological consultation critical to his well being and an adopter’s ability to properly care for him. It is very clear in Lukai’s and other similar cases that MCAS’ only concerns are passing off costs to a rescue or an adopter. If that fails, most commonly an animal is killed. There is no compassion at MCAS.

Before 2016, MCAS cared for the special medical needs of shelter animals despite, then, having a far lower budget, fewer managers, and a lower intake. Why won’t they now?

When the unsuspecting public donates to a fund without a mission and the animals lose, it is a scam on the public. Veterinarians and professionals should be in charge of animal care at MCAS, not bureaucrats who behave like shop keepers trying to hustle off their wares.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

—

Reference for Lukai’s Adoption Promotion

“Meet Lukai, a 4 year old German Shepherd looking for a fresh start after his previous owner could no longer care for him. Lukai is a friendly and loving companion who has a history of living with kids, making him a great family dog. He’s also potentially good with other dogs, given proper introductions. Lukai has a history of seizures, which currently do not require treatment. This is something his new adopters should be aware of and discuss with their vet. Despite this, he remains a joyful and affectionate dog, always eager to make new friends and share his love. He is currently in foster and his foster parents say that he He loves all dogs, and loves all people. When on walks he responds well to treat training, Lukai is extremely smart and would love ongoing training to stimulate his brain. He is obsessed with fetch. If you’re ready to give Lukai the stable and caring home he deserves, come meet him and see if he’s the perfect fit for your family!”

MCAS Euthanasia dispositions: The process fails all professional guidelines and standards.

Leave a reply

There is no longer any transparency about management decisions to kill at MCAS, no apparent logic, no evident thoughtful analysis. There has not been for some time. After 2016, outside experts, volunteers, and rescuers once part of and critical to animal disposition decisions were excluded. Since 2016, decisions are made by a closed circle of no more than 3 managers whose reasoning is seldom disclosed and when it is disclosed follows no known assessment process. All animals are almost always uniformly killed as DB UU-2.*

When incidents can be prevented, caused by human error, and/or resolvable with management and training, killing is elected as the final solution.

The standard problem solving template used by professionals is SOAP: Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan.

MCAS applies SAP. MCAS goes from, S (subjective), for example, ‘animal can’t get out on leash,’ to A (assessment) ‘Unhealthy and Untreatable,’ then onward to P (plan) ‘Kill.’

Agency managers sum up their decisions vaguely. For example: “Killed for behavior:” Seldom are the behaviors specified. From reading records it is clear that most incidents do not require death as a solution.

*Asilomar Accord definition: Dog Behavior, Unhealthy and Untreatable, defined by aggressive or anxiety conditions, with intensity level 3. Intensity Level 3 is described as “Animal is sustaining self injury. Its welfare is compromised or inflicting serious damage/putting others at risk.”

The Oregonian: Multnomah County Auditor, Animal Shelter still misusing earmarked donations

1 Reply

A Response

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/multnomah-county-animal-shelter-still-misusing-earmarked-donations-one-year-after-scathing-report-auditor-says.html?gift=020c5bc3-de4c-4b79-a183-7262723a6401

Once again, Multnomah County Animal Services denied the auditor’s conclusions. And once again, the County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of Commissioners attempted to push aside the reported misuse of funds, and announced no need for investigation, despite the fact that the shelter failed to implement more than 50 previous recommendations needed to improve conditions for shelter cats and dogs up to national standards.

The county’s response to the Auditor’s report over the misuse of funds brings George Orwell to mind:

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.”
George Orwell (1946)

The County Chair and Board of Commissioners have also abandoned MCAS’ lofty funded mission announced first in for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget then repeated for the FY 2025 budget, a nod to aspirational goals that never do come true:

“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.”
— Community Services FY 2024, 2025 Adopted Budget,

The problem is Multnomah County government’s willingness to squirm around facts to protect its fading image and lost goals: Will this lipstick on a pig (apologies to the pigs) do or should I pick another shade? After tampering with the facts, nothing changes and there is more and more to hide.

The Spay/Neuter Fund

The spay/neuter monies donated by the public intended to help low income families pay for spay/neuter surgeries have been diverted to general adoptions instead of their intended purpose. That is cheating. MCAS had community service clinics where low cost surgeries were performed as the fund was intended. They also had a mobile spay/neuter van donated by Petco, that never left MCAS.

The intention of the donated public funds was public service to help low income populations. The only argument that can be given is that their policy for Spay/neuter donations state that the funds “may” be used as the program describes. This has little meaning, as the policy for Dolly’s Fund states how it “will” be used, but they misuse it all the same. The agency has historically reached into donors’ pockets without their knowledge, using the funds for expediency.

The power of double speak.

The glib way the county explained the diversion of spay neuter funds for low income families to support their general adoptions voucher system is embarrassing. They can’t help themselves.

“This program makes vouchers available for all adopters who need financial support, which especially helps low-income families in need, Serena Cruz, the county’s chief operating officer, wrote in a memo.”

