Florence: A short history of MCAS failure, Florence finally finds her way home
Florence, ID# 355672
Found stray on May 31, 2025, Florence was adopted on June 16, 2025. The same day her owners called to say this was their dog and were told she had been adopted and that they no longer had any reclamation rights. She was returned June 24, 2025, 8 days later by the adopter who had immediately called MCAS for advice the following day after her adoption. On June 17, MCAS had little to offer:
June 17, 2025
“Adopter Diane called for advice. She notes that Florence has been lunging, barking and snarling at other dogs on walks and next door, she notes that Florence lunges at her cat(s). Francis spoke with her 6/16 about possible prey drive. I suggested she seek a trainer through OHS or other providers, and that if this was not a good match she could return the dog. Diane asked if it was possible that she be a foster for Florence until MCAS could find a new adopter. I said that is not one of our pathways, but she could apply to be a foster parent. I suggested she attempt to manage and re-direct the behaviors or seek assistance and that she can return the dog during the 30 days. She was very insistent that she had been mislead by our Bio and Behavior notes, though we gave her a copy in total. That if the dog was returned management would use the new information about her behavior to assign a pathway and change requirements and descriptions appropriately.”
Without a behavior and training department, MCAS has nothing to offer dogs or adopters except “Tough for you.” They could have told the adopter that there was an option to return Florence to her owner; and indeed had she not done so it is a fact that fostering with training assistance, which MCAS denied as an option, would also have helped both MCAS and the adopter. It was an opportunity for both.
There are no shortages of training resources. Highly regarded resources are available locally. Instinct Dog training, a highly regarded behavior and training resource run by respected professionals with advanced degrees offers free online training for leash reactivity challenges that keep companion dogs safe in public spaces.
The adopter’s extensive detailed critique with compelling examples of a flawed system is worth reading carefully. Given MCAS’ habit of frequently avoiding questions (FAQ’s) it will never see the light of day.
Florence’s AI generated description fell short… “loves a cozy spot for a nap, a gentle stroll around the neighborhood, and plenty of quality time…” Only after her return did MCAS add “While Florence is incredibly sweet, she’s also a strong girl who gets excited on walks and pulls hard on leash, needing an adopter prepared to work with her on manners and comfortably manage a powerful dog.” AI can only work with what it has been provided. It is not nuanced if MCAS is not. MCAS should learn as much as it can about animals charged to its care before offering them to adopters, but the “Move them in, Move them out” protocol interferes with honoring that process.
After Florence’s return, MCAS called her owners regarding her June 25 return giving them one day, until June 26, to redeem her. They did.
MCAS prioritizes adoptions over pet retention (contrary to the funded mission), when Florence’s owners called to redeem her on June 16, 2025, they were told she had been adopted on the same day that they had called to redeem her. It was ‘too late’ according to MCAS. From that day forward it was a roundabout to get home.
Oregon property law allows far more time to redeem lost property when an owner is seeking that property than the county ordinance’s 3-5 day hold permits and Oregon law trumps MCAS’ stray and owner hold ordinance. But few can afford to sue when MCAS refuses to return a dog when his/her/their owner is seeking their dog and MCAS has adopted their dog out. It not only defies the state law, it also defies common sense and compassion. Once when an adopter refused to return an owned dog shortly after MCAS adopted the dog out, the adopter, did refuse to return the dog with the county’s reassurances. Six months later, after a lawsuit in which the owner was represented by Attorney Geordie Duckler, the owner won and the adopter had to return the dog and pay fees.
Before MCAS became hostile to and favored adoptions over redemption the MCAS practice was to return dogs to owners if an owner came to reclaim a dog within days after an adoption. It made sense and prioritized the agency’s mission. Now that has changed. Dogs are preselected for adoption during the stray hold time and because of preselection and the fact that MCAS has a perfunctory owner trace, owners seeking their dogs lose their rights more frequently.
Florence is an example of the humane and real costs of prioritizing adoptions over redemption and also of the frustrations adopters experience when they ask for help and MCAS tells them it’s not their problem: Go somewhere else or bring the dog back as a “poor fit.” Dogs, who are often vulnerable given MCAS demographic, often leave MCAS unprepared, to adopters who are also unprepared for a dog that has just exited a toxic shelter where nothing but waivers excusing effort, substitute for training plans. Once MCAS had trainers on site who could help adopters and also assist foster persons with dogs in need of training. Now all dogs go out with waivers covering every possible challenge.
Cheap is only cheap for MCAS management, not animals or people.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Florence’s MCAS records, redacted: