Category Archives: Dogs Killed

Death by dangerous management incompetence: Chum Chum

Chum Chum, ID# 378116

“You can fool some of the people some of the time- and that’s enough to make a decent living.” –W. C. Fields

No one in MCAS management has animal behavior and training credentials, with the exception of Operations manager Andrew Mathias who claims on his linkedin biography to be a ‘passionate visionary’ certified by the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT),* a multiple choice examination as his sole credential. The assessment only assesses knowledge, not practical skill because merely passing a quiz does not promise competence.

*It’s noteworthy that while there are many extraordinarily educated and respected persons with a CCPDT certification, the organization itself unfortunately condones the use of negative reinforcement, such as shock collars, in training animal behavior under their so-called ‘Humane Hierarchy.’ They have made public statements on the use of shock collars in training, insinuating that they are an acceptable tool in training, despite significant research to the contrary, which has caused many organizations to withdraw their endorsement of the CCPDT.

Other than what little expertise can be claimed from solely passing a quiz, no other managers have the critically necessary background to assess behavior. Nothing makes that clearer than the obscure unintelligible reasons listed for killing Chum Chum at MCAS after he had been impounded when his owner went to jail. His owner had no one to house him during his incarceration.

Impounded on December 11, 2025, Chum Chum was ordered killed on March 13, 2026 and killed immediately afterwards because rapid killing has become the management’s only efficiency. It also precludes professional review by credentialed community experts.

March 13, 2026, Rounds Review

“Rounds has elected Humane Esthesia [sic] due to unpredictable, high intensity behaviors and an uninterruptible drive toward movement. The animal demonstrates a Level 3 trigger response and a Level 3 intensity, consistently targeting anything in motion with a high degree of unpredictability.”

The first duty of any official addressing the public is to be coherent and comprehensible. This could have been written in Swahili with how uninformative it is. It is critical to provide specific behavior descriptions and interventions that have been tried to resolve a behavior challenge before any conclusion is made that a behavior is “unhealthy and untreatable.” A behavior or state is not “unhealthy and untreatable” when no effort to manage or correct the challenge has been made. Not only are the specific behaviors not described, the historical timeline is left out. What started as leash reactivity and prey drive at the beginning intensified because of ill conceived adoptions and agency negligence.

During his second adoption Chum Chum’s behavior described a dog who had become frantic, far from his normal baseline. His second adoption immersed him in stacked stressors when he was already distressed from MCAS confinement, including quarantine restrictions when no dogs were allowed out of their kennels.

None of that context was part of the euthanasia disposition decision. Instead, the author speaking for the Rounds Review went on a side trip excursion to the Asilomar Accords for support.

The Asilomar Accords established in 2004 are not based upon professional behavior and training diagnostics and prognostics. They represent a largely failed effort to create common categories for statistical comparisons across shelters by providing a uniform method for animal shelters to categorize animals (Healthy, Treatable, or Unhealthy/Untreatable).

The Asilomar Accords interpretations do not guarantee accurate categorizations. Definitions about what qualifies for each category are decided by local shelters or shelter partnerships. For example, MCAS, a shelter that benefits from holding a flush donation driven fund for the explicit use of shelter animal medical fees, considers an animal with a medical condition that requires over $750 to treat to be “unhealthy and untreatable.”

Even the Asilomar Accord creators warn about using the categories as a dictation about an outcome.

“The effect of the Asilomar definitions is not to draw lines between animals who can and can’t be saved, but to put shelters on the same footing as their community: shelters that save all healthy and treatable dogs and cats in their care are meeting the standard of care typically provided in their own community. Shelters that go beyond this to save a portion of the “unhealthy and untreatable” are exceeding their community’s standard of care and this setting an example of humane treatment. These shelters aren’t following their community – they’re leading them.”
—https://www.maddiesfund.org/assets/documents/No%20Kill%20Progress/A%20Guide%20to%20the%20Asilomar%20Accords%20Definitions.pdf

Chum Chum’s challenges

Chum Chum was leash reactive and prey driven. He was consistently reported to be a great companion to small children including the second adopter’s autistic child.

Dog relationships

During MCAS Play Group assessment on December 15, 2026, when he was introduced to another dog, Chum Chum was stiff and avoidant: “When Izzybella tried to approach for sniffs he backed up and turned away, standing behind primary.” He did not attack Izzybella.

On January 5, 2026, Chum Chum, while ill with kennel cough ( “Bumped as he was coughing and had green nasal discharge” ) was placed in a Play group again and he was described as “dog tolerant to dog social.”

The mother of his incarcerated owner reported that Chum Chum was “used to being the only dog, he might not be good with small dogs since he thinks they are toys, but that he is good with kids.”

That was his baseline behavior.

A history of failed adoptions

Adopted January 28, 2026; returned February 10, 2026 after 12 days in the home with the primary reason listed as “ Not ready for a dog.” and “ Lunges at other dogs and small animals on walks, no barking or growling, hackles, just pulling. Adopter reports he was great with their children.”

MCAS’ only comment about the return was no additional indemnities needed because “ ..these were known behaviors that the adopter was counseled on” despite evidence of clear leash reactivity and possible prey drive. The waivers on record for Chum Chum were “dog-dog selective,” “Allergic skin disease,” and “Kennel Cough.”

After Chum Chum’s adoption return, no effort by MCAS was made to work on leash reactivity and no questions were asked of the adopter about how he walked Chum Chum because how a leash is held can create and accelerate leash rage. Pulling and holding a leash tightly accelerate leash reactivity.

On March 6, Chum Chum was adopted again to someone with a special needs child, living in an apartment. The other family pets were a fish and a tarantula. He was returned two days later on March 8 with the commentary “AO unexpectedly lost housing, unable to keep dog. Reported no issues with dog. Did well with child but does have significant prey drive and will pull towards small critters and even towards leaves blowing in the wind.”

What Chum Chum needed was a low traffic home with a yard not an apartment complex where multiple parties with dogs live.

Nevertheless MCAS re-adopted Chum Chum to the same individual without further counseling or intervention on behalf of Chum Chum because MCAS management version of “Adopters Welcome” is whatever the adopter wants regardless of whether or not it is right for the dog.

On March 12, 2026, Chum Chum was returned again “due to neighbors complaint regarding dog reactivity to other dogs.” It had been a whirlwind predictable failed romance. The dog was fungible, the victim. His needs were not of any account.

The examples of dog reactivity given were:

“ ...With one close neighbor ..if Chum Chum could see the dog through the glass window, he would become tense, posture with hackles before quickly charging at the glass trying to get at the other dog. The other dog is said to have a history of reactivity as well.”

“ …There was a separate incident where a neighbor was with their in their car when Chum Chum saw the dog then charged the vehicle, scratching the door…”

“ ..Chum Chum would charge at the TV if he heard dogs on there barking and knocked over the TV.”

