“You can fool some of the people some of the time- and that’s enough to make a decent living.” –W. C. Fields
No one in MCAS management has animal behavior and training credentials, with the exception of Operations manager Andrew Mathias who claims on his linkedin biography to be a ‘passionate visionary’ certified by the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers (CCPDT),* a multiple choice examination as his sole credential. The assessment only assesses knowledge, not practical skill because merely passing a quiz does not promise competence.
Other than what little expertise can be claimed from solely passing a quiz, no other managers have the critically necessary background to assess behavior. Nothing makes that clearer than the obscure unintelligible reasons listed for killing Chum Chum at MCAS after he had been impounded when his owner went to jail. His owner had no one to house him during his incarceration.
Impounded on December 11, 2025, Chum Chum was ordered killed on March 13, 2026 and killed immediately afterwards because rapid killing has become the management’s only efficiency. It also precludes professional review by credentialed community experts.
March 13, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds has elected Humane Esthesia [sic] due to unpredictable, high intensity behaviors and an uninterruptible drive toward movement. The animal demonstrates a Level 3 trigger response and a Level 3 intensity, consistently targeting anything in motion with a high degree of unpredictability.”
The first duty of any official addressing the public is to be coherent and comprehensible. This could have been written in Swahili with how uninformative it is. It is critical to provide specific behavior descriptions and interventions that have been tried to resolve a behavior challenge before any conclusion is made that a behavior is “unhealthy and untreatable.” A behavior or state is not “unhealthy and untreatable” when no effort to manage or correct the challenge has been made. Not only are the specific behaviors not described, the historical timeline is left out. What started as leash reactivity and prey drive at the beginning intensified because of ill conceived adoptions and agency negligence.
During his second adoption Chum Chum’s behavior described a dog who had become frantic, far from his normal baseline. His second adoption immersed him in stacked stressors when he was already distressed from MCAS confinement, including quarantine restrictions when no dogs were allowed out of their kennels.
None of that context was part of the euthanasia disposition decision. Instead, the author speaking for the Rounds Review went on a side trip excursion to the Asilomar Accords for support.
The Asilomar Accords established in 2004 are not based upon professional behavior and training diagnostics and prognostics. They represent a largely failed effort to create common categories for statistical comparisons across shelters by providing a uniform method for animal shelters to categorize animals (Healthy, Treatable, or Unhealthy/Untreatable).
The Asilomar Accords interpretations do not guarantee accurate categorizations. Definitions about what qualifies for each category are decided by local shelters or shelter partnerships. For example, MCAS, a shelter that benefits from holding a flush donation driven fund for the explicit use of shelter animal medical fees, considers an animal with a medical condition that requires over $750 to treat to be “unhealthy and untreatable.”
Even the Asilomar Accord creators warn about using the categories as a dictation about an outcome.
“The effect of the Asilomar definitions is not to draw lines between animals who can and can’t be saved, but to put shelters on the same footing as their community: shelters that save all healthy and treatable dogs and cats in their care are meeting the standard of care typically provided in their own community. Shelters that go beyond this to save a portion of the “unhealthy and untreatable” are exceeding their community’s standard of care and this setting an example of humane treatment. These shelters aren’t following their community – they’re leading them.” —https://www.maddiesfund.org/assets/documents/No%20Kill%20Progress/A%20Guide%20to%20the%20Asilomar%20Accords%20Definitions.pdf
Chum Chum’s challenges
Chum Chum was leash reactive and prey driven. He was consistently reported to be a great companion to small children including the second adopter’s autistic child.
Dog relationships
During MCAS Play Group assessment on December 15, 2026, when he was introduced to another dog, Chum Chum was stiff and avoidant: “When Izzybella tried to approach for sniffs he backed up and turned away, standing behind primary.” He did not attack Izzybella.
On January 5, 2026, Chum Chum, while ill with kennel cough ( “Bumped as he was coughing and had green nasal discharge” ) was placed in a Play group again and he was described as “dog tolerant to dog social.”
The mother of his incarcerated owner reported that Chum Chum was “used to being the only dog, he might not be good with small dogs since he thinks they are toys, but that he is good with kids.”
That was his baseline behavior.
A history of failed adoptions
Adopted January 28, 2026; returned February 10, 2026 after 12 days in the home with the primary reason listed as “ Not ready for a dog.” and “ Lunges at other dogs and small animals on walks, no barking or growling, hackles, just pulling. Adopter reports he was great with their children.”
MCAS’ only comment about the return was no additional indemnities needed because “ ..these were known behaviors that the adopter was counseled on” despite evidence of clear leash reactivity and possible prey drive. The waivers on record for Chum Chum were “dog-dog selective,” “Allergic skin disease,” and “Kennel Cough.”
After Chum Chum’s adoption return, no effort by MCAS was made to work on leash reactivity and no questions were asked of the adopter about how he walked Chum Chum because how a leash is held can create and accelerate leash rage. Pulling and holding a leash tightly accelerate leash reactivity.
On March 6, Chum Chum was adopted again to someone with a special needs child, living in an apartment. The other family pets were a fish and a tarantula. He was returned two days later on March 8 with the commentary “AO unexpectedly lost housing, unable to keep dog. Reported no issues with dog. Did well with child but does have significant prey drive and will pull towards small critters and even towards leaves blowing in the wind.”
What Chum Chum needed was a low traffic home with a yard not an apartment complex where multiple parties with dogs live.
Nevertheless MCAS re-adopted Chum Chum to the same individual without further counseling or intervention on behalf of Chum Chum because MCAS management version of “Adopters Welcome” is whatever the adopter wants regardless of whether or not it is right for the dog.
On March 12, 2026, Chum Chum was returned again “due to neighbors complaint regarding dog reactivity to other dogs.” It had been a whirlwind predictable failed romance. The dog was fungible, the victim. His needs were not of any account.
The examples of dog reactivity given were:
“ ...With one close neighbor ..if Chum Chum could see the dog through the glass window, he would become tense, posture with hackles before quickly charging at the glass trying to get at the other dog. The other dog is said to have a history of reactivity as well.”
“ …There was a separate incident where a neighbor was with their in their car when Chum Chum saw the dog then charged the vehicle, scratching the door…”
“ ..Chum Chum would charge at the TV if he heard dogs on there barking and knocked over the TV.”
“ ...Chum Chum darted quickly after birds, squirrels, leaves, anything that moved and would even try to muzzle punch at AO’s fish tank whenever the fish moved.”
“ He did also say that Chum Chum was exuberant with his 10 year old non verbal autistic son and knocking the son over.”
This was a dog who had become frantic. MCAS managers created Chum Chum’ s elevated anxiety and distress through poor adoption decisions and poor shelter care. These escalated frantic behaviors, driven by anxiety, were far from Chum Chum’s baseline and were the result of stacked stressors, some caused by MCAS’ poor environment and adoption decisions.
While at MCAS Chum Chum was among the dogs who became ill with respiratory disease during the epidemic. Additional to his illness, constant confinement led to his destroying and ingesting his toys. Then he was sent out to failed adopters, twice, while he was still in a state of distress recovering from illness, confinement and from MCAS toxic environment where the battery of noise is constant and where there is no good faith enrichment. It is unclear from the narrative if the second adopter discontinued Chum Chum’s psychotropics. He did not return them.
After Chum Chum’s second adoption return his original family tried to redeem him, leaving a message at 12:57 PM with a staff person. Chum Chum was killed at 2:45 PM. Their call was not returned.
They knew Chum Chum best: That was his baseline: ‘Good with children, not good with small dogs.Additional information: leash reactivity and prey drive: Manageable.‘ When an agency destroys the mental health of its residents, nearly all of whom are deprived of proper care, and fails behavior analyses it is the management that must be put under review.
In February 2024, MCAS managers lowered the bar for euthanasia dispositions to accommodate their singular lack of initiative, caring, effort, and service to the public good. They did so without public permission or expert review. Frightened shelter animals have paid the price. Responsibility for their deaths is disowned by labeling all unwanted animals “unhealthy and untreatable” when all of the evidence is to the contrary: healthy but scared, or treatable, manageable and rehabilitatable.
“The shelter will never euthanize an animal due to space constraints and only considers euthanasia as an option for animals deemed dangerous.” — Margi Bradway, director of the Department of Community Services
MCAS kills animals without cause all of the time in management sessions. These meetings are closed to experts, rescues, volunteers and staff, who once attended and were part of decisions. It is an abuse of power, but MCAS is never held to account.
Cola MCAS 386348 and Jubilee MCAS 386349, 10 month old American Shelter Dogs
Cola ID# 386348 and Jubilee ID# 386349, both 10 month old American Shelter Dogs, were brought into MCAS on February 25 by a Good Samaritan who found them on an exit off I-205. The Good Samaritan reported she leashed and got them into her car easily. They were killed a week later with Cola killed on March 8, and Jubilee on March 5, 2026. Both were reported to be “unhealthy and untreatable.”
No one would consider 7 days a genuine “trial” effort. The reasons listed by the management for killing them speak to a management culture of explicit incompetence and indifference. Excuses replace solutions. When a professional in a public position of authority doesn’t know what to do, they seek expert advice, such as on how to deal with avoidant fearful dogs. Killing the animal is never the first choice.
