Aside from the practice of labeling every unwanted dog “unhealthy and untreatable” to dispose of them, MCAS deaths are also increasing because of negligent animal care practices.
Several years ago Director Erin Grahek and the MCAS Operation managers created an Animal Health Supervisor position and filled the position with an onsite veterinary technician. When asked why that was the choice, not a licensed veterinarian, then Operations Manager, Marian Cannell responded, “Because I like her.”
Veterinary assistants and technicians without supervision now routinely diagnose, prescribe, and create treatment plans.
MCAS has 3 on-site licensed veterinarians, none in a supervisory role. A licensed veterinarian must be in charge of animal health. The Veterinary Practice Act requires that “all duties of a veterinary technician must be performed under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian (ORS 686.030).” Further, any party who diagnosis, prescribes and treats animals must be a licensed veterinarian (OAR 875-030-0045, Unprofessional of Dishonorable Conduct for Certified Veterinary Technicians). This is the explicit list of what a Certified Veterinary Technician may do while under mandatory supervision by a licensed veterinarian.
Bruce MCAS 380925 was diagnosed and treated with Cerenia and bland food for his symptoms by a certified veterinary technician with the approval of the animal care supervisor. He was found dead in his kennel the following day. The, after the fact, likely diagnosis was described as bloat following an informal necropsy conducted by an on site veterinarian who was not part of his treatment plan.
Sir Lunch-a-Lot MCAS 380917 featured in the testimony link above died from undiagnosed pneumonia, a preventable death No on-site veterinarian was part of his care. It wasn’t a mistake. Its malpractice.
The current policies and practices at MCAS ensure that needless deaths of shelter animals will continue.
These are not “isolated cases.” They occur week after week.
Will Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the county commissioners act? “Business as usual” has been to do nothing and to protect the management… at the expense of animals’ lives and public service.
Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) has an intake of over 7,000 animals per year, and has maintained a high live-release rate for shelter animals even with the trend of increasing intakes. Monthly and annual reports for the division are available online, including all intakes and outcomes, and veterinary services provided for the animals.
The agency’s alleged live release rate does not accurately reflect reality. The reported live release rate is inflated by numerous variables including significant adoption returns. As in, a unique animal being adopted, then returned, then adopted out again means that that animal contributes ‘2’ counts to their live release rate. This is setting aside that a live release rate does not reflect care or housing conditions at MCAS. What MCAS has steadily maintained is a high lie release rate – Where indeed no two days are ever the same.
The agency’s specialties are propaganda and distraction intended to shimmy out of accountability. The evidence is clear throughout records, public experience, and commentary. One must go through the propaganda front first.
These are just a few recent highlights from last week’s records
Deprivation of animal care: The willful abandonment of animals’ emotional and social well being
MCAS Director Grahek and Operations Manager Andrew Mathias systematically continue to fail to meet even the minimum requirements for shelter animal’s mental health and well being (Beyond Food and Water … “Open Paw’s Minimal Mental Health Requirements for Dogs”). They dismantled programs once in place that worked: Regular exercise and enrichment outings into the community; Weekly adoption outreach events; ongoing behavior and training programs to engage animals and improve their lives.
An absence of volunteers
Volunteers are critical to animal welfare. The numbers of volunteers are low compared to animal intake numbers.
On the February 3, 2026 Intake Inventory there were 41 dogs in the adoption kennels; 41 dogs in Intake (including 2 dogs on Security). That means 80 dogs, (less 2 on Security who are generally not walked), needing consistent exercise, enrichment, and walks outside the toxic kennel environment. 40 volunteers dedicated to walking dogs is a very low number.
Those numbers are critically low because MCAS is also a toxic environment for volunteers, not just animals. Often a positive feedback cycle occurs where lack of enrichment and exercise escalate animal stress. Often animals become frantic with the stress of constant confinement. MCAS will warn volunteers to not walk animals if they are uncomfortable when an animal becomes distressed but the managers do nothing to create a safe world for volunteers, staff or animals. The single intervention is copious medication. MCAS will only treat stress with escalating levels of psychotropics, a practice once commonplace at orphanages and any facility where vulnerable populations were housed without oversight. MCAS will solve these concerns with excuses exonerating themselves, not solutions. Creative fiction is their forte.