“ ...Chum Chum darted quickly after birds, squirrels, leaves, anything that moved and would even try to muzzle punch at AO’s fish tank whenever the fish moved.”

“ He did also say that Chum Chum was exuberant with his 10 year old non verbal autistic son and knocking the son over.”

This was a dog who had become frantic. MCAS managers created Chum Chum’ s elevated anxiety and distress through poor adoption decisions and poor shelter care. These escalated frantic behaviors, driven by anxiety, were far from Chum Chum’s baseline and were the result of stacked stressors, some caused by MCAS’ poor environment and adoption decisions.

While at MCAS Chum Chum was among the dogs who became ill with respiratory disease during the epidemic. Additional to his illness, constant confinement led to his destroying and ingesting his toys. Then he was sent out to failed adopters, twice, while he was still in a state of distress recovering from illness, confinement and from MCAS toxic environment where the battery of noise is constant and where there is no good faith enrichment. It is unclear from the narrative if the second adopter discontinued Chum Chum’s psychotropics. He did not return them.

After Chum Chum’s second adoption return his original family tried to redeem him, leaving a message at 12:57 PM with a staff person. Chum Chum was killed at 2:45 PM. Their call was not returned.

They knew Chum Chum best: That was his baseline: ‘Good with children, not good with small dogs. Additional information: leash reactivity and prey drive: Manageable.‘ When an agency destroys the mental health of its residents, nearly all of whom are deprived of proper care, and fails behavior analyses it is the management that must be put under review.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Chum Chum’s records, private information redacted

MCAS Records_378116 Chum Chum-Redacted Download

A Guide to the Asilomar Accords Definitions

A Guide to the Asilomar Accords Definitions Download

Reforming a Reactionary by CJ Puotinen, Whole Dog Journal, January 2020

Reforming a Reactionary-CJ Puotinen_Whole Dog Journal-January 2020 Download

Bad Reaction Take Action by Pat Miller CBCC-KA CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal, June 2021

Bad Reaction Take Action-Pat Miller CBCC-KA CPDT-KA_Whole Dog Journal-June 2021 Download

Are You Familiar with the Protector Position? – Instinct Dog Behavior & Training

Are You Familiar with the Protector Position?

Beyond Food and Water by Kelly Gorman CPDT, Whole dog journal, July 2004

Behavior_Beyond Food and Water_Whole-dog-journal Download

Leash Rage from Tufts University, June 2019 Issue

Leash Rage_Tufts University-June 2019 Issue Download

A collection of leash Reactivity articles from Whole Dog Journal

Leash Reactivity Articles from Whole Dog Journal_October 2019 Download

Predatory Ending by Mardi Richmond CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal, July 2010

Predatory Ending-Mardi Richmond CPFT-KA_Whole Dog Journal-July 2010 Download

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

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

What Can a Veterinary Behaviorist Do for You? by Pat Miller CBCC-KA CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal, April 2024

What can a Veterinary Behaviorist do for you_Whole Dog Journal Download

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Hetts CAAB, Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter, March 2006

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels_Dr Hetts-CAAB_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_March 2006 Download

Yes, But Which Kind of Animal Behaviorist? Tufts Your Dog, January 2018

Yes, but which kind of animal Behaviorist-Tufts Your Dog- January 2018 Download

The practice of sport of killing fearful dogs: Cola and Jubilee

Leave a reply

In February 2024, MCAS managers lowered the bar for euthanasia dispositions to accommodate their singular lack of initiative, caring, effort, and service to the public good. They did so without public permission or expert review. Frightened shelter animals have paid the price. Responsibility for their deaths is disowned by labeling all unwanted animals “unhealthy and untreatable” when all of the evidence is to the contrary: healthy but scared, or treatable, manageable and rehabilitatable.

“The shelter will never euthanize an animal due to space constraints and only considers euthanasia as an option for animals deemed dangerous.” — Margi Bradway, director of the Department of Community Services

MCAS kills animals without cause all of the time in management sessions. These meetings are closed to experts, rescues, volunteers and staff, who once attended and were part of decisions. It is an abuse of power, but MCAS is never held to account.

Cola MCAS 386348 and Jubilee MCAS 386349, 10 month old American Shelter Dogs

Cola ID# 386348 and Jubilee ID# 386349, both 10 month old American Shelter Dogs, were brought into MCAS on February 25 by a Good Samaritan who found them on an exit off I-205. The Good Samaritan reported she leashed and got them into her car easily. They were killed a week later with Cola killed on March 8, and Jubilee on March 5, 2026. Both were reported to be “unhealthy and untreatable.”

No one would consider 7 days a genuine “trial” effort. The reasons listed by the management for killing them speak to a management culture of explicit incompetence and indifference. Excuses replace solutions. When a professional in a public position of authority doesn’t know what to do, they seek expert advice, such as on how to deal with avoidant fearful dogs. Killing the animal is never the first choice.

Cola, ID# 386348, a 10 month old American Shelter Dog

March 7, 2026, Rounds Review:

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to sustained levels of fear, lack of progress in the shelter that result in poor quality of life.”

It was a litany of uninspired excuses.

Cola was not afraid before coming to MCAS. MCAS is a terrifying agency for most dogs. It is an environment characterized by a bombardment of constant toxic levels of noise, deprivation of proper care (few outings, socialization and exercise opportunities) addressed only by escalating levels of psychotropics.

MCAS director Erin Grahek, no longer contracts with trainers or veterinary behaviorists, as was once practiced. Since that is an irrational position, it can only be surmised to be driven by opposition to questioning the shelter’s decisions about animal dispositions.

For example, when staff does not know how to manage fearful dogs, don’t pursue a fleeing animal, teach them. ‘Data collection times 3’ is doing the same thing over and over again seeking a different result. That’s not a plan, nor is it an “intervention.”

These are the last entry notes before Cola was ordered killed. It was his first priority walk to be followed up on March 6, 2026 after which he was ordered euthanized.

March 6, 2026, Priority Walk:

“I met Cola at his inside intake kennel. He greeted me at the gate with whale eyes, tense body, and fast tail wags to the left. He accepted a piece of hot dog from my hand through the gate, but immediately darted away, defensive barking and weight on his back legs. I decided to go around to the outside kennel and close in the dogs around him to see if that would decrease his FAS [Fear, anxiety, stress]. He greeted me the same way at his outside kennel, taking tossed hot dog and then immediately running away while defensive barking.

I entered the kennel and crouched low to the ground, placing pieces of hot dog to the right and left of me, at decreasing distances from me each time. He eventually was able to take a treat from my hand. At this point, introduced the leash to him, laying it on the ground next to a couple of treats. He took the treats and sniffed the leash once before darting away. I decided to use a treat lure with a long piece of hot dog to keep distance from his mouth and my hand.

When I presented the slip leash near his head, he immediately tensed and froze, lip curled, and then snapped at the leash, making brief contact with it but not holding on. On the second attempted [sic] he snapped at and bit the hot dog, at which point he he realized it was yummy and decided to start cautiously eating it. I was able to slide the slip lead over his head. He immediately started slinking/crawling towards the door.

We exited the kennel with him darting back and forth frantically in front and behind me, body low to the ground, ears pinned back, and whale eyes. Every so often he would pancake to the ground and some light leash pressure would get him moving again. We walked by SB and Maximus, at upper agility to which he had no reaction – remained tense, whale eyes, tucked tail, etc. We made our way down to agility at which point he he half laid/crouched down and peed all over himself and then sat in it- frozen in fear and not wanting to move.

A train was going by at this point which startled him. After it passed, he began walking again and was able to eat a bite of hot dog off of the ground. He continued walking in the same manner back to his kennel. In his kennel he frantically avoided me, giving me side whale eye with tense low body and tucked tail- nor accepted treats on the ground. I decided to leave the slip lead on him for the moment given his high FAS and reaction when I placed it earlier. I then exited the kennel. As soon as I left, he began to eat the treats I left on the ground.”

Forcing a fearful dog to perform violates common sense and every professional guideline. Cola did the best he could. He likely would have thrived in foster care. His life was safer on the streets than in the shelter.

Jubilee, ID# 386349, a 10 months old American Shelter Dog

Jubilee had an even more cursory review before he too was killed.

March 5, 2026, Rounds Review:

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to severe fearful behaviors that result in frantic attempts to escape human contact to the point of causing self harm”

That was one incident on March 2, 2026 that did not result in self harm, and was the result of gross mismanagement.

March 2, 2026, Behavior Notes:

“Pet was separated from kennel mates on back side of intake. As I entered, pet retreated to the back corner, occasionally stomping forward and barking with stiff body language. While moving in with a leash, pet jumped up towards the window and was able to climb through, leading to the top of the kennels. He remained avoidant and it took multiple staff members to corral him. He was then leashed and wrapped in a blanket and safely removed from the kennels.”

Terrifying and cornering an animal is not how anyone attempts to get a helpless fearful dog out of a kennel.

After 3 data collections on consecutive days, (March 2, 3, and 4) Jubilee was ordered killed. On each day Jubilee would hesitantly alternate between approach and avoidance, never displaying aggressive behaviors.

March 4, 2026, Data Collection:

“I entered the inside of kennel. All three dogs were against the side wall, and gave some nervous whining growls and barks. I sat down a few feet from them and began treating. Jubilee stayed between the two other dogs, but would stretch forward to take treats from hand or off the ground. He would push in front of his kennel mates to take them, and climb over Cola (386348) on one or two occasions. If I attempted to move closer to them, or when I pat [sic] the ground next to me he began growling and barked a few times, while shying away. After sitting and treating for several minutes I ended interaction.”

An empirical analysis of MCAS euthanasia dispositions

Instead of meeting challenges, MCAS kills the victims. Animals are pre-selected for euthanasia if they do not meet the Operations Manager’s goal of speedy entrance and exit, maximizing efficiency with a focus on inventory management, not public service. Any animal with even a minimum challenge requiring any effort is pre-selected for euthanasia. The search begins for “reasons,” then takes isolated events out of context in order to opportunistically justify killing. A killing that is then labeled as “unhealthy and untreatable.” Its a slick game.

The rest of the Rounds Review go along to get along. Some owe their management promotions to the Operations Manager. What matters is the survival of their collegiate culture, not public service or the lives of shelter animals. The trains run on time.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Cola’s MCAS records, private information redacted

MCAS Records_386348 Cola Download

Jubilee’s MCAS records, private information redacted

MCAS Records_386349 Jubilee Download

MCAS’ old Euthanasia policy: “Animals will never be euthanized for lack of space in the shelter.”

Euthanasia Policy–Nov 2018 Download

MCAS’ current Euthanasia policy: Omitting the language that animals won’t be euthanized from lack of shelter space.

MCAS Euthanasia Policy 2-Euthanizing for space Download

How to Train a Fearful Dog

Leash Training for Fearful Dogs: Parts 1 and 2 from Dog Kind Training.com
https://www.dogkindtraining.com/blog/leash-training-part-1
https://www.dogkindtraining.com/blog/leash-training-for-fearful-dogs-part-2

Management Deception at MCAS: The major cause of animal deaths: Case study, Avalanche

Leave a reply

Regarding euthanasia decisions: Single resolvable incidents are labeled “unhealthy and untreatable.” The focus is speedy euthanasia in some cases within 24 hours to clear space.

Avalanche, MCAS 377828, a year and a half male shelter dog mix described as loving, energetic and smart killed February 7, 2026 as “unhealthy and untreatable.”

Cause of death: MCAS Rounds Review

Avalanche was killed on February 7, 2026 for a single reported incident in foster care where he had been been thriving since his foster placement on December 23, 2026. On February 5, 2026 an incident occurred in foster care, reported on February 6, 2026 that, by description, appeared to most likely be resource guarding and resulted in no harm.

Instead of evaluation and thought, Andrew Mathias, the Operations manager advised the foster family to immediately return Avalanche to MCAS for euthanasia the following morning on February 7, 2026. The foster parent was also instructed to prepare him for euthanasia with massive doses of psychotropic medications before bringing him in. It was a hasty decision made rapidly without any thoughtful process or procedure.

The incident

February 6, 2026, Behavior Foster Notes

“Foster parents mom to visit. Avalanche barked and lunged at mom. They put the dog in the bed room for the night. This morning the dog was out with a Kong when the visitor/mom came into the room he growled The foster walked towards the mother in law and then Avalanche lunged and bit at the mother in law on the leg not breaking the skin but tearing the pant leg. Foster parent was able to grab Avalanche by the collar and put him in the room. MIL left for the day. Advising foster to bring the dog back for safety.”

Despite the single, frightening incident causing no harm and ignoring Avalanche’s otherwise exemplary history, there was no review or effort to understand the circumstances before Avalanche was ordered immediately killed 24 hours later. It was a knee-jerk ‘kill and run’ reaction, not a thoughtful professional process.

February 6, 2026, Rounds Review

“Rounds met and elected humane euthanasia for multiple instances of high intensity human directed aggression reactions when surprised and when meeting strangers.”

February 6, 2026, Transfer/Foster

“Foster was given the instructions from animal health: If they could please administer Trazodone 300 mg PO and Gabapentin 1200 mg PO 2 hours before arriving to the shelter. Foster agreed and will do so.

Arranged with animal health to take the dog back for ER while I take care of the paperwork and attend to the foster parent.”

No thought was given to Avalanche’s promising life or the fact that there are effective solutions short of killing for resource guarding and fear of strangers challenges.

An additional change made by current leadership that contrasts to past management practices is that fosters for MCAS receive no training and are never provided training assistance. The most they are offered are psychotropics to quell anxiety, not plans to address behavior. If fosters want that support, they have to purchase it themselves.

Reviewing the evidence alleged to require euthanasia as a “public safety risk”

February 6, 2026, Rounds Review

“Rounds met and elected humane euthanasia for multiple instances of high intensity human directed aggression reactions when surprised and when meeting strangers.”

“High intensity human directed aggression reactions when surprised” and “when meeting strangers.”

There is no supporting evidence on record for that dramatic statement. There are two incidents involving strangers, the one that cost Avalanche his life was likely driven by resource guarding not because the mother in law was a relative “stranger;” the second being surprised by suddenly meeting a stranger in black in close quarters. Both are correctable. Neither present as an insurmountable “safety risk.”

The second incident notes:

January 6, 2026, 12.01 PM Behavior Foster Notes

“On our potty walk this morning we were passing between cars and we did not see our neighbor wearing all black. Avalanche was spooked and lunged. He managed to bite her arm. Everything happened so quickly. He did not break skin. It bruised so quickly.

We have been working on barking at strangers and I feel we have been making strides. I think it was that both parties stepped into a very tight space wearing all black in the dark and he was shocked.”

All of the foster behavior notes from December 23, 2025 until Avalanche was returned to MCAS on February 7, 2026 then killed the same day, were uniformly positive.

January 6, 2026, 1:17 PM Behavior Foster Notes

“Avalanche is a very sweet dog to those he knows. He is polite, snuggly, he follows commands and knows sit, down, stay, and can shake with both paws. He knows “leave it.” He loves squeaker toys and wrestling with our Labrador. Avalanche loves sleeping on the pillow above my head. He is very fearful of strangers. He barks out the car windows at most pedestrians. He enjoys the Starbucks drive thru and is gentle about receiving treats with and pup cups.

We have been working on crate training. He is a decent leash walker. He crouches down to bark at strangers from a distance. If they are too close or catch him by surprise he will jump up and bark. We have been working on re-directing him. We went on a two hour walk downtown this weekend and successfully interacted with several people. He was fearful when my mother came to visit but warmed up to her after a few minutes and a few treats.”

January 21, 2026, Behavior Foster Notes

“Notes from foster,: Avalanche is a sweetheart and a big ball of fun. He has a lot of puppy energy. He can be a little chatty. We’ve been working on his leash skills and not barking at strangers. He is very snuggly once he’s open to someone. He loves to wrestle our resident labrador and would dio well in a situation with other dogs”

A correctable incident without injury should not be a death sentence defining a dog’s life.

When challenges occur, the MCAS Rounds Review kills for convenience. Having lowered the bar for euthanasia decisions they claim a lack of resources when it is a presence of laziness, why not? and lack of initiative.

Decisions to kill an animal based upon lack of will, initiative, and ignorance, are wrong. Especially when possibly done in order to appease a foster’s upset. They result from indifferent bureaucratic management, where no one is held accountable, which has led to an increase in senseless killing. MCAS is a place where homeless animals’ lives do not matter.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Avalanche’s public records, private identifying info redacted

MCAS Records_377828 Avalanche-Redacted Download

Is Your Dog Getting Fearful or Anxious, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Your Dog December 2012

Is Your Dog Getting Fearful or Anxious Download

Living in Fear by Mardi Richmond, MA CPDT, Whole Dog Journal, April 2006

Living in Fear-Mardi Richmond MA CPDT_Whole Dog Journal-April 2006 Download

The Trials of the Timid by Pat Miller, CPDT, Whole Dog Journal, August 2008

The Trials of the Timid-Pat Miller CPDT_Whole Dog Journal-August 2008 Download

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr Hetts,CAAB, Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, March 2006

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels_Dr Hetts-CAAB_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_March 2006 Download

A collection of Resource Guarding articles

Resource Guarding Articles Download

The inexcusably dishonest killing of Buddy, whose jailed owner had no one to redeem him

Leave a reply

Buddy, ID#297465

MCAS managers specialize in inventing multiple reasons for killing companion dogs placed in their care. Buddy was a dog with so many positive features and options, killed because they don’t want to make an effort. As a plan they list excuses: Exaggerations, vague generalizations and at times outright dishonest conclusions characterize their work much as a delinquent child might try to explain why they didn’t do their homework. The difference is children aren’t paid but MCAS managers are highly salaried. MCAS managers, without accountability or oversight, kill because that takes less time and effort than trying.

Buddy was the entire emotional support for his owner who was arrested October 15, 2025, and none of the reasons listed for killing Buddy were legitimate. Buddy’s owner just had no friends who could redeem Buddy on his behalf. Respite fosters were once central to MCAS’ now sabotaged pet retention mission. Even without that, Buddy could have easily been placed in a foster or medical foster, He could have also easily been adopted as a special needs dog.

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

“At MCAS, Sadler has championed programs to make services more accessible to the pets and people of the community…. “Yes, I care a lot about animals,

but I also want to be able to help the people attached to those animals. We’re considering the social justice perspective relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and what it means for the services we offer. How do we help the people who are struggling, who need the most support, or who aren’t accessing our services?”

MCAS managers have completely violated the agency mission.

November 3, 2025

“Spoke with Herbe [Multnomah County Department of Corrections, counselor] at 863362- Herbe confirmed that there is not a current release date set for AO. Advised that we have not been able to secure placement, and with pets medical/behavioral history, will likely be moving forward with humane euth. Herbe inquired about an additional week to determine if the AO will be released. Advised that at this point, we cannot offer an extended hold but if she gets additional information, to please call asap in the event the pet is still in our care. Herbe expressed understanding. //jkt”

Understanding that MCAS has given a rigid ultimatum without options is far different from an acceptance of the alleged “reasons” behind the ultimatum. There is no evidence on record that MCAS sought any placement options despite their statement otherwise. Some options are listed above: respite fosters, special adoptions.

In a similar case, as an individual rescue, I took a senior level 2 dog from MCAS who belonged to a prisoner. I boarded his dog and with his permission and, after 6 months, placed her in home. She died of cancer loved and regarded as worth the effort about a year later. No one thought it wasn’t worthwhile. Her name was Mumbles. Do not tell me it can’t be done.

Buddy was killed on November 7, 2025 as DM-UU2, ‘unhealthy and untreatable,’ ‘moribund end stage disease,’ when he was not. All dogs killed at MCAS are labeled unhealthy and untreatable to cover for MCAS lack of effort and responsibility.

November 5 2025, Rounds Review

“Rounds met. Due to multiple medical issues that impact quality of life and aggressive behavior towards other animals, move to humane euthanasia.”

What affected Buddy’s quality of life was compelling his death. All of his daily behavior monitoring sheets from August 2025 were positive, some marked with hearts. There are none for his recent admission. It may be a discontinued practice.

The veterinary record contradicts the euthanasia statement made by the managers.