Serena Cruz’s response is misleading. The vouchers aren’t going to low income families. They are going to everyone who adopts a $25 dog, the cost for dogs on an endless ‘special sale.’ It is also a disclaimer of the county government’s responsibility to spay and neuter all animals before they leave MCAS. They can. MCAS once spayed and neutered all animals—cats and dogs—before they left the agency when they had a lower budget, fewer managers, and a significantly higher intake. This shift in policy began as a temporary measure that then turned into the permanent practice we see today.

MCAS also did not honor Oregonlive Reporter Austin De Dios request for figures on voucher redemption despite the fact that these figures are readily available. Why withhold this?

The real reason MCAS wants animals out as quickly as possible is their rejection of their funded service mission replacing the public’s mission with a pet store model: ‘Four on the floor; out the door.’ To expedite a speedy exit, animals go out cheaply and unaltered (“Adopters Welcome!”) and are often just as quickly returned, un-altered and harmed by the experience of thoughtless adoptions. Some are killed as a result of MCAS negligent adoption practices. There is no net gain, just a revolving door, when adopted animals are returned after their adoptions have been driven by speed and low/no standards. Speedy isn’t the answer when they are returned unaltered, after a soiree into the community.

The ‘get them out of here fast anyway you can’ plan isn’t working because its not thoughtful, service oriented, and doesn’t lower intake when so many are returned, often in worse shape than when they left, or dead.

“Staffing shortages,” “budget constraints,” and “increasing veterinary costs,” the factors MCAS lists as responsible for the necessity of adoption of the voucher system have nothing to do with why MCAS has adopted a voucher system. That is just another sorry excuse and lying by misdirection: ‘Look here, not there.’ MCAS is fully staffed and has been for awhile; has more managers than ever and every year is granted a larger and larger budget despite taking in fewer animals; cats are left out in the cold.

They changed the mission to what is easiest for them: Cheap sales. The short wait for an animal to be spayed or neutered before leaving is an obstacle to rapid fire adoptions, so they abandoned the funded mission that includes reducing overpopulation by constraining breeding, and replaced it with what works for them: Sales and give aways that can serve as opportunities for breeders. There are off record reports of exactly that happening.

There are no budget constraints. The budget is unconstrained and increasing year after year without any improvement in performance. MCAS budget for the fiscal year 2025 is $15.684,365. MCAS continues to fund failure year after year at a higher and higher cost to the public.

The diversion of Adoption Outreach monies to fund salaries

It is just a continuation of pick pocketing and dishonoring government obligations. Outreach at diverse physical locations has been proven critical to increasing adoptions. Most adoptions once took place at outreach events. There are almost no outreach events now. But outreach works. MCAS Operations manager Marian Cannell has sponsored only two events—one at the Oregon Rail Heritage Center on August 19, 2023 and another at Theresa’s County Feed and Pet Store on June 15, 2024—during her several years of tenure. She did this while calling out ‘Red Alert’ alarms to the media and the public to adopt because MCAS is “at capacity,” implying more animals will be killed due to a lack of space.

The outreach events fund is flush with donations and not being actively used, so why not borrow it for another purpose, distinct from its intended use? This seems to be Serena Cruz’s rationalization. However, robbing one account,a restricted account of earmarked funds,to pay for the salary of the program communications coordinator is dishonest theft. The assertion that the program coordinator is critical in “managing outreach efforts,” when there have been only two outreach events in two years, is a bridge too far.

The county did it because it was easy. They’ve never faced consequences for taking from restricted funds. Outreach events are what lead to increased adoptions. The coordinator’s salary siphons from the money intended to subsidize these events. When animals get out of the dismal surroundings of the agency they are adopted.

Dolly’s Fund for the special medical needs of indigent shelter animals

Very little of Dolly’s Fund donations are being spent to cover the medical needs of vulnerable animals at MCAS, the explicit, legally binding, designation for how those funds are to be used. Instead of medical care and medical fosters to care for vulnerable animals, most are expediently killed, especially if a less well funded rescue won’t take them off MCAS’ roster.

These abuses are well documented in MCAS public records animal status reports. Under former Director Michael Oswald, Dolly’s Fund did go to the care of individual animals, instead of being misused as it is now. Animals are now killed with the disclaimer: “We don’t have the resources,” when they do have the resources but lack the will and initiative.

MCAS managers have rejected all of the programs that work to reduce shelter crowding and shelter over population: Outreach events, pet redemption and retention efforts, compassionate emergency board for persons in crisis, and owner surrender counseling. Why try when failure is successfully excused and any excuse will do? Multnomah government’s culture is ‘this work does not matter.” The work incentives are pay, benefits and vacations, not service.

County citizens and the county’s homeless animals deserve better. They deserve a government that works. The role of county government should be to protect public services not public servants and failure. Failure will continue to predictably cascade until the culture of this government changes. It is not just about financial malfeasance. It is about professional malfeasance as well. Homeless animals are marked “Unhealthy and Untreatable” when they are not, as an act of convenience to justify killing them while taking no responsibility. Change and recovery can only begin by removing the current indifferent and opportunistic management at MCAS, a society where a culture of cruelty prevails.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Public Records: Jamie Waltz to County Chair Deborah Kafoury and Serena Cruz
“Temporary” suspension of spaying/neutering animals before adoption

Powered By EmbedPress