Cola, ID# 386348, a 10 month old American Shelter Dog
March 7, 2026, Rounds Review:
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to sustained levels of fear, lack of progress in the shelter that result in poor quality of life.”
It was a litany of uninspired excuses.
Cola was not afraid before coming to MCAS. MCAS is a terrifying agency for most dogs. It is an environment characterized by a bombardment of constant toxic levels of noise, deprivation of proper care (few outings, socialization and exercise opportunities) addressed only by escalating levels of psychotropics.
MCAS director Erin Grahek, no longer contracts with trainers or veterinary behaviorists, as was once practiced. Since that is an irrational position, it can only be surmised to be driven by opposition to questioning the shelter’s decisions about animal dispositions.
For example, when staff does not know how to manage fearful dogs, don’t pursue a fleeing animal, teach them. ‘Data collection times 3’ is doing the same thing over and over again seeking a different result. That’s not a plan, nor is it an “intervention.”
These are the last entry notes before Cola was ordered killed. It was his first priority walk to be followed up on March 6, 2026 after which he was ordered euthanized.
March 6, 2026, Priority Walk:
“I met Cola at his inside intake kennel. He greeted me at the gate with whale eyes, tense body, and fast tail wags to the left. He accepted a piece of hot dog from my hand through the gate, but immediately darted away, defensive barking and weight on his back legs. I decided to go around to the outside kennel and close in the dogs around him to see if that would decrease his FAS [Fear, anxiety, stress]. He greeted me the same way at his outside kennel, taking tossed hot dog and then immediately running away while defensive barking.
I entered the kennel and crouched low to the ground, placing pieces of hot dog to the right and left of me, at decreasing distances from me each time. He eventually was able to take a treat from my hand. At this point, introduced the leash to him, laying it on the ground next to a couple of treats. He took the treats and sniffed the leash once before darting away. I decided to use a treat lure with a long piece of hot dog to keep distance from his mouth and my hand.
When I presented the slip leash near his head, he immediately tensed and froze, lip curled, and then snapped at the leash, making brief contact with it but not holding on. On the second attempted [sic] he snapped at and bit the hot dog, at which point he he realized it was yummy and decided to start cautiously eating it. I was able to slide the slip lead over his head. He immediately started slinking/crawling towards the door.
We exited the kennel with him darting back and forth frantically in front and behind me, body low to the ground, ears pinned back, and whale eyes. Every so often he would pancake to the ground and some light leash pressure would get him moving again. We walked by SB and Maximus, at upper agility to which he had no reaction – remained tense, whale eyes, tucked tail, etc. We made our way down to agility at which point he he half laid/crouched down and peed all over himself and then sat in it- frozen in fear and not wanting to move.
A train was going by at this point which startled him. After it passed, he began walking again and was able to eat a bite of hot dog off of the ground. He continued walking in the same manner back to his kennel. In his kennel he frantically avoided me, giving me side whale eye with tense low body and tucked tail- nor accepted treats on the ground. I decided to leave the slip lead on him for the moment given his high FAS and reaction when I placed it earlier. I then exited the kennel. As soon as I left, he began to eat the treats I left on the ground.”
Forcing a fearful dog to perform violates common sense and every professional guideline. Cola did the best he could. He likely would have thrived in foster care. His life was safer on the streets than in the shelter.
Jubilee, ID# 386349, a 10 months old American Shelter Dog
Jubilee had an even more cursory review before he too was killed.
March 5, 2026, Rounds Review:
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to severe fearful behaviors that result in frantic attempts to escape human contact to the point of causing self harm”
That was one incident on March 2, 2026 that did not result in self harm, and was the result of gross mismanagement.
March 2, 2026, Behavior Notes:
“Pet was separated from kennel mates on back side of intake. As I entered, pet retreated to the back corner, occasionally stomping forward and barking with stiff body language. While moving in with a leash, pet jumped up towards the window and was able to climb through, leading to the top of the kennels. He remained avoidant and it took multiple staff members to corral him. He was then leashed and wrapped in a blanket and safely removed from the kennels.”
Terrifying and cornering an animal is not how anyone attempts to get a helpless fearful dog out of a kennel.
After 3 data collections on consecutive days, (March 2, 3, and 4) Jubilee was ordered killed. On each day Jubilee would hesitantly alternate between approach and avoidance, never displaying aggressive behaviors.
March 4, 2026, Data Collection:
“I entered the inside of kennel. All three dogs were against the side wall, and gave some nervous whining growls and barks. I sat down a few feet from them and began treating. Jubilee stayed between the two other dogs, but would stretch forward to take treats from hand or off the ground. He would push in front of his kennel mates to take them, and climb over Cola (386348) on one or two occasions. If I attempted to move closer to them, or when I pat [sic] the ground next to me he began growling and barked a few times, while shying away. After sitting and treating for several minutes I ended interaction.”
An empirical analysis of MCAS euthanasia dispositions
Instead of meeting challenges, MCAS kills the victims. Animals are pre-selected for euthanasia if they do not meet the Operations Manager’s goal of speedy entrance and exit, maximizing efficiency with a focus on inventory management, not public service. Any animal with even a minimum challenge requiring any effort is pre-selected for euthanasia. The search begins for “reasons,” then takes isolated events out of context in order to opportunistically justify killing. A killing that is then labeled as “unhealthy and untreatable.” Its a slick game.
The rest of the Rounds Review go along to get along. Some owe their management promotions to the Operations Manager. What matters is the survival of their collegiate culture, not public service or the lives of shelter animals. The trains run on time.
There was a time MCAS had compassion for senior and discarded dogs like Mr. Perfect Potato Esq and Angel Baby, who had been left abandoned at a park when a driver dropped them off in a carrier on February 6, 2026. Not now. Under Director Erin Grahek, Operations Managers Marian Cannell, and Andrew Mathias, medical and foster hospices were disbanded. Instead of a warm place to spend their final days Mr. Perfect Potato Esquire and Angel Baby were impounded and left at MCAS where those abandoned are supposed to get care. Instead dogs like Mr Perfect Potato Esquire and Angel Baby found no safety here.
Both were killed shortly after intake. Their lives were judged by their medical handicaps, that were not progressive and were manageable, instead of their needs for comfort and care in their final days.
Angel Baby was killed on February 8, two days after impound.
Angel Baby – February 7, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds met and elects humane euthanasia due to declining medical and QOL. If the dog’s condition continues to decline, we have approval to move forward with euthanasia at that time. Follow up 2/09.”
The last veterinary technician note entered before Angel Baby’s euthanasia on February 8, 2 days after intake, makes clear that the animal care veterinary staff technician was frustrated by Angel Baby because:
“…Dog continues to not attempt to eat and is fighting against all handling for medications. Proceeding with humane euthanasia due to QOL and current suffering.”
There are no behavioral record notes about Angel Baby’s suffering. It seems that when MCAS staff become frustrated with the care of an animal, instead of seeking advice from an expert, they kill the object of their frustrations and describe it as “quality of life.” Whose quality of life is open to question? Caring for distressed medically compromised animals can be frustrating. The goal is to learn how.
Plan: -Start buprenorphine 0.3 mg/ml, 0.15 ml SC BID for pain while on stray hold -Recommend humane euthanasia at end of hold, sooner if declining or if pt is not eating despite pain management.”
The veterinary technician health exam notes entered the same day, February 6, an hour after the veterinary notes already indicated her frustration at attempting to give Angel Baby an injectable vaccine for pain:
“Health Exam- Admission Behavior Observations: Fear-Anxiety-Stress (FAS) Observed Intake: Low Other Behavior Observations: Allowed all handling for exam and treatments, had difficulty with injectable vaccine.”
Venting frustrations over medical management of a distressed senior dog by killing the dog is inhumane and wrong. Euthanasia was not the only option at the end of the hold time. Even before the end of hold time, Angel Baby could have gone to medical or hospice foster and been monitored in a hospitable environment but MCAS instead opts for a killing efficiency.
Mr Perfect Potato Esq was killed February 12, 2026, 6 days later after the hold period ended, and 4 days after his companion.
February 11, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds met and will move forward with DVM recommendation of euthanasia due to multiple medical concerns.”
All of the medical concerns were manageable and treatable
February 10, 2026, Recheck Veterinary Exam
“Assessment: -Severe peridontal disease -Diarrhea -Lethargy -Hyporexia -Stertorous breathing -Geriatric Overall quality of life seems poor.
Plan: Rounds Review. Recommend humane euthanasia. Continue current treatments until then. “
Earlier veterinary notes on February 7, observed
“…Cause of inappetance and possible abdominal pain not identified on radiographs.”
The lab work results reported on February 9, were open, none with any certain diagnostic cause, and none requiring intensive intervention (e.g. low thyroid levels). “Multiple medical concerns,” in particular inappetance, can be managed.
The day Mr Perfect Potato was killed, he started eating.
February 11, 2026, Medical update
“Assessment: Dog ate some of wet food after dose of entyce and did defecate.”