October 31, 2025, Vet Exam

“Assessment:
-Gingival mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic
-Subdermal mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic
-Moderate peridontal disease
-Heart murmur [ 2/6 left systolic; regular heart rate and rhythm]

Plan:

Full sedation for biopsies would be necessary to reach diagnosis for both masses, however even if they are benign, they need to be completely excised due to both of them bleeding; this will be a much more involved procedure and needs to be schduled as a mass removal surgery combined with neuter under general anesthesia rather than sedation and small biopsy; this can be done at MCAS when staffing allows but ideally recommend transfer to rescue due to our very limited surgical capacity.

-Given the chronicity of masses and visible characteristics there is a very good chance both masses are benign.

– Recommend transfer to a rescue for behavior reasons as well; he is an EXTREMELY friendly dog toward people but adopters need to be screened since he cannot be around other dogs.”

While living on the streets, there was one dog aggression incident on April 28, 2023 involving a small dog on leash when Buddy was briefly at large. The probationary time for a Level 2 designation, one year, had long passed without any further incidents. An incident does not define a lifetime unless MCAS needs to make it so for convenience. The pictures are not attached to this record.

April 28, 2023, Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary #279900

“ … MARIA stated that she put out her hand to fend off the dog and was bit…Maria stated the owner was close by and was able to regain control of the dog.”

What is remarkable is that living on the streets is challenging for all dogs, and yet there were no further incidents of any sort.

Options

Buddy could have been treated at MCAS accessing Dolly Fund dollars intended for the special medical needs of shelter animals. But that restricted fund is seldom accessed for animals. For interim care, medical fosters are always available. Instead Buddy was killed to save the managers’ effort and time consuming thought.

October 16, 2025

“Called MCDC 83689 to speak to Curtis W [AO]

He stated that Buddy was dog aggressive, he also stated that Buddy is trained to do a number of tasks, including turn lights on and off. He also knows sit, lay down and roll over (per owner)”

There are multiple types of dog aggression, every one manageable, some rehabilitatable (for example, common place leash reactivity). MCAS made no effort to seek clarification about what the owner meant by “dog aggression.” All dogs? Under what circumstances? They needed an excuse to kill him then falsified the reason. Buddy was not “unhealthy and untreatable.”

The agency freely violates its public service contract and were this a normal government would be investigated and held accountable.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Buddy’s records, redacted

MCAS Records_297465 Buddy-Updated November 17 2025-Redacted Download

MCAS’ Pets in Crisis Policy, Started November 2016, ended July 2022

MCAS Pets in Crisis Policy_Effective November 2016 until July 2022 Download

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives, Cornell University, Dog Watch Newsletter, April 2016

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives_Cornell University Download

Dog-Dog Aggression-Whole Dog Journal May 2024_Pat Miller

Dog-Dog Aggression-Whole Dog Journal May 2024_Pat Miller Download

Jason Renaud’s Dog Respite Proposal, September 2022

Jason Renaud_Dog Respite Proposal Download

When MCAS forces animals to pay with their lives for their failures: Killing Leo, an 8 year old small Terrier mix

Leave a reply

Leo, ID# 365470

Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) managers have settled into their placid dump and dispose animal care practices after generously giving themselves permission for killing for any reason at all (See: MCAS assures animals aren’t euthanized for space and the response, “don’t believe euthanasia assurances”). By expanding the reasons for killing, they have replaced initiative and thought with excuses and laziness. Pet stores evaluate more carefully why a “product” has been returned than MCAS does to the nearly free animal dump site store that was once a public shelter. Since any excuse will do, the death rate is climbing rapidly, each death excused as “unavoidable” when any close reading of the record reveals gross incompetence driven also by indifference.

Only the death delivery day changes, The pattern is the same.

Previous practices

Under previous leadership, every adoption return was assessed to evaluate how to improve the odds towards a successful adoption; verification of alleged incidents was sought. if a dog with challenges needed help achieving adoption success, a plan, often including training, was implemented at MCAS. Dogs with challenges were not automatically killed or exported to rescues. Potential adopters were carefully screened. Staff had checked for landlord approval. Dogs left the shelter spayed or neutered.

Disposition Reviews included experts from the community, rescues, volunteers, and staff. Now all dispositions are decided behind closed doors by managers only, granting the power to kill without cause.

MCAS makes up rules for exclusion from adoption, fostering, or killing that must be followed. Then they decline an animal opportunities and kill an animal because their hands are tied by the rules they made up. The absolutist rules they conceived were created without any community input and their summaries are vague and devoid of objective information. These are not rules that assess risk. They are like the game of Lotto: Put the red apple card on the red apple picture when the causes and solutions for incidents are multi-faceted, not simplistic.

October 21, 2025, Rounds Review

“Due to multiple bite history, this dog does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster. We will seek transfer, follow up 10/24.”

“Multiple bite history”, a vague general term that implies serious public safety concerns, exaggerated by omitting details… The term “multiple bite history” is automatically linked to “does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster” regardless of merit or circumstances. Thinking is not allowed. The outcome is automatic.

In evaluating bite histories, it is never about “multiple bites,” but how the bite incidents happened. Key questions include, ‘What were the stressors’ and ‘can future bite incidents be prevented.’ In every summary conclusion there should be factual support and objective documentation. In this and nearly every case there is none: No bite pictures, no Emergency Room report; no questions. The managers are blind scribes.

In most cases, the adopter has created the stressor but MCAS gives adopters free passes because MCAS Operations Manager Andrew Mathias runs MCAS like a car lot: If you don’t like the dog, bring him on back. We will dispose of him for you.

MCAS allows a short timeframe when they seek a rescue to take animals they intend to dispose of due to the deeply flawed judgment of the Rounds Review, entirely beholden to MCAS management. Few rescues can respond rapidly and MCAS has rapid deadlines. ‘The trains must run on time.’ In the past, MCAS set up a pathway for success. If a rescue was not available, volunteers, trainers, and staff trained to work with a dog’s challenges often provided training followed by careful placements. Death or transfer to rescues were not the default options for dogs with challenges.

When MCAS Rounds Review met again on October 24 after recommending seeking a rescue transfer on October 21, they gave seeking rescue options one more day until October 25, before killing Leo. There is no reference in his records about which or how many rescues were contacted.

October 24, 2025

“Rounds met and will place individual pleas out to rescues – Due to human aggression and multiple bites will be moving forward with euthanasia if no rescue placement is found. Will FU 10/25.”

October 26, 2025

“JRT Terrier rescue declined due to possible dog/dog aggression noted in both adoption returns along with multiple bites resulting from potential resource guarding.”

October 27, 2025

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”

When it comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Cornell University Dogwatch Newsletter, February 2005:

“Labels can be misleading. Because aggression can be very specific rather than generalized, labeling a dog as possessive, dominant, territorial, or predatory can be misleading. Labels imply that a dog’s behavior is consistent across a variety of circumstances, which may or may not be the case at all. To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful simply to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.”