Volunteer numbers December 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 Dog Walking: 40 volunteers Dog walking Hands On training: 1
January 1, 2026 to January 31, 2026 Dog Walking: 38 volunteers Dog walking Hands On training: 4
MCAS spay neuter and in house breeding program
MCAS continues to fail to spay and neuter every companion animal that is adopted to the public, alleging as one irrelevant distraction (Look here, not there) that more unspayed and unneutered companion animals are being taken in as strays since past history so please excuse them. No, that is not the point. We are speaking about dogs adopted out, not total intake. It’s their job. The fact that the management can’t do their assigned work for overwhelmingly generous salaries and benefits means they are incompetent. Incompetence is inexcusable. The public should not be paying for a management on work disability welfare program.
MCAS in-house breeding program
Miss Wolfie, ID#381469
Dogs Playing for Life is a nationally recognized program intended to relieve shelter stress. At MCAS it has been redirected and diverted to being used as a stressful test of dog compatibility. Dogs are randomly assigned to play groups that often in fact create additional stress. That is especially true if a female dog in heat is included among several unaltered male and female dogs. It creates disruption and conflict. The practice continues. The only tools used to intervene in spontaneous conflicts are spray bottles and shaker cans, tools that are fairly useless when fights occur.
Miss Wolfie’s record, January 28, 2026, Playgroup,
“Behavior Notes:…We have noted potential conflict drive with other females, which may possibly be due to her being in heat.”
Why put dogs in heat in play groups unless you want to provoke a fight? Almost as an afterthought, Miss Wolfie was spayed after the in heat group play two days later on January 30,2026
Saving Dolly’s Fund restricted to the special medical needs of shelter animals; Depriving animals of critical medical care
Clifford, ID#380920
MCAS continues to deprive animals of critical medical care. The funds are readily available through Dolly’s Fund but they dodge that fact and their responsibility by issuing waivers, disowning any responsibility for that care. Adopters adopt the dog ‘as is.’ Waivers virtually insure that that care will rarely be received because few citizens who adopt an MCAS dog for low fees will pay for additional future medical expenses.
How cheap can the managers be? Very cheap. They advertise an animal with a handicap that assuredly will require medical attention in the near future as “charming.” In Clifford’s case the managers attached a waiver for cleft palate.
After rescues including the Oregon Humane Society, declined to take Clifford, and after he was an adoption return, the management asked the on site primary care veterinarian to perform the cleft palate repair surgery. It is very clear from the clinical veterinary literature that surgery for cleft palate requires advanced specialized surgical training. MCAS deliberately elected to fail both Clifford and the MCAS primary care veterinarian, instead setting both up to fail with their request that the in house veterinarian do the surgery that she was unqualified to perform and that could be easily paid for from Dolly’s Fund.
It wasn’t enough to ask OHS once. They were bound and determined to save Dolly’s Fund.
January 26, 2026
“OHS declined again as they do NOT take cleft palates, cleft lips, or oronasal fistulas.”
MCAS managers view shelter animals’ lives as not worth the effort, not worth saving or improving their lives. Their dishonesty and evasiveness in every area speak to a culture that has been totally corrupted.
When no medical transfers accepted Clifford, MCAS made Clifford available for adoption with a waiver with the veterinary statement that while currently Clifford seemed to be able to eat and drink adequately and “there is no sign of inflammation/infection involving the congenital defect at this time.” It was also noted that “Dog will likely be more prone to infection involving the nasal cavity and aspiration over the course of his life than typical dogs.”
That is a very conservative observation, an understatement at best. The likelihood that Clifford will develop serious medical concerns is in fact assured when one reads through the current available veterinary medical literature.
“…Dogs with a cleft palate often develop serious medical issues like aspiration pneumonia if the condition is not corrected, usually with surgery.”
But MCAS will not correct medical conditions with funds the public continues to donate for that purpose. Instead animals with treatable special medical conditions are killed or are placed on pain management while other rescues are sought as the MCAS managers sit on Dolly’s Fund as if it were a personal bequest for their use for unknown purposes.
The County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of County Commissioners have allowed government sponsored animal abuse with public funds and have by looking away endorsed it.
It is not unusual for MCAS’ $25 adopted dogs to be recycled and end up in the same or worse circumstances than those that compelled their original impoundment at MCAS.
When Logan’s original owner, Charlotte, was hospitalized for a mental health crisis on March 13, 2025, the shelter asked her one day later on March 14 if she had anyone who could reclaim Logan on her behalf. She did not. The MCAS staff person then asked her if she would like to surrender Logan over the telephone and she did not. She was offered no resources. She was then advised of the hold date ending on March 19th. Fear of losing their pets often causes additional grief and distress to hospitalized owners.
March 14, 2025 the day after hospitalization:
“ …Charlotte then stated she didn’t want him adopted, I [MCAS staff] then advised she loses ownership of her dog after that time should she not come and reclaim. Charlotte understood.”
What Charlotte understood was that MCAS would not help her keep her companion dog. MCAS’ primary funded mission is pet redemption and retention, a mission they deliberately ended without county approval. Maybe they thought no one was looking. An abdication of Governmental oversight and accountability at MCAS has led to a culture of self determination and independence from government rule. They do what they want, not what the county mission instructs. As part of mission elimination, the management also eliminated Pets in Crisis, and Emergency Board, the support for pet retention, labeling them as ‘too cumbersome.’ These support programs were replaced with 6-day owner holds. There are more creative solutions to support owners in crisis, with some alternatives described in the attached files.
The elimination of pet retention programs
MCAS denied Charlotte an extension of the hold time. Denial is discretionary and dependent upon the good will of the operations manager. It can be arbitrary. On March 18, 2025, MCAS management “Called and spoke with the social worker Sarah and let her know that due to shelter capacity that we would not be extending the hold. She is aware and will let owner know.” But respite foster homes are unaffected by “shelter capacity.”
Logan was now “adoptable” from MCAS. He was adopted on March 23, 2025 for $25, quickly becoming ill. On March 28, 2025 his adopter called in concerned about kennel cough symptoms. Nine days after the adoption, on April 6, 2025 the adopter brought Logan back intending to return him. Logan was still ill with kennel cough. The adopter reported that he had never received the promised antibiotics. During admissions after speaking with animal health, the adopter reconsidered surrendering Logan; the necessary prescription was filled, the last contact with animal health.
Logan was next found on August 2, 2025 [Complaint 301537, August 2, 2025] after a citizen called MCAS to report that an individual seemed to be in a mental health crisis, reported to have been “untying his black dog to run loose in the streets.” An MCAS officer responded and the person identified by the complainant, described to the officer that while the dog was tied up he was around all of the time. There was no reference to letting the dog run loose.
The individual the officer had approached reported that “the dog was new to him.” When asked where he had gotten the dog, he responded “…that the animal was tied to his camp a few nights prior and he did not know where it came from.” After running a microchip scan, the MCAS officer discovered that Logan had been identified as adopted from MCAS by someone other than the homeless person who had just recently found him tied to his tent. The officer offered to take Logan to MCAS in order to contact the owner. He advised the homeless finder that he was more than able to come to MCAS to adopt Logan if his owner on record did not reclaim him.
The finder barely knew Logan. No, the homeless finder is not qualified to responsibly adopt Logan. He lives in a tent, where he noted he had to return rapidly out of fear of losing his possessions. He does not have a secure enclosure or the means to care for Logan.
What is anyone at MCAS thinking? The MCAS adopter, although immediately contacted when Logan was taken to MCAS on August 2, has not reclaimed Logan from MCAS. It appears that Logan may have been abandoned by his adopter. Instead of following up on those concerns, MCAS has moved on. Logan is now on “Pre-select” adoptions meaning he can be adopted as of August 9, when the legal stray time for owned animals ended, by anyone with $25 in their pockets.
How is this a “shelter” instead of a con? There were other options.
During Logan’s original impound on March 13, 2025 when his owner was hospitalized, a Portland Police Officer asked to be considered to foster and/or adopt Logan. That offer was ignored. The original owner lost Logan because MCAS would not extend a short hold time permitting a respite foster. In the end, Logan ended up on the streets at risk.
That does not represent responsible animal care and adoptions. What has occurred is the normalization of failure. MCAS is emboldened each time the managers get away with mission violations. That is how corruption starts: One unchecked failure at a time. The mission, caring for and protecting pets and people, disappeared like a magic trick. It flew off, gone into the universe of false promises.
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 4th 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?
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.
“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.
“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)
“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.
MCAS rewards abusive owners: Almight traumatized by constant abuse of electric shock collars
Almight, ID# 345682
Almight’s quarantine ends on April 2, 2025 for a bite incident that occurred after an abusive owner sought obedience by repeatedly using a shock collar accompanied by verbal abuse. The incident was reported by the owner to have occurred while “he was petting his dog.” There is no information about the context of the ‘pat’ or the owner’s behavior. Context which is key to understanding why the incident occurred, and whether it’s a behavioral concern or a strictly human-caused bite. “You don’t want to make a dog feel frightened or, worse, like he has to protect himself.” (How to Pet a Dog” Your Dog, Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine)
The injuries were ones in which recovery would be expected to be quick with no lasting impairment.
Investigative concerns
The claim that this is the 3rd bite in 3 weeks was not substantiated or investigated. Most importantly, neither was the owner’s conduct a preview of which was directly witnessed at MCAS. Almight seemed to be living in a climate of fear.
March 23, 2025, Behavior observations during Intake:
“Greeted owner and dog at intake gate. Dog was anxious, pacing mildly, avoiding eye contact, heavy panting. Owner had dog on a tight leash and was continuously commanding him. Owner weighed dog and scanned for micro chip. Dog was stress panting and trembling the entire time. When not immediately obedient, AO [Animal owner] would shout at him and jerk him around by his lead. Once in kennel, AO was able to safely remove shock collar. AO tried to command dog to go inside by shouting at him repeatedly, but the dog was too scared to cross that threshold to inside[- – shaking and slightly cowering. AO attempted to put the shock collar back on him but I asked him not to. He was able to get out after yelling at the dog to sit and stay.”
To date no investigation has occurred. An abuser was allowed to drop off his dog at an animal control agency for a $50 surrender fee, no counseling was provided and he is free to go out and abuse again. Failure to counsel makes the agency complicit with animal abuse.
That was the humane sheltering mission and trajectory approved long ago by the broadly representative 2000 Citizens’ MCAS Task Force(report attached below)appointed by then County Chair Bev Stein. It has become a mission sabotaged by MCAS management in defiance of the county commissioners funding mission ‘mandates.’
Any apologist statement that humane sheltering creates safety concerns because “unsafe” dogs will be released into the community is false. The way to create safety is to replace ignorance with facts, plans and education.
A tri-county local example
Washington county has a smaller budget than MCAS and is also without the over one million dollar support from Dolly’s Fund, a restricted donation-driven fund for animals’ medical care. The county’s shelter addressed a case of animal abuse and deprivation of proper care with a plan, not an excuse, and a process of ongoing assessment and planning, first addressing the surgery needs for recovery.
After the dog’s physical injuries resolved, behavior challenges still remained. A highly qualified veterinarian in Portland with an advanced degree in behavioral veterinary medicine went to the shelter, observed and evaluated the special needs dog, then created a treatment plan.
The dog who had been abused and neglected then went to a rescue with the assessment plan accompanying him. An assessment plan was critical to recovery. The shelter that accomplished this operates out of an old and humble building without the funding,with fewer managers, and without a publicist (PR agent for rationalizing failures through FAQs).
At MCAS instead the management’s response is to kill every unwanted dog as “unsafe,” “unhealthy and untreatable” in closed door sessions. There is no other plan. From Spud MCAS 338010, recently killed as“unsafe” for barking at strangers to abused dogs, MCAS has a vocabulary for indifference: Lacking “resources” or “unsafe” are code reasons listed as reasons for killing out of indifference.
Please do not kill Almight. Indeed there are multiple options by just creating a plan not a dump site of excuses. Almight did nothing wrong, surrendered by his abusive owner. Silence about cruelty is another form of abuse. It’s community complicity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
Buffy, ID# 329918 and Walker, ID# 329916 Puppy, ID# 330764 and ID# 330766
MCAS holds others to minimum standards of care that they themselves fail to meet. Unlike many in the demographic they serve, they have not the excuse of poverty. They have done nothing to improve MCAS’ unsafe toxic environment where stress is normalized and infectious contagious diseases continue to be rampant and unchecked. Citizens are cited for deprivation of proper care. MCAS is given a “free pass” by those charged with oversight.
The story of Buffy, Walker and eight puppies born at MCAS is just one among many examples concerning deprivation of proper care.
Buffy and her partner Walker belong to a homeless person living in his truck. Both Buffy and Walker were found alone in a fenced yard by the renter living there on November 20, 2024. The records at the time noted that Buffy appeared to be pregnant and Walker had a left shoulder injury. MCAS impounded both dogs, placing them under “protective custody,” “due to concerns of either suspected neglect or concerns on care of pet.”
On November 26, MCAS spoke to Buffy and Walker’s homeless owner who explained he had been ill and had asked the person on the property, the renter whom he knew, if he could temporarily care of them. The renter confirmed that he knew the owner of Buffy and Walker, but had not agreed to caretaking responsibilities.
Buffy, known to be likely pregnant from her impound notes, did not go through the standard intake process the day she arrived at MCAS. Her puppies were born on November 22, 2024 while she was held in protective custody. This happened in the general intake kennels, an unsafe area, where temperatures are erratic, contagious disease is rampant, and oversight is lacking.
After the birth of the puppies, there was no attempt to move them to the shelter hospital or any safer area. How many puppies were born is unclear: 8 puppies are listed in Buffy’s medical report, only 6 puppies are listed with MCAS identification numbers on November 22, 2024 Intake Found Reports. One sequential number 330767 is missing without explanation: 330763, 330764, 330765, 330766, 330768, 330769.
Medical follow up
Buffy was separately examined in the hospital away from her puppies by an onsite veterinarian on November 23, the day after the puppies were born. She was prescribed twice daily feedings for being “under-conditioned” and also prescribed medication for a chronic bilateral ear infection.
On the same day that Buffy was examined, veterinary assistants examined the puppies and described them as “apparently healthy.” The recommendation was that they should be fostered until weaned but the search for a foster was not permitted until Buffy’s bite quarantine ended on December 4, 2024, a minor bite that occurred while a worker cleaning kennels was moving dirty blankets around Buffy and the puppies on the morning of November 23, an activity that would have been best conducted while Buffy and the puppies were being medically examined because dogs’ maternal protective instincts are high around newborn puppies.
The bite was understandable, there were many ways to serve quarantine without risking disease to the newborn puppies, but blind enforcement rules trumped animal welfare. A creative solution intended to meet both concerns was too much trouble.
November 23 2024, Kennel cleaning that led to a minor bite to the worker
“During morning cleaning I entered Sally’s [Buffy’s] kennel to clean around her and her puppies. I started mopping around the whelping bed where they were all laying together, after the floor was mopped I left and returned with clean blankets, I started to peel back the dirty blankets around her slowly at first, she showed some signs of discomfort, slight tenseness of body, staring, and twitching nose, I stopped and reached out my hand to allow contact, she sniffed my hand and then turned back to her puppies.
I returned to slowly moving blankets around her and she again turned to look at me this time lunging at my face, open mouth contact was made and one of her teeth punctured my left cheek, afterwards she did not bite down and immediately pulled back and returned her attention to her babies. I stood up and left the kennel without further issue to notify the management.”
The “puncture” bite pictured above is very minor. The incident was caused by management negligence. They failed to train the worker. Workers are left to fend for themselves, making their own on the spot decisions. They are armed with pet corrector, radios, shake cans and spray water bottles. The worker was never trained on how to manage dogs, especially dogs protective of their new born offspring. Training is important. So is compassion and common sense about welfare. Buffy and her puppies should never have been left, their care abandoned, in general intake.
Four days after birth, on the morning of November 26, 2024, two of the puppies, 330766 and 330764 were found cold and unresponsive, deceased in the kennels.
No necropsies were ordered. The policy that has continued since 2017, by then Director Jackie Rose, leaves the order of necropsies for “unassisted deaths” up to management discretion. In this case Buffy, Walker, and the puppies were owned animals. They were not MCAS’ property. The puppies died while under MCAS care. Their deaths were unexpected, and the cause of death concerning, given the unsafe environment under which they were housed where in addition to poor temperature control, failed supervision, and disease rampancy.
All shelter animals are put at risk when unexplained deaths cannot be investigated via necropsy without the direct authorization of an uninterested management. Without proper investigation, causes of death cannot be identified, and all other animals are put at risk. The managers have given themselves a free pass from accountability by denying investigations. Animals’ lives are disposable property sent to the incinerator. They, the managers, are never going to elect an investigation that might reflect on their own conduct.
Aftermath
The owner spoke with managers on November 26, wanting to redeem his dogs and puppies. He was not charged with negligence. He was given a report of their impoundment at MCAS that did not allude to or admit to the deaths of two puppies. Yet those were his puppies, ironically in their protective custody. The agency forbade Buffy’s departure until after the end of her quarantine on December 4, 2024, leaving her and her puppies at risk for illness, without any explanation to the owner regarding why she had been quarantined at all.
The agency decided to monitor and ‘wait and see,’ instead of placing Buffy and the puppies in a safe environment. This leaves them at risk because kennel cough often progresses into pneumonia and is highly contagious. Let alone the agency’s historic failures with managing disease spread at the shelter.
November 30, 2024, veterinarian note following a check up,
“Monitor for progressing respiratory signs daily due to concern for puppies being exposed to kennel cough.”
November 27, 2024, Supervisor/Management notes; the day after the puppies died
“Spoke with AO [ Animal owner] … Discussed that a few of the puppies did not thrive in the shelter and if at any point after reclaim, the puppies are not doing well, to please bring them back to MCAS. Advised that we would not be able to guarantee reclaim at that point, but that we would be able to take them if needed. Advised that Buffy is on BQ and can be reclaimed on 12/4… jkt [Jennifer Turner, Field Services Supervisor.].”
The puppies who died did not “thrive” because they were deprived of proper care in an unsafe environment. To even describe the situation as a “failure to thrive” suggests a fundamental flaw in the moral values of the institution.
On December 2, 2024 the Field Services Supervisor offered the owner an ‘opportunity’ to surrender Buffy and the puppies, which he declined, noting he had help for the puppies and that a friend was driving from the East Coast to take Buffy. It is difficult for MCAS to claim any high moral ground.
The Field Services Supervisor continued,
“I told [Animal Owner] that we will consider this litter of puppies to be an accident. And that if he plans on “Buffy” having any more litters that he will need to get a breeding facility license. [Animal Owner] stated that it was an accident for her having puppies and that he is planning on getting her spayed. I gave [Animal Owner] the information of OHS low income Spay and Neuter Program.”
When MCAS management err they always move to one-upmanship as a show of superior authority in order to hide their errors in judgment. Why, when someone is homeless, advise them that if it happens again they will need to purchase a breeders’ facility license? Why not offer a free spay and neuter for Buffy and Walker instead?
MCAS current spay neuter voucher system based upon a “trust” that adopters will comply; a “trust” rooted in expediency. Given the high risk of non-compliance for voucher redemption, the borderline free gift ($25) of a ‘low fee’ ‘fertile animal’ should be accompanied by the required payment of a breeding facility license until proof of voucher redemption is provided. Otherwise redemption rates will remain low. Or they could return to past practices by securing a path of spaying/neutering animals on site before they are released to the adopter.
Referring low-income owners to OHS, as was done in this case, is off loading responsibilities that the shelter itself has funding for, funding that has been reported by the county’s auditor as being underused. That report showed that for the 5 years prior to mid-May 2023, the shelter only spent about $42,000 with about $316,00 left unspent in its Spay/Neuter Fund. In the 2024 followup report, the shelter has substantially increased its use of this fund, but “consideration of financial need was not a factor in the spaying or neutering of these animals.” An abdication of the intent behind the program to support low-income adopters in order to ‘comply’ with recommendations. MCAS can afford to spay Buffy; her owner cannot. MCAS’ mission is a vacant promise.
As of December 1, 2024 public records, Buffy and her puppies were still in Intake Kennel 9 at MCAS in the general population. MCAS still fails to give workers the training necessary for their daily interactions with shelter animals. This training is especially needed given these animals are often subjected to environmental stress. The workers are on the front lines. That management’s abdication in providing training should be held to account.
Failure to investigate unexplained deaths has happened before. In the linked Oregonian article, LeeLoo survived with emergency care, but another dog, Bear (ID# 297341), did not. Bear was a one and a half year old gentle and playful Labrador Retriever adopted from MCAS in ostensibly good health on October 13, 2024. On October 14, the adopter noted that he seemed unwell, then on the 15th, they called a veterinarian for advice. The veterinarian recommended that the adopter keep watch on Bear. Bear collapsed and died suddenly that evening. MCAS offered condolences and were willing to cover the costs for a private cremation, paw print and pickup. However, they completely neglected to offer paying for a necropsy to study why Bear, a young, supposedly healthy dog, suddenly suffered from lethargy and loss of appetite rapidly deteriorating into collapse and then death a day after he was adopted.
One year later nothing has changed. Managers are given too much discretionary power without oversight to develop policies that are not reviewed by anyone else in government. When dogs die “unassisted deaths” they make note of the occurrence for statistical data keeping, and promptly move on. There is no interest in discovering causes, just as there is no interest in treatment.
Prioritizing an efficiency defined by speed has been the primary motivation for this shelter. Whether that’s in the establishment of the spay/neuter voucher program, where “the change was intended to move pets out of the shelter faster,” or in minimum qualifications for hiring animal care and veterinary leadership positions in order to “quickly fill vacant roles,” according to MCAS Director Erin Grahek’s own words in an article by April Ehrlich on Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).