MCAS’ impatient culture regards the lives of senior disabled dogs as not worthwhile. They are killed as “Unhealthy and Untreatable,” when they are not but their lives are not considered worthwhile. These were dogs once fostered by the community. Their support care cost little and their lives were valued. The cure was and still is compassion.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Angel Baby’s records, private information redacted
Regarding euthanasia decisions: Single resolvable incidents are labeled “unhealthy and untreatable.” The focus is speedy euthanasia in some cases within 24 hours to clear space.
Avalanche, MCAS 377828, a year and a half male shelter dog mix described as loving, energetic and smart killed February 7, 2026 as “unhealthy and untreatable.”
Cause of death: MCAS Rounds Review
Avalanche was killed on February 7, 2026 for a single reported incident in foster care where he had been been thriving since his foster placement on December 23, 2026. On February 5, 2026 an incident occurred in foster care, reported on February 6, 2026 that, by description, appeared to most likely be resource guarding and resulted in no harm.
Instead of evaluation and thought, Andrew Mathias, the Operations manager advised the foster family to immediately return Avalanche to MCAS for euthanasia the following morning on February 7, 2026. The foster parent was also instructed to prepare him for euthanasia with massive doses of psychotropic medications before bringing him in. It was a hasty decision made rapidly without any thoughtful process or procedure.
The incident
February 6, 2026, Behavior Foster Notes
“Foster parents mom to visit. Avalanche barked and lunged at mom. They put the dog in the bed room for the night. This morning the dog was out with a Kong when the visitor/mom came into the room he growled The foster walked towards the mother in law and then Avalanche lunged and bit at the mother in law on the leg not breaking the skin but tearing the pant leg. Foster parent was able to grab Avalanche by the collar and put him in the room. MIL left for the day. Advising foster to bring the dog back for safety.”
Despite the single, frightening incident causing no harm and ignoring Avalanche’s otherwise exemplary history, there was no review or effort to understand the circumstances before Avalanche was ordered immediately killed 24 hours later. It was a knee-jerk ‘kill and run’ reaction, not a thoughtful professional process.
February 6, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds met and elected humane euthanasia for multiple instances of high intensity human directed aggression reactions when surprised and when meeting strangers.”
February 6, 2026, Transfer/Foster
“Foster was given the instructions from animal health: If they could please administer Trazodone 300 mg PO and Gabapentin 1200 mg PO 2 hours before arriving to the shelter. Foster agreed and will do so.
Arranged with animal health to take the dog back for ER while I take care of the paperwork and attend to the foster parent.”
No thought was given to Avalanche’s promising life or the fact that there are effective solutions short of killing for resource guarding and fear of strangers challenges.
An additional change made by current leadership that contrasts to past management practices is that fosters for MCAS receive no training and are never provided training assistance. The most they are offered are psychotropics to quell anxiety, not plans to address behavior. If fosters want that support, they have to purchase it themselves.
Reviewing the evidence alleged to require euthanasia as a “public safety risk”
February 6, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds met and elected humane euthanasia for multiple instances of high intensity human directed aggression reactions when surprised and when meeting strangers.”
“High intensity human directed aggression reactions when surprised” and “when meeting strangers.”
There is no supporting evidence on record for that dramatic statement. There are two incidents involving strangers, the one that cost Avalanche his life was likely driven by resource guarding not because the mother in law was a relative “stranger;” the second being surprised by suddenly meeting a stranger in black in close quarters. Both are correctable. Neither present as an insurmountable “safety risk.”
The second incident notes:
January 6, 2026, 12.01 PM Behavior Foster Notes
“On our potty walk this morning we were passing between cars and we did not see our neighbor wearing all black. Avalanche was spooked and lunged. He managed to bite her arm. Everything happened so quickly. He did not break skin. It bruised so quickly.
We have been working on barking at strangers and I feel we have been making strides. I think it was that both parties stepped into a very tight space wearing all black in the dark and he was shocked.”
All of the foster behavior notes from December 23, 2025 until Avalanche was returned to MCAS on February 7, 2026 then killed the same day, were uniformly positive.
January 6, 2026, 1:17 PM Behavior Foster Notes
“Avalanche is a very sweet dog to those he knows. He is polite, snuggly, he follows commands and knows sit, down, stay, and can shake with both paws. He knows “leave it.” He loves squeaker toys and wrestling with our Labrador. Avalanche loves sleeping on the pillow above my head. He is very fearful of strangers. He barks out the car windows at most pedestrians. He enjoys the Starbucks drive thru and is gentle about receiving treats with and pup cups.
We have been working on crate training. He is a decent leash walker. He crouches down to bark at strangers from a distance. If they are too close or catch him by surprise he will jump up and bark. We have been working on re-directing him. We went on a two hour walk downtown this weekend and successfully interacted with several people. He was fearful when my mother came to visit but warmed up to her after a few minutes and a few treats.”
January 21, 2026, Behavior Foster Notes
“Notes from foster,: Avalanche is a sweetheart and a big ball of fun. He has a lot of puppy energy. He can be a little chatty. We’ve been working on his leash skills and not barking at strangers. He is very snuggly once he’s open to someone. He loves to wrestle our resident labrador and would dio well in a situation with other dogs”
A correctable incident without injury should not be a death sentence defining a dog’s life.
When challenges occur, the MCAS Rounds Review kills for convenience. Having lowered the bar for euthanasia decisions they claim a lack of resources when it is a presence of laziness, why not? and lack of initiative.
Decisions to kill an animal based upon lack of will, initiative, and ignorance, are wrong. Especially when possibly done in order to appease a foster’s upset. They result from indifferent bureaucratic management, where no one is held accountable, which has led to an increase in senseless killing. MCAS is a place where homeless animals’ lives do not matter.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Avalanche’s public records, private identifying info redacted
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.
Every adoption failure is a new intake, inflating intake numbers and has the potential effect of inflating live release rates. An animal adopted six times is numerically registered no differently than six dogs adopted once. MCAS is not troubled by adoption failures.
Dogs repeatedly adopted out from MCAS suffer. Adoption returns are an indictment of MCAS’ irresponsible adoption system, one that leads to re-cycling animals over and over again, each time, adding disclaimer liability waivers upon returns, instead of creating intervention plans to remedy the concerns if noted. The solutions to decrease adoption returns would be responsible adoption standards at the outset that protect an animal’s welfare, and also addressing any behavior challenges that emerge after impoundment. This is a demographic often found stray and abandoned on the streets, or whose owners are in crisis so their dogs are sometimes traumatized too. Lax standards and refusing to implement behavior training programs for an often vulnerable population , have led to increased returns and harm the population the leaders are charged with protecting.
Cece MCAS 366227, a one year old black and white American Shelter Dog mix, is only one case among many when animals pay the price for MCAS leadership failures. Cece had been impounded at MCAS on September 02, 2025 after being abandoned with the finder for 6 days.
Her adoption advertisement is full of promise:
Meet Lacey [Cece], a spirited and sweet girl who is ready to find her forever home! This active and intelligent young dog is full of potential and eager to learn. At just over a year, she is at the perfect stage for training and would thrive in a home committed to helping her reach her full potential. [Cece] is a total socialite who loves to play, go on adventures, and enjoy a good cuddle session after a long day of fun. Because she loves being part of the pack, she can get a bit anxious when left alone; she would do best with a family that is home often to keep her company. She may also do better in a home with another dog to help her feel confident and secure! If you’re looking for a loyal companion to join you on hikes, training classes, and cozy nights in, [Cece] might be the perfect match for you. Come meet this wonderful pup and see if she’s the missing piece to your family!“
Cece has been in and out of MCAS since September 2, 2025, adopted three times and returned three times. Her history of adoptions make clear a lack of commitment by MCAS to hold themselves and adopters accountable to any professional standards. MCAS instead of addressing behavior challenges or concerns with behavior interventions has instituted a system of waivers disowning all responsibility. Cece has a separation anxiety waiver, earned as a result of repeated failed adoptions.
Adoption history-
Adopted September 6, 2025 for $25
Adoption return September 7, 2025
Notes mention that the adopter had previously returned a different MCAS shelter dog, Broccolini.
Primary reason:“Returned after 24 hours in the home due to landlord saying no… AO reported no issues with dog in the home.”
In the past, with a far greater intake that included cats as well as dogs, MCAS managers conducted landlord checks.
Adopted September 9, 2025 for $25
Adoption return September 25, 2025
Primary reason:“Broke out of wire crate and chewed up carpet and other items around home. AO lives in an apartment and can’t afford to replace/repair any more damages.” Also described as “chewy and rambunctious.”
MCAS does not call or check on how an adoption is succeeding and does not encourage adopters to call with adoption questions unless these are veterinary medical concerns and occur within the first two weeks. Adopters are advised to seek help elsewhere for behavior challenges and/or to read the waivers.
Adopted September 30, 2025 for $25
On October 6, 2025 the adopter called with concerns about Cece’s experiencing episodes of wheezing and gasping for air. The onsite veterinarian diagnosed this as probable canine infectious respiratory disease, a commonplace adoption special.
Adoption return January 16, 2026 for:
–Separation anxiety leading to property destruction. The single intervention was two psychotropic medications: Gabapentin and Trazodone but psychotropics only reduce anxiety without creating alternative behaviors to establish confidence when home alone. Socialization and training build confidence. If affordable, day care is one option.