Analyzing and Modifying Aggression, Dr. Suzanne Hetts and Dr. Nancy Williams

MCAS has an allergic reaction to responsibility. MCAS managers set up a series of self-generated limitations and false “requirements” that they then reference as “forcing them” to kill Leo. Owners often create opportunities for aggression. MCAS instead of educating the owner, kills the victim. Leo was not universally aggressive.

MCAS writes in generalities to escape solutions. There are solutions.

Leo’s History

Leo’s owner went into an acute care facility, leaving Leo in the care of a couple who turned him in to police officers on August 27, 2025 stating that Leo was becoming aggressive. The officers took Leo to MCAS. MCAS did not ask questions about what was meant by “aggression.” Nor did they speak to Leo’s original owner about Leo expecting to ask if he was willing to surrender him. He was not and was going to try to seek other options.

Until his first adoption on September 5, 2025, Leo’s behavior was positive and unremarkable:

August 28, 2025

“Playgroup

Yard Summary: Some brief spats of play with Latke. When Bram rushed towards him he corrected hard, jumping up and air snapping at his side. Disengaged and did not have any other issues.

Returning to Kennel: Wanted to pull back towards playgroup. Tolerated being picked up and carried back to kennel, relaxed in handler’s arms.”

There was only one data collection.

September 2, 2025

“Data collection

When I passed outside kennel in a.m. I called to Leo, he came running out to greet me with wagging tail. Jumped up on door and licked my hand. I returned later to move him to an office. He readily approached inside door. I opened it and placed slip lead as he hesitantly walked out. Walked well to office, loose body, some tail wags. Removed leash and he began to drink from water bowl. Accepted pets on head and back as he drank. Retrieved a few more items for office setup, and he had begun to whine and paw at pen people were present.”

Adopted for $25 on September 5, 2025 and returned on September 9, 2025, the return reasons reflect an adopter whose repeated actions created stress. There are no bite pictures. MCAS takes faith based information.

September 9, 2025

“AO stated dog rolled around in something outside so they took him inside to his walk in shower and dog began biting at water, then bit at owner. Dog bit again Sunday 9/7 when AO was sitting on the couch and was trying to move the dog by pushing pillow in his face. Dog had lunged towards the owner while growling and bit the owner multiple times. This morning 9/9 AO attempted to clip some of dogs matts [sic] on rear end with scissors and dog bit him multiple times again. AO states that dog is great and would sleep next to him in bed and always follow him around. AO marked not great with kids and was unable to clarify. ”

The adopter reported he had to “punch the dog off, then sprayed with water bottle.”

Instead of analyzing the circumstances of the incidents, MCAS applied waivers to disown responsibility. The waivers included Resource Guarding, which is speculative since the bite incident did not occur because Leo was protecting the couch but because of the adopter’s aggressive actions when he precipitously pushed a pillow in Leo’s face. Forcibly washing Leo and clipping off mats was the direct result of the adopter’s handling insensitivity, not Leo’s handling sensitivity. There are examples throughout the record where Leo welcomed and was responsive to contact. He just didn’t welcome bullying. He also didn’t welcome forced intrusive intake exams when MCAS did not practice “fear free handling, ” and instead applied a “medical handling waiver” to dismiss their use of force.

Following this adoption, MCAS also added a child restriction waiver based on a written remark in the owner surrender form “No Kids” which was never clarified by the returning adopter or MCAS. There are no bite pictures; hence no ability to confirm whether the reported bites broke the skin, and what incidents, if any, preceded such bites. No information was sought about whether or not medical attention was acquired.

There are no further notes about Leo’s behavior at MCAS before his second adoption for $25 on September 21, 2025. He was returned October 13, 2025, 22 days later for bite incidents.

Ownership History, second adoption

“Bite me on hand when getting him off table.

Bite me on thigh again after trying to get him down.

Bite my grandson on upper left arm when he got into my car.”

The first two bites were provoked by the adopter’s mismanagement. MCAS had no questions about the adopter’s methods of seeking compliance with commands. The bite to the grandson as he was entering the car was reported to have broken the skin but MCAS sought no bite pictures and did not ask if emergency medical attention was sought, leaving uncertainty for whether the other two incidents broke the skin.

It is unclear if this was an example of referenced potential resource guarding. It is flimsy speculation. There are no other examples in the record that suggest resource guarding. Being forced off the couch seems more a reaction to the first adopter’s aggressive conduct than resource guarding.

Leo was adopted with a no child restriction. The second adopter ignored that restriction. How old was the child? How was he behaving when he entered the car where Leo was already settled in?

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”

The human aggression was a human who was aggressive against a small dog. The “multiple” bites were provoked and minor; it is unclear how many of the alleged bites broke the skin. The two bites reported to have broken the skin (no pictures, no evidence) by report seemed insignificant.

Limiting options to rescue only

It is not up to rescues to “correct” challenges that occur because of MCAS errors in judgment. Correct the practice of careless adoptions that lead to incidents. The Jack Russel Terrier rescue’s reasons for declining Leo were for “possible dog aggression” and the simply incorrect summary that all the alleged “bites” resulted from potential resource guarding—conjectures based upon vague uninformative entries in MCAS records.

About “possible dog aggression: One adopter described Leo as playful and easy going with new dogs, also adding that his dog was afraid of Leo but there was no conflict. What did that mean? Leo did well in the play group. The second adopter circled both “easy going” and “poorly” in the survey question about meeting new dogs. There was no clarification about the conflicting information in that response.

Poor and/or inaccurate history taking by MCAS costs animals options. MCAS repeatedly fails to take an objective detailed history. They create uncertainty by their poor history taking compounded by a lack of understanding of dog behavior. Rescues then without reliable information are more likely to reject potential candidates. It is how they solve the dilemma of conflicting or absent history. MCAS creates the rejection.

MCAS also screens adopters poorly and seldom intervenes to decline an adoption that seems problematic. They set the road to failure; Then uniformly label the dog “unhealthy and untreatable” for their failure if a rescue cannot be found.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Leo’s MCAS records, redacted (Updated from ‘Awaiting Euthanasia’)

MCAS Records_365470 Leo-Updated November 3 2025 Download

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Hetts, CAAB, Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, March 2006

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels_Dr Hetts-CAAB_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_March 2006 Download

Dog-Dog Aggression by Pat Miller, CBCC-KA CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal, May 2024.

Dog-Dog Aggression-Whole Dog Journal May 2024_Pat Miller Download

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite by Pat Miller, YOUR DOG, December 2008.

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite-YOUR DOG December 2008_Pat Miller Download

Set of Resource Guarding articles: (1) Guarding Resources — Including You, (2) On Guard?, (3) Mine, All Mine!, (4) Guarding Dog?, (5) Food, toys and owner: ‘Mine, all mine!’, (6) Peace in the Pack.

Resource Guarding Articles Download

The Department of Community Services protects MCAS management mislabeling animals, including Ichabod, to kill them

Leave a reply

Ichabod, ID# 370606

The direction, record and intention was clear at the outset.

Escalating euthanasias: ‘What does that mean?’: Animal advocates decry Multnomah County’s euthanasia policy (KOIN 6)

The increasing excuses: Multnomah county animal shelter drops language stating animals won’t be euthanized for space (The Oregonian)

In February 2024, after being questioned about changes in the euthanasia disposition process that now permitted and expanded a wide range of excusable reasons for euthanasia including “lack of resources” Department of Community Services Director Margi Bradway approved and defended the new policy. The policy changes have led to more deaths of shelter animals, all labeled “unhealthy and untreatable” without evidence supporting the label. Instead of raising the bar they lowered it on helpless animals.

That effect can be seen in the September 2025 KOIN report about euthanasia concerns at MCAS. MCAS management refused to respond on camera. Instead they sent a baseless, glowing written report about their euthanasia disposition process. When asked a direct question their response is always to deflect with vapid propaganda, behaving more like a politician than a public service administrator.

Ichabod is one more fatality of MCAS’ failed mission.

Impounded on October 2, 2025, Ichabod’s Good Samaritan finder did not know it would end in the death of the dog he thought he had saved. Ichabod was killed by MCAS one week later mislabeled as “Unhealthy and Untreatable.” Ichabod was nothing of the sort. He was just afraid and avoidant in a frightening and unfriendly toxic environment.

The finder had kept him with his family for over 24 hours but less than 7 days and described Ichabod as ‘shy with strangers, and playful with children under 10 and with dogs.’ There were no negative descriptions, at all.

After a week at MCAS, Andrew Mathias, Operations Manager, and the Rounds Review ordered Ichabod killed on October 9, 2025. Nothing in the records supports their statement recommending euthanasia.

October 9, 2025

“Rounds discussed and will move towards humane euthanasia due to aggressive behaviors and inability to handle in shelter environment. Chill protocol today for chip scan.”

There were no aggressive behaviors, just fearful and avoidant behaviors founded in defensiveness. Staff are on their own in animal care. They are not trained how to manage animal stress, and instead often repeatedly advance upon fearful dogs in ways that escalate an animal’s fear. The MCAS management certainly does not help them. Except for Mr. Mathias, but his certification only assesses knowledge through a multiple choice exam, not practical application.

“Inability to handle in shelter environment” is a gross indictment of management incompetence and indifference. Competent honest managers when they don’t know what to do consult behavior experts who do. MCAS has excluded animal and behavior training experts.

“Safety concerns” is an alarmist phrase under which management hides. There are many behavior treatments and plans that effectively address safety concerns by reducing a dog’s fear. None were implemented except on October 4, for trazodone 150 mg with a 14-day FAS [Fear, anxiety and stress] re-check. It was not noted if this was once or twice daily.

October 4, 2025, Medical update

“ACR Notes: High FAS -safety concern
Assessment: Walked by kennel and dog was outside on the other side of the guillotine door. Immediately began growling, hackles up, tense body and growling. Maintained tense posture and barking as long as within line of sight.”

Growling and barking are positive signs because a dog is communicating his fear openly and conservatively. Once noticing fear, the plan should be how to help this dog become more comfortable, not inhumane “data collection,” repeating the same actions over and over again and observing a dog’s reaction, hoping for change.

October 3, 2025,

“Kenneling

‘ …I approached Intake Gate and observed a client holding a medium shepherd looking dog on a flexi-leash. The client began pulling the dog back before it noticed me, I opened the gate and allowed them to follow me in. I began offering cheese which the dog did not take. The dog then began lunging barking and lip lifting at the end of the leash. The client was visible [sic] struggling to hold dog away from me so I did not attempt to approach or handle. Had the client kennel the dog. I returned to kennel with toys, dog was sitting in back of kennel watching without moving.‘”

Holding a dog back on leash tightly conveys to a dog that the person holding the leash is anxious and needs protection. A dog responds accordingly. ( “Leash rage,” Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Your Dog, June 2019).

After 3 admissions attempts on consecutive days, October 3, 4, and 5 with no plan but treats and sweet talk while attempting to enter his kennel, and 2 data collections on October 7, and October 8, MCAS management ordered Ichabod killed. Their efforts were over.

Data Collections

On October 7, it was clear the MCAS environment terrified Ichabod and also that his response and actions were avoidant, not aggressive pursuit.

“…I went to the outside run , crouched down , and tossed a trail of treats, but he remained inside. I then went back inside, but he had gone to the outside run, so I closed the dividing door and went back outside. When I came to the kennel he was sitting pressed up against the dividing door. I tossed some hot dogs, which he would eat if they landed close enough to him. The dogs around him were barking quite loudly and I could tell it was causing him stress, looking around and cowering low to the ground when several dogs were barking at once…”

MCAS did nothing to reduce the impact of toxic levels of noise that escalated Ichabod’s fear including adjusting his psychotropic medication.

After the data collection on October 8 2025, MCAS killed him for failing to cooperate.

October 8 2025,

“Data Collection

‘Dog was closed inside for poop scoop, standing near door on my approach. I slowly approached kennel, offering a treat. He shrank backward an inch, low growling, then gave a rapid four barks showing teeth. He then retreated with tail tucked, ears back. I tossed treats, and he hesitantly moved towards me to eat. Some lip quivering as he neared door. Would take treats from hand, then give small lip lifts and retreat . After treating for a minute I poked my leash thorough kennel front. He sniffed it for several seconds, and continued to take treats next to it. He retreated to back of kennel when I opened the door. Would move forward a foot or two for treats, but kept distance with door open, no vocalizing. Perked ears and tilted head when I used squeaker. Approached to sniff the squeaker through closed door . I tossed a toy in to him and he readily sniffed it with perked ears. I moved to outside of kennel, he would just past threshold for treats, but would not approach outside door.'”

In 2015, with only one manager and one lead worker, MCAS started a pilot program led by a Karen Pryor Academy trainer who created individual training programs for dogs with special needs. The programs were implemented by staff. The programs were promising. It wasn’t ‘don’t cooperate quickly with a time stamp or the dog will be killed.’

Now under the blind oversight of the Department of Community Services, homeless animals who are fearful or have any challenges at all and do not “adjust” quickly are mislabeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable ” in order to kill them. It avoids responsibility for their deaths.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Ichabod’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_370606 Ichabod-Redacted Download

Leash Rage from Tufts University, June 2019 Issue.

Leash Rage_Tufts University-June 2019 Issue Download

Beyond Food and Water by Kelly Gorman, CPDT. Whole Dog Journal, July 2004.

Behavior_Beyond Food and Water_Whole-dog-journal Download

Help for Noise-Sensitive Dogs by Dr. Jamela J. Perry, DVM. Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, May 2024

Help for Noise-Sensitive Dogs-Dr Jamela J Perry-DVM_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_May 2024 Download

Treat and Retreat for Uncomfortable Dogs by Doug Duncan, MA CTC CPDT-KA, CBCC-KA. Doggy Business Dog Training.

Treat and Retreat Download

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

Leave a reply

Toby, ID #320255

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

June 28, 2025

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

A parrot could improve on this recommendation.

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

Quality of life – Stray Pet Profile June 22, 2025

Found on the shore of the Columbia River:

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

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

June 22, 2025 Intake Behavior Observations:

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS Records for Toby, redacted

MCAS Records_320255 Toby-Redacted Download

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

Leave a reply

Petey, ID# 357581

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 19, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 18, 2025

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

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

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

June 18, 2025, Admissions Exam #2:

“Microchip Scan (Positive/Negative/Unable) Unable

Weight (lbs) 19#

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS Records for Petey, redacted

MCAS Records_357581 Petey-Redacted Download

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

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

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

The Neurochemistry of Fear-Whole Dog Journal_December 2015 Download

MCAS Medical Handling Sensitivity Waiver

MCAS Medical Handling Sensitivity Waiver Download

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

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

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

Leave a reply

Where was Dolly’s Fund?

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

Multnomah County Auditor: Animal Shelter still misusing earmarked donations

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

Elektra, ID# 350281 and Reznor, ID# 350283

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

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

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

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

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

April 30, 2025,

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

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

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

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

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

May 1, 2025,

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 25, 2025,

“Data Collection

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS records for Elektra, redacted

MCAS Records_350281 Elektra-Redacted Download

MCAS records for Reznor, redacted

MCAS Records_350283 Reznor-Redacted Download

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

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

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

McAuliffeetal-2022-dermatitisandbehavior Download

MCAS Violence towards animals: Vengeance killing; Chronus and Rhea

Leave a reply

Chronus, ID# 349575 and Rhea, ID# 349576

MCAS’ Budgeted Mission

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

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

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

An Eye for an Eye; A Tooth for a Tooth

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

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

April 18, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failing to protect animals

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

Medical Intake/Update: Chronus

April 18, 2025

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

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

No need. The next day he was killed.

Medical Intake: Rhea

April 17, 2025

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

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

Personality descriptions on owner surrender profiles

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Chronus’ records, redacted

MCAS Records_349575 Chronus-Redacted Download

Rhea’s records, redacted

MCAS Records_349576 Rhea-Redacted Download

MCAS Task Force Findings, June 29, 2000

MCAS 2000 Task Force Report Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a reply

Joey, ID# 340953

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

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

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

It was propaganda.

Killing Joey

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

Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 297436 February 21, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

March 13, 2025

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

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

March 21, 2025

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

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

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

March 21, 2025, Rounds Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 25, 2025, Data Collection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating a caring shelter

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Joey’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_340953 Joey Pitts-Redacted Download

Jason Renaud’s dog foster respite proposal, September 2022

Jason Renaud_Dog Respite Proposal Download

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

Behavior_Beyond Food and Water_Whole-dog-journal Download

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

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

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

Giving Out Good Vibrations-Your Dog_Arden Moore Download

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

Leave a reply

Spud, ID#338010

Spud’s adoption description on January 31, 2025.

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

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

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

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

February 27, 2025:

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

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

February 16 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second failed show repeated the same errors.

February 23, 2025

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

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

February 22, 2025

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

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

February 20, 2025

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

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

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

“To better understand and, when necessary modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful simply to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.” (“When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels”, Dog Watch March 2006, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine)

February 25, 2025, Supervisor/Manager notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Spud’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_338010 Spud-Redacted Download

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

High-Risk Behaviors Of Smart Dog Owners

Are You Familiar with the Protector Position?

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

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

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

Is Your Dog Getting Fearful or Anxious Download

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

Leave a reply

Millie, ID# 335233

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

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

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

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

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

March 12, 2025 Walk notes

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

March 12, 2025 Playgroup

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

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

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

March 14, 2025

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

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

Millie’s First adoption

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

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

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

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

Millie’s Foster care

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

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

Millie’s Second Adoption

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

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

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

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

Options

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Redacted records for Millie, 335233

MCAS Records_335233 Millie-Redacted Download

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

Leave a reply

Kismet, ID# 331471

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

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

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

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

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

December 5, 2024,

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

The behavior in question at MCAS is theirs.

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

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

No or irregular training causes skill disparities in staff

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

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

MCAS Audit, 2016, Page 5
Animal Services Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 2, the data collection notes read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Kismet’s records, redacted

MCAS Records_331471 Kismet-Redacted Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2016

Animal Services Audit Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2018

Animal Services_ Important issues still need to be resolved Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2024

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

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

Guidelines_Summaries_w-TOC Download

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

Leave a reply

Rune, ID# 328701

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

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

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

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

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

November 11, 2024 Behavior note from Play group runner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does the fault belong?

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

November 7, 2024, Data Collection/Behavior Notes:

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

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

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

Continuing the same forced interaction only reinforces that fearful response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Rune’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_328701 Rune-Redacted Download

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

Leave a reply

Winnie, ID# 300464

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

November 12, 2024,

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 6, 2024, Health Exam; Veterinary recommendation:

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

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

October 23, 2024, Data Collection:

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

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

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

Veterinarians and others serve the managers, not the mission.

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Winnie’s MCAS Records, Redacted.

MCAS Records_300464 Winnie-Redacted Download

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

MCAS Shelter Review Guidelines-2014-Working Draft Download

MCAS Rounds Review Policies, 2016; under Former Jackie Rose

MCAS Shelter Review Guidelines-2016 Download

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

MCAS Euthanasia Policy-2024 Download

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community

1 Reply

Jasmin, ID# 292723

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

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

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

Adoptions: How adoptions go wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Jason Renaud’s Respite Program proposal from September 2022

Jason Renaud_Dog Respite Proposal Download

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

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives_Cornell University Download

Jasmin’s [292723] records, redacted

MCAS Records_292723 Jasmin-Redacted Download

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)-Redacted Download

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-Redacted Download

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 12^th, 13^th, 15^th, 16^th, 18^th, and 22^nd, 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 Shelter Shock

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

Category Archives: Dogs Killed

Death by dangerous management incompetence: Chum Chum

The practice of sport of killing fearful dogs: Cola and Jubilee

Management Deception at MCAS: The major cause of animal deaths: Case study, Avalanche

The inexcusably dishonest killing of Buddy, whose jailed owner had no one to redeem him

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

When MCAS forces animals to pay with their lives for their failures: Killing Leo, an 8 year old small Terrier mix

The Department of Community Services protects MCAS management mislabeling animals, including Ichabod, to kill them

The direction, record and intention was clear at the outset.

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

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

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

MCAS Violence towards animals: Vengeance killing; Chronus and Rhea

MCAS’ Budgeted Mission

An Eye for an Eye; A Tooth for a Tooth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community

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

MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba