Priest, ID# 272726
“The KGW news report that following the search-and-seizure warrant executed [October 8, 2024] from a home in the Portland’s Lents neighborhood, where 15 animals were taken, some people in the neighborhood said they had made several complaints to animal services over the last few years and nothing was done is familiar.”
—https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/there-was-a-threat-made-neighbors-still-living-in-fear-following-15-dogs-cats-rescued-from-portland-home/283-fd9eb5f7-cef2-4be4-a93c-115102196f0b
MCAS’ failed due diligence over animal neglect and abuse: When dogs bite people it’s news. When people hurt dogs, its not.
Priest (formerly known as Prince), a Labrador Retriever American Pit bull mix, first came to MCAS’ attention on August 16, 2022 when a social worker, who frequently visited the Prince’s owners, reported significant concerns about his physical care and welfare including knowing one partner had struck and physically punished Prince. Similar concerns were expressed on November 19, 2022, February 8, 2023, and June 11, 2023.
MCAS visited and did nothing despite the credibility of the reporters. Finally, on October 6, 2024, an unknown homeless party surrendered Prince claiming he was aggressive, pointing to scars on his arm that he reported required stitches. Since he was unlikely to have stitched the alleged bites himself, there would be previous medical and quarantine reports. None are on record. MCAS sought no corroboration of any of the alleged bite injuries or alleged incidents.
MCAS due diligence failures occurred at multiple junctures in Priest’s short life, including a deplorable failure to investigate the claims made by the homeless individual who surrendered Priest on October 6, 2024, tying him to a tree and alleging that he was at large trying to bite people. He reported that Priest belonged to another homeless person who had left Priest in his care because that individual was no longer able to care for him. No effort was made to verify that ownership was transferred. Priest’s known owner’s name and housing location was on record. When the homeless caretaker, not the owner, surrendered Priest he showed off scars on his arm describing them as scars from significant previous bites that required stitches.
There was no reported bite on October 6, 2024, despite the fact that the caretaker was chasing Priest, caught and tied him to a tree, so the officers photographed alleged previous bite scars from alleged previous incidents they made no effort to verify.
By state law, medical facilities must report bites for quarantine purposes. The officers sought no corroborating information, including prior quarantine or medical reports which would be on file at MCAS since the reported bites required medical care i.e. stitches. The officers also failed to ask questions about circumstances that led to the claimed bites for which no documentation apparently exists.
Instead, the responding officers unquestioningly transcribed whatever the surrendering individual reported, i.e. that Priest would bite without warning, and that he had allegedly acquired Priest from another homeless individual who had left Priest in his care because that individual was not able to care for him. They did not ask the name of that party to verify the report. Given that alleged dire warning, they allowed a woman familiar with Priest to load him into the truck without incident.
Why was Priest so compliant about being chased, tied to a tree, and then permitting another homeless person to load him into the animal control truck without incident, while the officers stood by?
“CAUTION! MULTIPLE bite history reported to be unpredictable and aggressive toward people and dogs!”
Where was the evidence? Evidence would exist if there were a series of severe dog bites requiring medical intervention, in particular stitches. The agency ‘s own records do provide clear evidence of repeated abuse towards Priest. There is not one bite complaint on file but there are multiple animal welfare checks from the public concerned about mistreatment towards Priest, beginning in 2022, including beatings and neglected care that MCAS addressed cavalierly leaving him unprotected to suffer.
August 16, 2022, Complaint 273770, Cruelty and Neglect:
“PR is social worker and has become increasingly concerned for the safety of a houseless couples dog. She visit [sic] frequently and has noticed that the dog is often without water and is tied to a tree consistently and appears to be underfed. She also states she knows that the boyfriend has hit the dog…. Jamie [The owner] is currently suffering from a mental crisis. I greeted a couple that were located next to the address in a tent. The man stated that he did not but was aware of the dog and dog owner in question. The man stated that the dog owners JAMIE and ANTONIO were a houseless couple who lived inside the Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge. …The man said the dog is known to be aggressive and is known to be tied to the trees for long periods of time. The man stated that he has watched the dog on several occasions for days at a time before Jamie comes back.”
The officer located the owner with Priest, saw Priest was leashed and had access to food, water and shelter. She took at face value the owner’s statement that when Priest was left, he always had access to water, food and shelter, discounting first hand reports of neglect from other witnesses. The officer offered food and a muzzle, closing the complaint stating no violations were found at the moment and resources were given.
November 19, 2022, Complaint 276216, Cruelty Neglect:
“PR states that she works for street response and has client who isn’t properly caring for their dog (small black dog with white patch on chest). PR states that the dog is owned by a couple and the male consistently hits the dog and the dog was ran over by a bicycle about two weeks ago and is limping… PR is requesting a welfare check.”
December 1, 2022,
“I arrived at the location listed and found Prince off leash while JAMIE was attempting to recall him. I asked JAMIE how I could help and she stated that “Prince” would not listen to her. JAMIE then stated she has a back injury and cannot move fast enough to get “Prince.” After some time, a person who “Prince” was fond of arrived and jumped into their arms. Jamie was then able to leash “Prince.” I explained to JAMIE that “Prince” needs to have a collar or harness on at all times. I also suggested that she keeps “Prince” on tie down with supervision if she is unable to handle him due to her injuries. I explained to Jamie that we can ticket for this and will let her off with a warning this time but further violations will lead to a citation. During this interaction, I observed “Prince” to be in ideal condition and was not limping.”
The officer made a welfare check regarding Priest’s limping weeks after the complaint and never addressed the primary complainant’s concern about physical abuse except for a mild suggestion:
“I then explained the reason of the visit to JAMIE. JAMIE explained that sometimes ANTONIO yells at “Prince” and can handle him rough but he does not abuse the dog. I then explained to JAMIE that “Prince” appears to be in ideal condition but suggested she tells ANTONIO to handle him gentler or we maybe have to visit them again.”
The officer was excusing the abuse, trivializing credible reports, and instead focusing on leash ordinances violations.
February 8, 2023, Complaint 278100, Source OHS:
“Our vet hospital staff relayed a concern to us this afternoon. I am checking to see if you have the resources to attempt a welfare check on the dog. OHS was contacted by a person looking for vet care for a dog that was apparently hit by a car yesterday in front of several witnesses. The caller is not the dog owner. The dog owner lives in a tent at Milwaukee and Mitchell, …I don’t have a description of the tent. The hit by car happened yesterday at that location. The dog is reported to be in the tent, not moving, not eating, crying. The caller thinks the dog is critically injured. The dog is a lab/pit mix, black in color, named Priest. Apparently the dog has been hit by cars and bikes before. …Caller stated the boyfriend of the dog owner is also physically abusive of the dog…”
On February 9, 2023 the officer arrived at the campsite, the tents had been relocated to the other side of the park where there were 3 tents, one with a crate outside. No one was present. He did not know which tent belonged to the Prince’s owner so he left.
When the officer returned the next day on February 10, he learned someone had called the Portland Police and they had taken Prince to Dove Lewis. Dove Lewis did not do x-rays because the homeless owner did not have funds and recommended that if Prince was still limping in a few days he be taken to a cheaper veterinary clinic for follow up. The officer observed that day that Prince was still limping on his back leg, and advised the homeless owner to take Prince to a veterinary clinic for follow up because the injury could be a fracture. He would be back in a week to see that the owner had complied. He did not direct the owner to resources.
On February 16, 2024 the officer followed up, the x-rays had still not occurred. The owner had a voucher for a free x-ray but no transportation to collect it.
March 1, 2023, the officer returned to the park; the camp had been cleared. The officer had a telephone number for the owner’s partner but could not immediately reach him so he closed the case.
During this incident complaint, at no point did MCAS offer active assistance, for example, driving to redeem the free voucher needed for the x-rays and dropping it off to the owner when transportation was the restriction. They never addressed the frequent credible reports of abuse. Instead, they were bystanders to neglect and harm.
June 11, 2023,Complaint 281166, Officer report:
“I was greeted by the vet staff and the dog owner,…whom I had met previously for several complaint [sic] all unfounded. JAMIE stated that last night, her dog “Priest” stepped on a clamp the night before, she stated that she attempted to get the clamp off the dog but was unsuccessful.”
The officer transported Priest and his owner to Dove Lewis for care but had no questions about how a dog could become caught in a clamp. The dismissal of all previous neglect and abuse charges as “unfounded” beggars reality. What is fact is that reports of abuse were marginalized and dismissed without investigation.
On October 6, 2024 Priest was impounded and taken to MCAS, with an unchecked uncorroborated report by a caretaker that he bites without warning.
The day he arrived MCAS attempted an admissions exam despite his high levels of distress.
October 6, 2024 Admissions Exam Attempt #1
“…Did not want anything to do with treats, did not come closer than just outside guillotine door, Hardly registered hot dogs thrown in from a distance, simply stared. Due to this behavior and ACO notes regarding quick behavior changes and biting without warning, requesting behavior care and waiting a day before attempting any contact for safety.”
October 7, 2024: Admission Exam Attempt #2
“Approached kennel front, Priest was resting on bed in kennel. He raised his head and looked at me and began growling. I knelt down and called his name, he began to slowly get up with tense, forward posture while hard staring and continued whale eyed and growling. Given his history and current behavior, I am not comfortable attempting to interact with him beyond this today, ended interaction.”
No one should examine a traumatized dog the day of intake and “fail” them. At MCAS, management’s subjective fears replace establishing objective facts every time. Fear not facts drive employee and management behavior most of the time.
Nothing in previous complaints suggest Prince was a dangerous dog who bit without warning. In fact he was the victim of abuse. He was by report easily managed at the camp among persons who knew him. The bite reports were never verified.
Priest was repeatedly failed by MCAS and his story, the story of one homeless dog who lived unprotected by the animal control agency charged with protecting him and animals in danger, will likely end sadly, saving those who victimized him, killing him, the victim of abuse.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Priest’s Public Records, redacted