–Escape artist: “Said to try to escape wire crate by working at the front locks and pushing against the door but has been unsuccessful at escaping. Has been able to open the front door of the home…”
–Jumpy Mouthy: “History of jumpy/mouthy behavior in the home since adoption. She can easily become overstimulated when meeting new people, petting or in play and quick to escalate to causing bruises and abrasions from her paws to AO with only 2 puncture wounds shown to me…”
The adopter who returned Cece advised as a behavior correction that “if you need to get something away from her you need to wrench it out of her mouth.”
There are behavior training protocols to address encouraging dogs to release items, separation anxiety and jumpy mouthy behaviors but MCAS will not teach them on site to improve an animal’s life and adoption prospects. Nor do they provide positive behavior training protocols or videos to adopters.
Additional history: Cece’s most recent adopter was reported on December 18, 2025 by a witness to have punched Cece in the face. (Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 304814, December 18, 2025).
An MCAS officer investigated. The witness reported multiple concerning incidents, in this case on December 26, 2025 the witness:
“saw the AO lift the dog off of the ground by its prong collar, then punch the dog in the right side of the face…” The MCAS adopter “was upset as she believes MCAS mis represented the dogs breed and that she is dealing with Belgian Malinois. I asked MCBRIDE if she had done any training. MCBRIDE said that she had not due to spending all her money on vets and medications… MCBRIDE then spoke again about her issues in being able to control CECE. She believes she [CECE] would be best rehomed or euthanized.”
Cece’s owner admitted to having struck and was advised by the officer that physical reprimands were not acceptable. He also encouraged Cece’s owner to enroll in training classes (an option rejected earlier) and informed her that she had the option of surrendering Cece. He gave her a muzzle and left. The case was marked closed “with education.” A muzzle and encouragement about training do not correct confirmed animal cruelty or an owner’s own anger management behavior challenge. No citation for “physically mistreat” was issued. Cece was left in harm’s way.
When her adopter returned Cece on January 16, 2026, it was unclear if Cece had been spayed or not. There was no January 16, Intake exam provided in this public record.
MCAS puts shelter animals at risk. Their view is that adopters are the customer and are always right. Abuse is met with “education” if it is met at all. Cece has highly correctable young untutored dog common place challenges, exacerbated by her adopters who had no behavior management skills: Jumpy mouthy conduct , separation anxieties and leash reactivity that MCAS will not address except with waivers to pass onto the next adopter.
MCAS managers specialize in inventing multiple reasons for killing companion dogs placed in their care. Buddy was a dog with so many positive features and options, killed because they don’t want to make an effort. As a plan they list excuses: Exaggerations, vague generalizations and at times outright dishonest conclusions characterize their work much as a delinquent child might try to explain why they didn’t do their homework. The difference is children aren’t paid but MCAS managers are highly salaried. MCAS managers, without accountability or oversight, kill because that takes less time and effort than trying.
Buddy was the entire emotional support for his owner who was arrested October 15, 2025, and none of the reasons listed for killing Buddy were legitimate. Buddy’s owner just had no friends who could redeem Buddy on his behalf. Respite fosters were once central to MCAS’ now sabotaged pet retention mission. Even without that, Buddy could have easily been placed in a foster or medical foster, He could have also easily been adopted as a special needs dog.
“At MCAS, Sadler has championed programs to make services more accessible to the pets and people of the community…. “Yes, I care a lot about animals,
but I also want to be able to help the people attached to those animals. We’re considering the social justice perspective relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and what it means for the services we offer. How do we help the people who are struggling, who need the most support, or who aren’t accessing our services?”
MCAS managers have completely violated the agency mission.
November 3, 2025
“Spoke with Herbe [Multnomah County Department of Corrections, counselor] at 863362- Herbe confirmed that there is not a current release date set for AO. Advised that we have not been able to secure placement, and with pets medical/behavioral history, will likely be moving forward with humane euth. Herbe inquired about an additional week to determine if the AO will be released. Advised that at this point, we cannot offer an extended hold but if she gets additional information, to please call asap in the event the pet is still in our care. Herbe expressed understanding. //jkt”
Understanding that MCAS has given a rigid ultimatum without options is far different from an acceptance of the alleged “reasons” behind the ultimatum. There is no evidence on record that MCAS sought any placement options despite their statement otherwise. Some options are listed above: respite fosters, special adoptions.
In a similar case, as an individual rescue, I took a senior level 2 dog from MCAS who belonged to a prisoner. I boarded his dog and with his permission and, after 6 months, placed her in home. She died of cancer loved and regarded as worth the effort about a year later. No one thought it wasn’t worthwhile. Her name was Mumbles. Do not tell me it can’t be done.
Buddy was killed on November 7, 2025 as DM-UU2, ‘unhealthy and untreatable,’ ‘moribund end stage disease,’ when he was not. All dogs killed at MCAS are labeled unhealthy and untreatable to cover for MCAS lack of effort and responsibility.
November 5 2025, Rounds Review
“Rounds met. Due to multiple medical issues that impact quality of life and aggressive behavior towards other animals, move to humane euthanasia.”
What affected Buddy’s quality of life was compelling his death. All of his daily behavior monitoring sheets from August 2025 were positive, some marked with hearts. There are none for his recent admission. It may be a discontinued practice.
The veterinary record contradicts the euthanasia statement made by the managers.
October 31, 2025, Vet Exam
“Assessment: -Gingival mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic -Subdermal mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic -Moderate peridontal disease -Heart murmur [ 2/6 left systolic; regular heart rate and rhythm]
Plan:
Full sedation for biopsies would be necessary to reach diagnosis for both masses, however even if they are benign, they need to be completely excised due to both of them bleeding; this will be a much more involved procedure and needs to be schduled as a mass removal surgery combined with neuter under general anesthesia rather than sedation and small biopsy; this can be done at MCAS when staffing allows but ideally recommend transfer to rescue due to our very limited surgical capacity.
-Given the chronicity of masses and visible characteristics there is a very good chance both masses are benign.
– Recommend transfer to a rescue for behavior reasons as well; he is an EXTREMELY friendly dog toward people but adopters need to be screened since he cannot be around other dogs.”
While living on the streets, there was one dog aggression incident on April 28, 2023 involving a small dog on leash when Buddy was briefly at large. The probationary time for a Level 2 designation, one year, had long passed without any further incidents. An incident does not define a lifetime unless MCAS needs to make it so for convenience. The pictures are not attached to this record.
April 28, 2023, Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary #279900
“ … MARIA stated that she put out her hand to fend off the dog and was bit…Maria stated the owner was close by and was able to regain control of the dog.”
What is remarkable is that living on the streets is challenging for all dogs, and yet there were no further incidents of any sort.
Options
Buddy could have been treated at MCAS accessing Dolly Fund dollars intended for the special medical needs of shelter animals. But that restricted fund is seldom accessed for animals. For interim care, medical fosters are always available. Instead Buddy was killed to save the managers’ effort and time consuming thought.
October 16, 2025
“Called MCDC 83689 to speak to Curtis W [AO]
He stated that Buddy was dog aggressive, he also stated that Buddy is trained to do a number of tasks, including turn lights on and off. He also knows sit, lay down and roll over (per owner)”
There are multiple types of dog aggression, every one manageable, some rehabilitatable (for example, common place leash reactivity). MCAS made no effort to seek clarification about what the owner meant by “dog aggression.” All dogs? Under what circumstances? They needed an excuse to kill him then falsified the reason. Buddy was not “unhealthy and untreatable.”
The agency freely violates its public service contract and were this a normal government would be investigated and held accountable.
Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) managers have settled into their placid dump and dispose animal care practices after generously giving themselves permission for killing for any reason at all (See: MCAS assures animals aren’t euthanized for space and the response, “don’t believe euthanasia assurances”). By expanding the reasons for killing, they have replaced initiative and thought with excuses and laziness. Pet stores evaluate more carefully why a “product” has been returned than MCAS does to the nearly free animal dump site store that was once a public shelter. Since any excuse will do, the death rate is climbing rapidly, each death excused as “unavoidable” when any close reading of the record reveals gross incompetence driven also by indifference.
Only the death delivery day changes, The pattern is the same.
Previous practices
Under previous leadership, every adoption return was assessed to evaluate how to improve the odds towards a successful adoption; verification of alleged incidents was sought. if a dog with challenges needed help achieving adoption success, a plan, often including training, was implemented at MCAS. Dogs with challenges were not automatically killed or exported to rescues. Potential adopters were carefully screened. Staff had checked for landlord approval. Dogs left the shelter spayed or neutered.
Disposition Reviews included experts from the community, rescues, volunteers, and staff. Now all dispositions are decided behind closed doors by managers only, granting the power to kill without cause.
MCAS makes up rules for exclusion from adoption, fostering, or killing that must be followed. Then they decline an animal opportunities and kill an animal because their hands are tied by the rules they made up. The absolutist rules they conceived were created without any community input and their summaries are vague and devoid of objective information. These are not rules that assess risk. They are like the game of Lotto: Put the red apple card on the red apple picture when the causes and solutions for incidents are multi-faceted, not simplistic.
October 21, 2025, Rounds Review
“Due to multiple bite history, this dog does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster. We will seek transfer, follow up 10/24.”
“Multiple bite history”, a vague general term that implies serious public safety concerns, exaggerated by omitting details… The term “multiple bite history” is automatically linked to “does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster” regardless of merit or circumstances. Thinking is not allowed. The outcome is automatic.
In evaluating bite histories, it is never about “multiple bites,” but how the bite incidents happened. Key questions include, ‘What were the stressors’ and ‘can future bite incidents be prevented.’ In every summary conclusion there should be factual support and objective documentation. In this and nearly every case there is none: No bite pictures, no Emergency Room report; no questions. The managers are blind scribes.
In most cases, the adopter has created the stressor but MCAS gives adopters free passes because MCAS Operations Manager Andrew Mathias runs MCAS like a car lot: If you don’t like the dog, bring him on back. We will dispose of him for you.
MCAS allows a short timeframe when they seek a rescue to take animals they intend to dispose of due to the deeply flawed judgment of the Rounds Review, entirely beholden to MCAS management. Few rescues can respond rapidly and MCAS has rapid deadlines. ‘The trains must run on time.’ In the past, MCAS set up a pathway for success. If a rescue was not available, volunteers, trainers, and staff trained to work with a dog’s challenges often provided training followed by careful placements. Death or transfer to rescues were not the default options for dogs with challenges.
When MCAS Rounds Review met again on October 24 after recommending seeking a rescue transfer on October 21, they gave seeking rescue options one more day until October 25, before killing Leo. There is no reference in his records about which or how many rescues were contacted.
October 24, 2025
“Rounds met and will place individual pleas out to rescues – Due to human aggression and multiple bites will be moving forward with euthanasia if no rescue placement is found. Will FU 10/25.”
October 26, 2025
“JRT Terrier rescue declined due to possible dog/dog aggression noted in both adoption returns along with multiple bites resulting from potential resource guarding.”
October 27, 2025
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”
When it comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Cornell University Dogwatch Newsletter, February 2005:
“Labels can be misleading. Because aggression can be very specific rather than generalized, labeling a dog as possessive, dominant, territorial, or predatory can be misleading. Labels imply that a dog’s behavior is consistent across a variety of circumstances, which may or may not be the case at all. To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful simply to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.”
Analyzing and Modifying Aggression, Dr. Suzanne Hetts and Dr. Nancy Williams
MCAS has an allergic reaction to responsibility. MCAS managers set up a series of self-generated limitations and false “requirements” that they then reference as “forcing them” to kill Leo. Owners often create opportunities for aggression. MCAS instead of educating the owner, kills the victim. Leo was not universally aggressive.
MCAS writes in generalities to escape solutions. There are solutions.
Leo’s History
Leo’s owner went into an acute care facility, leaving Leo in the care of a couple who turned him in to police officers on August 27, 2025 stating that Leo was becoming aggressive. The officers took Leo to MCAS. MCAS did not ask questions about what was meant by “aggression.” Nor did they speak to Leo’s original owner about Leo expecting to ask if he was willing to surrender him. He was not and was going to try to seek other options.
Until his first adoption on September 5, 2025, Leo’s behavior was positive and unremarkable:
August 28, 2025
“Playgroup
Yard Summary: Some brief spats of play with Latke. When Bram rushed towards him he corrected hard, jumping up and air snapping at his side. Disengaged and did not have any other issues.
Returning to Kennel: Wanted to pull back towards playgroup. Tolerated being picked up and carried back to kennel, relaxed in handler’s arms.”
There was only one data collection.
September 2, 2025
“Data collection
When I passed outside kennel in a.m. I called to Leo, he came running out to greet me with wagging tail. Jumped up on door and licked my hand. I returned later to move him to an office. He readily approached inside door. I opened it and placed slip lead as he hesitantly walked out. Walked well to office, loose body, some tail wags. Removed leash and he began to drink from water bowl. Accepted pets on head and back as he drank. Retrieved a few more items for office setup, and he had begun to whine and paw at pen people were present.”
Adopted for $25 on September 5, 2025 and returned on September 9, 2025, the return reasons reflect an adopter whose repeated actions created stress. There are no bite pictures. MCAS takes faith based information.
September 9, 2025
“AO stated dog rolled around in something outside so they took him inside to his walk in shower and dog began biting at water, then bit at owner. Dog bit again Sunday 9/7 when AO was sitting on the couch and was trying to move the dog by pushing pillow in his face. Dog had lunged towards the owner while growling and bit the owner multiple times. This morning 9/9 AO attempted to clip some of dogs matts [sic] on rear end with scissors and dog bit him multiple times again. AO states that dog is great and would sleep next to him in bed and always follow him around. AO marked not great with kids and was unable to clarify. ”
The adopter reported he had to “punch the dog off, then sprayed with water bottle.”
Instead of analyzing the circumstances of the incidents, MCAS applied waivers to disown responsibility. The waivers included Resource Guarding, which is speculative since the bite incident did not occur because Leo was protecting the couch but because of the adopter’s aggressive actions when he precipitously pushed a pillow in Leo’s face. Forcibly washing Leo and clipping off mats was the direct result of the adopter’s handling insensitivity, not Leo’s handling sensitivity. There are examples throughout the record where Leo welcomed and was responsive to contact. He just didn’t welcome bullying. He also didn’t welcome forced intrusive intake exams when MCAS did not practice “fear free handling, ” and instead applied a “medical handling waiver” to dismiss their use of force.
Following this adoption, MCAS also added a child restriction waiver based on a written remark in the owner surrender form “No Kids” which was never clarified by the returning adopter or MCAS. There are no bite pictures; hence no ability to confirm whether the reported bites broke the skin, and what incidents, if any, preceded such bites. No information was sought about whether or not medical attention was acquired.
There are no further notes about Leo’s behavior at MCAS before his second adoption for $25 on September 21, 2025. He was returned October 13, 2025, 22 days later for bite incidents.
Ownership History, second adoption
“Bite me on hand when getting him off table.
Bite me on thigh again after trying to get him down.
Bite my grandson on upper left arm when he got into my car.”
The first two bites were provoked by the adopter’s mismanagement. MCAS had no questions about the adopter’s methods of seeking compliance with commands. The bite to the grandson as he was entering the car was reported to have broken the skin but MCAS sought no bite pictures and did not ask if emergency medical attention was sought, leaving uncertainty for whether the other two incidents broke the skin.
It is unclear if this was an example of referenced potential resource guarding. It is flimsy speculation. There are no other examples in the record that suggest resource guarding. Being forced off the couch seems more a reaction to the first adopter’s aggressive conduct than resource guarding.
Leo was adopted with a no child restriction. The second adopter ignored that restriction. How old was the child? How was he behaving when he entered the car where Leo was already settled in?
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”
The human aggression was a human who was aggressive against a small dog. The “multiple” bites were provoked and minor; it is unclear how many of the alleged bites broke the skin. The two bites reported to have broken the skin (no pictures, no evidence) by report seemed insignificant.
Limiting options to rescue only
It is not up to rescues to “correct” challenges that occur because of MCAS errors in judgment. Correct the practice of careless adoptions that lead to incidents. The Jack Russel Terrier rescue’s reasons for declining Leo were for “possible dog aggression” and the simply incorrect summary that all the alleged “bites” resulted from potential resource guarding—conjectures based upon vague uninformative entries in MCAS records.
About “possible dog aggression: One adopter described Leo as playful and easy going with new dogs, also adding that his dog was afraid of Leo but there was no conflict. What did that mean? Leo did well in the play group. The second adopter circled both “easy going” and “poorly” in the survey question about meeting new dogs. There was no clarification about the conflicting information in that response.
Poor and/or inaccurate history taking by MCAS costs animals options. MCAS repeatedly fails to take an objective detailed history. They create uncertainty by their poor history taking compounded by a lack of understanding of dog behavior. Rescues then without reliable information are more likely to reject potential candidates. It is how they solve the dilemma of conflicting or absent history. MCAS creates the rejection.
MCAS also screens adopters poorly and seldom intervenes to decline an adoption that seems problematic. They set the road to failure; Then uniformly label the dog “unhealthy and untreatable” for their failure if a rescue cannot be found.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Leo’s MCAS records, redacted (Updated from ‘Awaiting Euthanasia’)
Set of Resource Guarding articles: (1) Guarding Resources — Including You, (2) On Guard?, (3) Mine, All Mine!, (4) Guarding Dog?, (5) Food, toys and owner: ‘Mine, all mine!’, (6) Peace in the Pack.
In February 2024, after being questioned about changes in the euthanasia disposition process that now permitted and expanded a wide range of excusable reasons for euthanasia including “lack of resources” Department of Community Services Director Margi Bradway approved and defended the new policy. The policy changes have led to more deaths of shelter animals, all labeled “unhealthy and untreatable” without evidence supporting the label. Instead of raising the bar they lowered it on helpless animals.
That effect can be seen in the September 2025 KOIN report about euthanasia concerns at MCAS. MCAS management refused to respond on camera. Instead they sent a baseless, glowing written report about their euthanasia disposition process. When asked a direct question their response is always to deflect with vapid propaganda, behaving more like a politician than a public service administrator.
Ichabod is one more fatality of MCAS’ failed mission.
Impounded on October 2, 2025, Ichabod’s Good Samaritan finder did not know it would end in the death of the dog he thought he had saved. Ichabod was killed by MCAS one week later mislabeled as “Unhealthy and Untreatable.” Ichabod was nothing of the sort. He was just afraid and avoidant in a frightening and unfriendly toxic environment.
The finder had kept him with his family for over 24 hours but less than 7 days and described Ichabod as ‘shy with strangers, and playful with children under 10 and with dogs.’ There were no negative descriptions, at all.
After a week at MCAS, Andrew Mathias, Operations Manager, and the Rounds Review ordered Ichabod killed on October 9, 2025. Nothing in the records supports their statement recommending euthanasia.
October 9, 2025
“Rounds discussed and will move towards humane euthanasia due to aggressive behaviors and inability to handle in shelter environment. Chill protocol today for chip scan.”
There were no aggressive behaviors, just fearful and avoidant behaviors founded in defensiveness. Staff are on their own in animal care. They are not trained how to manage animal stress, and instead often repeatedly advance upon fearful dogs in ways that escalate an animal’s fear. The MCAS management certainly does not help them. Except for Mr. Mathias, but his certification only assesses knowledge through a multiple choice exam, not practical application.
“Inability to handle in shelter environment” is a gross indictment of management incompetence and indifference. Competent honest managers when they don’t know what to do consult behavior experts who do. MCAS has excluded animal and behavior training experts.
“Safety concerns” is an alarmist phrase under which management hides. There are many behavior treatments and plans that effectively address safety concerns by reducing a dog’s fear. None were implemented except on October 4, for trazodone 150 mg with a 14-day FAS [Fear, anxiety and stress] re-check. It was not noted if this was once or twice daily.
October 4, 2025, Medical update
“ACR Notes: High FAS -safety concern Assessment: Walked by kennel and dog was outside on the other side of the guillotine door. Immediately began growling, hackles up, tense body and growling. Maintained tense posture and barking as long as within line of sight.”
Growling and barking are positive signs because a dog is communicating his fear openly and conservatively. Once noticing fear, the plan should be how to help this dog become more comfortable, not inhumane “data collection,” repeating the same actions over and over again and observing a dog’s reaction, hoping for change.
October 3, 2025,
“Kenneling
‘ …I approached Intake Gate and observed a client holding a medium shepherd looking dog on a flexi-leash. The client began pulling the dog back before it noticed me, I opened the gate and allowed them to follow me in. I began offering cheese which the dog did not take. The dog then began lunging barking and lip lifting at the end of the leash. The client was visible [sic] struggling to hold dog away from me so I did not attempt to approach or handle. Had the client kennel the dog. I returned to kennel with toys, dog was sitting in back of kennel watching without moving.‘”
Holding a dog back on leash tightly conveys to a dog that the person holding the leash is anxious and needs protection. A dog responds accordingly. ( “Leash rage,” Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Your Dog, June 2019).
After 3 admissions attempts on consecutive days, October 3, 4, and 5 with no plan but treats and sweet talk while attempting to enter his kennel, and 2 data collections on October 7, and October 8, MCAS management ordered Ichabod killed. Their efforts were over.
Data Collections
On October 7, it was clear the MCAS environment terrified Ichabod and also that his response and actions were avoidant, not aggressive pursuit.
“…I went to the outside run , crouched down , and tossed a trail of treats, but he remained inside. I then went back inside, but he had gone to the outside run, so I closed the dividing door and went back outside. When I came to the kennel he was sitting pressed up against the dividing door. I tossed some hot dogs, which he would eat if they landed close enough to him. The dogs around him were barking quite loudly and I could tell it was causing him stress, looking around and cowering low to the ground when several dogs were barking at once…”
MCAS did nothing to reduce the impact of toxic levels of noise that escalated Ichabod’s fear including adjusting his psychotropic medication.
After the data collection on October 8 2025, MCAS killed him for failing to cooperate.
October 8 2025,
“Data Collection
‘Dog was closed inside for poop scoop, standing near door on my approach. I slowly approached kennel, offering a treat. He shrank backward an inch, low growling, then gave a rapid four barks showing teeth. He then retreated with tail tucked, ears back. I tossed treats, and he hesitantly moved towards me to eat. Some lip quivering as he neared door. Would take treats from hand, then give small lip lifts and retreat . After treating for a minute I poked my leash thorough kennel front. He sniffed it for several seconds, and continued to take treats next to it. He retreated to back of kennel when I opened the door. Would move forward a foot or two for treats, but kept distance with door open, no vocalizing. Perked ears and tilted head when I used squeaker. Approached to sniff the squeaker through closed door . I tossed a toy in to him and he readily sniffed it with perked ears. I moved to outside of kennel, he would just past threshold for treats, but would not approach outside door.'”
In 2015, with only one manager and one lead worker, MCAS started a pilot program led by a Karen Pryor Academy trainer who created individual training programs for dogs with special needs. The programs were implemented by staff. The programs were promising. It wasn’t ‘don’t cooperate quickly with a time stamp or the dog will be killed.’
Now under the blind oversight of the Department of Community Services, homeless animals who are fearful or have any challenges at all and do not “adjust” quickly are mislabeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable ” in order to kill them. It avoids responsibility for their deaths.
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.
Before I started this website, I would post about the same issues as I do here on a Change.org petition towards Multnomah County government. 8 years later, MCAS has only gotten worse in terms of animal and community welfare. The closest they got to an animal enrichment improvement was from a playgroup program inspired by Dogs Playing for Life, which has been corrupted into another ‘test’ to see if a dog should be killed due to ‘playgroup challenges’ (let alone the insanity of putting dogs in heat in playgroups). Every budgeted goal has failed; Every concern outlined and referenced in my 2018 update and in plenty of investigative media publications, even the county’s own audits, have been ignored.
Pet redemption and retention
Pet redemption and retention have dropped further to about 25% for FY 2025, even as the redemption rate at Washington County Bonnie Hayes Animal Shelter was reported as being between 72% and 75% as of Calendar year 2023 as following the creation of a program developed by previous director, Deborah Wood.
MCAS’ rates have fallen because they ended the Pets in Crisis and Emergency Board programs, while prioritizing pre-selection adoptions during stray and owner hold periods. When persons are struggling because of evictions or crises (e.g. hospitalizations, jail time, etc), who often don’t have friends or family upon whom they can rely, they impose strict deadlines (6 days for owned animals) instead of helping owners find solutions. This has caused some to leave hospitalization against medical advice to keep their animals.
While some owner surrenders are driven by crises, others are driven by owners not understanding animal behavior challenges leading to a belief that they have no choice but to surrender their animals. MCAS offers no owner surrender counseling or solutions to prevent future incidents, save for surrendering the animal.
A further detriment to redemption is the sheer distance to Troutdale from Portland, as over 80% of shelter animals are from Portland. Often, persons redeeming their pets must depend upon public transportation, one bus line and MAX transit, both of which are about a mile away from the shelter. There is no volunteer effort to transport animals to their owners when they are handicapped or otherwise unable to find transportation. The plan to create a new shelter in Troutdale, given the lack of transportation options and assistance, does nothing to address this issue.
Spay/Neuter
As of July, 2025, animals no longer leave MCAS spayed and neutered. Allegedly, this is because of a claimed national veterinary shortage, despite MCAS having the same number of veterinarians on staff (2 veterinarians) and an equivalent or lower intake compared to data from MCAS animal trends from fiscal year 2017, noting that they’ve never had more than 2 veterinarians since 1995.
Peeling back the rings of government failure, what is left is a hollow space where government accountability has been eliminated.
Without oversight and a formal system of accountability, management has filled the leadership void left by the current Director Erin Grahek. Director Grahek was appointed without credentials or any relevant background in animal sheltering or animal behavior science, which she has acknowledged and dismissed with the ‘solution’ that she would delegate all necessary expertise to management. “‘I will bring on strong professionals who have the animal welfare background that I don’t, and marry that with my experience as a manager and a leader in Multnomah County,’ Grahek said.”
At MCAS, promotions are based upon relative ability not accomplishment; failure is excused, swept under the carpet. Philip Zimbardo, a nationally acclaimed social psychologist writing about the power of social pressures, concluded that it is the barrel that spoils the apples, (“Lucifer Effect,”, Philip Zimbardo, Random House Publishing Group, 2007). Once the culture takes root, substantive change requires an independent qualified leader focused upon compassion and results, not neo-liberal hand wringing.
The animals, workers, volunteers and staff pay the price for this government heist: The theft of public service.
Owner Redemption rate = ‘Returned to owner’ ÷ ‘Intake’ Counts are for Dogs, Puppies, Cats, and Kittens. ‘Intake’ is specific to ‘Stray or at large’ and ‘Owner Surrenders’ types.
Where, as in the movie Groundhog Day, people and animals are
“doomed to spend the rest of eternity in the same place, seeing the same people do the same thing EVERY day.”
On September 05, 2018, the director of Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS), Jackie Rose, responded to the second poor audit report by announcing that MCAS was “working” to correct the severe problems identified by the audits and that the agency has been long aware of the work that must be done, claiming that the agency had met or was working on “79 percent of the auditor’s 2016 recommendations.”
Whatever Ms. Rose may claim about her awareness and continuing work, nothing has improved under her management. The public records and citizen reports confirm that “the same people do the same thing” every day. The absence of animal enrichment efforts continues. “Enrichment” can’t be provided with a Kong in every kennel and a scratching post for every cat. What is needed is a stress-free welcoming environment providing walks, pats, and a kind tone. That remains absent. No progress has been made. And the animals continue to suffer.
MCAS lacks empathy and has exhibited an absolute failure to understand and plan for the demographics it serves as the only public shelter in Multnomah County. Most of the unredeemed stray animals are impounded in the areas of deepest poverty. Most enforcement citations and penalties are issued to the poor. Unlike other progressive shelters, MCAS has no pet retention programs. These are some of the problems facing the agency.
Failure to meet the needs of its Demographics
Multnomah’s public shelter demographic is disproportionately represented by animals and persons in need, often in crisis, poor or homeless, presenting with problems that are magnified by notices of infraction and fines and redemption fees unaffordable to many. MCAS’ 51% owner redemption rate for dogs pales to insignificance when compared to other local agencies such as neighboring (and far less generously funded) Washington County Dog Services’ 67% rate. The evidence can be seen in the most recent records. Life is made difficult if you are poverty stricken and they come for your companion dog. What follows are case examples, few among the many. They are not “isolated” cases.
Failure to meet the needs of senior citizens on low incomes
Alfred, is a blind 14-year-old poodle mix impounded by MCAS on September 24, 2018 when the apartment manager failed to recognize him as a senior citizen tenant’s dog. Upon realizing that he had a dedicated owner, the manager called the county the same day and was told there would be an impound fee that the owner could not afford. Then the saga of trying to bring Clancy back home again began.
No offer to reach out to the owner was made. MCAS just moved on with its daily stray dog protocol pattern. Alfred was put through the behavior test on September 28, adopted September 29, and returned the following day on September 30, for “whining and barking when left alone.” He was placed back up in the adoption page. A good Samaritan, aware of his plight, called the apartment manager, located the name and address of his owner, and then contacted the county commissioner for the district, requesting that she facilitate a return of this old dog to his owner.
The first report back to the senior owner was that Alfred had died while at the agency. That was wrong but Alfred did have severe kennel cough. Wary of the commissioner’s involvement, MCAS returned the dog, claiming credit for all that the Samaritan had done. Alfred’s stay at MCAS caused him and his owner serious physical illness and emotional stress that could have been easily avoided just by caring about public service and the needs of fragile citizens.
Making it hard on homeless and fragile persons in crisis when “Where is the money” is the first concern
Madeline, an emotional support Chihuahua, belongs to a psychologically fragile homeless person who in the past year has experienced several successive hospitalizations, most recently on September 13. When she came to reclaim her dog on September 19, she was turned away with the official statement that “Since Jammie had no money and has 2 [prior] payment plans, I requested she return with some money to reclaim Madeline, and I would waive 1-day board. Jammie said she would be back on Thursday 9/20 with $5.” Jammie scraped up the $5 ransom and returned. A poverty stricken psychologically frail homeless person was taught an “object” lesson.
But the lesson cost more than $5. Those without private transportation, most often poor, and/or disabled have proven difficulties getting to MCAS’s Troutdale location. The journey takes 2-3 hours each way on public transportation by MAX train or bus. The county’s only “public shelter” needs to be but is not where the people are. In 2008, it was noted that 84% of MCAS’s population came from Portland. The shelter plans to continue to be located far away from those it serves.
Boomer, a 2-year-old Golden Retriever was impounded on September 28, 2018 when his owner, a senior citizen, was hospitalized and then moved to assisted living. She would not be coming home again. On the same day, September 28, 2018, the owner’s sister called MCAS reporting that the owner was in care and unable to redeem Boomer herself, that she too was worried about costs but would see what she could arrange for her hospitalized sister. The only MCAS response was: “there could be the possibility of a fee reduction if she qualified.”
Unstated was the fact that the possibility of a fee reduction was small or non-existent. The standard MCAS policy is that no fee reduction is permitted to those who come as proxies. One day later, on September 29, the day after the telephone call from the sister seeking redemption help, MCAS records report that:
“09/29 Called [the home telephone number for the hospitalized owner who was clearly not “home”]. Left message with Animal ID, Hold time, Shelter Number and said to call us back with any questions or to reclaim come to the shelter with proof of ownership, Photo ID, and fees will apply.” (emphasis added).
Family circumstances and crises don’t interrupt the county’s singular, self-absorbed goal: the trains must run on time. Life and citizens’ needs cannot get in the way. The lack of empathy demonstrated in this response for a citizen in crisis and the refusal to take the time needed for humane problem solving characterize almost every new policy directive from the Director Rose. The vulnerable get left behind. Too bad for them.
MCAS has a social civic duty as a public county agency to refer owners in need to options for care for their dogs and themselves. Don’t just walk away after issuing a “no license” ticket. If someone is clearly struggling don’t just “educate them” about “minimum care requirements for Multnomah county” and depart. If they are not connected to social services and have a need, alert them to sources for help. That does not happen.
On June 18, 2018, a concerned citizen reported that “a beagle – mix dog is being kept inside alone for days at a time without anyone checking on it,” adding that the “home is not air conditioned and there is mold visible on the front door” and that “the owner has been gone since Saturday and just returned today (Monday) at noon.” Noting that food and fresh water were available and that “minimum care” standards had not been violated, the responding officer reported the need to purchase a license and “educated” the owner about the minimum standards of care for Multnomah county which she was already with great effort meeting. There was no “education” about services available to low income persons, no mention of the PAW Team for veterinary care, the Pongo Fund for dog food; or social services for help with the mold that might compromise her health. MCAS has wholly disconnected itself from other agencies and non-profit support groups that serve impoverished populations and are critical to a public shelter’s success.
Failure to seek and to utilize and professional expertise needed for a public shelter population cost compassion and lives
The population “served” by MCAS is most like that of an inner-city hospital. It is the place of last resort as an “open admissions” public shelter for the county and the city of Portland. MCAS can either honor its demographic requirements and rise to become a “premier agency” or continue to fail. Unlike animals accepted at private humane societies, animals from poor areas often arrive at MCAS emotionally traumatized and at times with serious physical injuries. These conditions require expertise. None exists at MCAS under Ms. Rose’s direction.
What MCAS lacks could be provided from outside the shelter’s walls. Unfortunately, no outside behavior expertise is sought. Improved care cannot occur without education and expert participation. Ignorance costs lives. Nothing new is ever gained by killing for want of knowledge.
Dr. Christopher Pachel, a diplomate in veterinary behavioral medicine, one of the few credentialed diplomates with an advanced veterinary behavior medicine degree in the country, once attended meetings twice monthly at MCAS and was available to staff for assistance, all for a very nominal retainer. That no longer occurs. The door to expertise has been closed. Instead, “canine specialists” with limited knowledge and backgrounds have replaced a critically needed asset. This change has nothing to do with costs. It results from management preferences for ignorance, a refusal to learn anything new, and acceptance of unnecessary killing.
Very few dogs are truly “unsafe.” That is a misnomer. Agency generated stress and careless or ignorant practices create safety issues. The label “unsafe” reflects the level of staff training and education and a refusal to accept outside professional input. It is not about the dog.
Dale, an injured pit bull about 8 years old, was taken to care at Dove Lewis Emergency Veterinary Hospital on September 13, 2018. He was seriously injured with his “ear ripped off, and head wounds,” After he was stabilized the next day, Dale was transferred to MCAS, where on further examination it was noted that, although able to eat and drink, his tongue had been severed. After the agency’s behavior assessment on September 19, a test he was required to “pass,” he went into foster care with a family that had 2 other dogs.
When a dog’s history is unknown and includes known serious physical abuse and significant emotional trauma, a graduated professional incremental program is critical to maximize success. The program can be carried out by a trained foster or experienced rescue and should be designed to set both dog and person up for success. But that did not happen. On the day following placement, the foster reported a scuffle between one of her dogs and Dale over a toy found in the yard. Dale was reinjured, his wounds to his face and ear were reopened and further emergency care at Dove Lewis was needed.
At that point in time any professional would have stepped back and created a new plan for Dale’s environment. MCAS did not. On September 29, the foster reported that while playing ball
“as I leaned down to pick up the ball, Dale jumped and mouthed my neck. It not hurt or break the skin. I really felt like he was just excited. We continued playing ball with no more incidents.”
The foster decided to put Dale into “sit-stay” training to teach Dale to wait before seeking the ball and avoid another jumping/mouthy incident. It worked. A solution had been found. Nevertheless, MCAS ordered Dale back to the shelter and immediately killed him despite the written reports from the family about his gentleness, and his grace in acceptance of being spoon fed. Dale was not at all food aggressive; he slept on their bed. The “sit/stay” plan had worked.
MCAS killed Dale for “height seeking behavior” when ball retrieving despite the foster’s clear report that she was bending down to get the ball when the incident happened.
There was no aggressive behavior. None of Dale’s other behaviors suggested dominance, only submission and docility. The one dog fight over a stuffed dog toy found in the yard lasted a minute. Only he was hurt. MCAS gave that dog fight as a second reason death and sacrificed his life out of catastrophic fantasies contradicted by the foster’s narrative itself. MCAS killed Dale out of entitled arrogance, reactivity, and unchecked ignorance, never once consulting available experts. The decision-making process for animal dispositions excludes all professionals and trainers in the community. To keep control, Jackie Rose has all life and death decisions made by in house management, primarily administrative and enforcement staff. Even animal care staff who work with and see animals daily are excluded from any participation. Other views that might challenge her control are “unsafe.”
Dale had the briefest moment to know love and kindness with his foster family. In the few days he lived with them, they were making all the thoughtful necessary adjustments before MCAS intervened. What Director Rose does best is to destroy compassion with an iron fist. Never are expert opinions sought. If she does not “feel good” about the dog, killing is the solution. The world runs according to her wishes, not this communities’ values and compassion.
The majority of animals at MCAS are afraid. Liability waivers designed to protect the agency are a required part of every finalized adoption. The newly adopted shelter dog a citizen is taking home leaves as a tiny four-legged felon. The waivers include warnings about perceived “handling sensitivities;” “Jumpy/mouthy/hyper;” and “fear.” The reality is that these are all temporary reactions to agency generated stress, including the manner in which frightened animals are tested over and over again with escalating intrusions intended to see what it takes to make a dog snap (one example: push head out of bowl while a dog is trying to eat). Puppies are tested. Ill dogs are tested; so too are the injured and physically handicapped despite the fact that these are all factors that compromise valid findings and can only be lessened by a humane environment that Director Rose refuses to create.
What MCAS causes cannot be “cured’ by a Kong in every kennel. While on Intake the dogs are isolated. There is no socialization. The noise level is considered so “unsafe” that visitors are offered ear plugs to abide by OSHA requirements. Lights blaze all night for security purposes lest someone try to break in and steal a stray dog. The conditions at MCAS can break the gentlest dog. A dog’s first experience with any human being after impound is in the BA room when they are “evaluated.” No wonder the animals are scared. The rule is “What does it take to make the dog crack? How far can we intrude? How can we indemnify ourselves against dog behavior?” MCAS does not ask how it can help set a dog up for success in a new home. The burden falls on the dog’s capacity to tolerate rude intrusions. MCAS creates the stress and then advances “cures” in the form of individual “behavior modification programs” limited to teaching volunteers, for example, how to leash and walk a scared dog by giving treats, normal activities that should be available to all dogs. The overall stress that leads to fear is not addressed.
Jenna, a small terrified rat terrier confiscated from an abandoned house was an emergency boarding with known owners. She was processed quickly after impoundment on September 14, 2018 and “tested” two days, long before the five day hold on September 16. with the following recorded entries:
“’Frozen in dog bed. Picked up and carried to BA room. Shaking, no interest shown throughout test.’ Move to adoptions. Adult only home; Dog allows handling/no signs of enjoyment/stiff/no eye contact. Unable to see true personality.’ Fear waiver.”
There was no regard for this small traumatized dog. She had to be processed because the goal is moving dogs out fast down the assembly line to a disposal set point.
Annabelle, is a middle-aged female pit bull dragged roughly into the agency on September 23, 2018 by owners tired of her. Tested on September 27th the notes read as follows:
“Easy to leash…then refused to walk. Fit with harness and tried to coax her, She would not budge and then layed [sic] down…Tried to gently push her back end and she head whipped…Found several broken and warn down teeth. [Shelter manager] took over so I could continue with BAs’.”
Delilah, a 5-year-old anxious Yorkshire/Terrier poodle given up by her owner on September 14, 2018, because she was moving and could not take Delilah with her. MCAS described Delilah’s fear upon entering the agency as “undersocialization.” She was just scared and far from home. She was “tested” on September 22, with the following note:
“Retreated for attempts to leash, snapping and trying to bite when wrapping in blanket. Calmed once in my arms. Stiff and shaking carried to BA room.”
No one can properly assess a terrified dog’s usual temperament but that is not MCAS’s goal. Running the dogs through the system, then getting them on the “floor” and aiming for a ‘high live release” is worth sacrificing the animal. It is perversely twisted around. The animals serve the agency, not the other way around.
MCAS could operate as a shelter without walls by rapidly moving animals to rescues with the time and experience to care. But that doesn’t happen. Since the new director Jackie Rose took charge, rescues must wait for “invitations” to rescue while all the time witnessing animals killed that they could have saved. Rescues are not part of reviews and decisions. Only Jackie Rose may decide. In 2014, 372 dogs went to rescues; in 2016 that figure was down to 135. The only explanation for this decline, for this failure to take advantage of local resources, is poor leadership.
Nothing has changed at MCAS since the 2016 audit or the 2018 audit and nothing will improve on the current course. The stress experienced by animals and staff alike are the result of all the new policies and practices touted as “progress.” MCAS operates in a culture of fear and suspicion where “outsiders” are unwelcome and stray dogs are viewed as potential dangers, hazards and liabilities. The existing culture pervades staff and volunteers. Every minor negative reaction a dog has while housed in a hostile environment is recorded as if it were a “misdemeanor” (lifted lip at me; snapped), stored, counted, and then used as justification for a death sentence. Only a small contingency of management staff is permitted to be part of the decision making and secretive Shelter Review disposition process. No notes are kept. Animals are on trial for their lives. The fact that these behaviors are correctable, often stress related, and directly attributable to failed animal welfare conditions MCAS itself generates is ignored. MCAS takes no responsibility for the culture it creates. The system is closed to input. You are either “in” or “out.” There is little real and genuine outreach into the community at large. MCAS does not serve.
What happened yesterday will continue to happen tomorrow. And it’s Groundhog Day, again.
Mia, described by the county as a 4 year old cream Labrador mix and by the owner as a Great Pyrenees mix, was surrendered on June 26, 2025, and then immediately placed on the “Awaiting euthanasia” list the following day on June 27, 2025 for a bite incident that did not break the skin. The only intervention that saved Mia was a relative of the surrendering owner who contested the owner’s report and redeemed her the same day she was scheduled to be killed.
In 2000, a Multnomah County Task Force representing every county demographic, appointed by then County’ Chair Bev Stein, elected a progressive humane shelter model focused upon prevention and education with euthanasia as a last option should all efforts fail. The current Director Erin Grahek, abdicated her responsibility to this community and destroyed that elected model in favor of expedited killing.
As part of returning control to themselves, MCAS managers eliminated all community partners in determining animal dispositions. Trainers, credentialed animal behaviorists, volunteers, staff and interested citizens who were once included were eliminated from any participation in order to expedite killing. The county supervisors looked away.
Convenience euthanasia
MCAS managers never fact checked the scant information provided. They were happy to engage in convenience euthanasia. Their decision that killing her was the only way they could keep the community “safe” was based upon managerial laziness, a personal lack of integrity, and their dedication to lethal solutions. It runs counter to this community’s views about companion animals and community values and is an embarrassment to everyone in Multnomah County government.
June 27, 2025 Rounds Review,
“Rounds recognizes that there was a bite. It did not break the skin and therefore, there is no bite quarantine needed. Rounds recommends humane euthanasia due to displayed unpredictable and aggressive behavior to people as reported by the animal owner.”
Managers at MCAS have no background in animal behavior science and training. It is intentional. Lethal ignorance serves them well. They also fail the critically important expected task of objective data collection and the task of verifying reports. They use the deliberate absence of skills and avoidance of data gathering to facilitate killing at a rapid pace. The main priority is quickly moving dogs through, whether by careless adoptions or through killing them.
Mia was ordered killed based on the entirety of the following unverified and vague report, though fortunately a relative intervened the very day she was scheduled to be killed, saying that she wasn’t a dangerous dog and everyone had overreacted. If there had been owner surrender counseling, this would have been discovered during it.
There are no other reports on record except for an “at large” report December 15, 2023 (Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 285971) and an animal welfare complaint on October 28, 2023 from a neighbor that the owner’s two dogs, a Golden Retriever and a Labrador mix were outdoors all of the time without shelter and frequently without food or water, a complaint dismissed by the animal control officer after talking to the owner (Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary 284909).
June 26, 2025 Animal Care Notes
“AO arrived with dog stating she needed to surrender the dog and refused to take it back as there were kids in the home and she was dangerous.
AO stated that her son had the dog on a walk, someone the dog knew (refused to tell me the person’s name or relation to the family) walked up and was talking with the son, Mia then attacked the man unprovoked by biting him on the arm. She said it didn’t break the skin that she knew of but didn’t see his arm. She was in the house and ran out when she heard people yelling, she assumed Mia had attacked the neighbors dog since she tries to attack other dogs.
AO refused to take dog back or look into rehoming resources. I advised based upon the history she has provided humane euthanasia is the likely outcome for the dog. AO understood and would like to be contacted for private cremation.”
The only advice MCAS provided was how to arrange a private cremation.
Management’s professional violations
Failure to enforce the State required quarantine laws, and instead accepting a second hand unwitnessed report. Historically quarantine was mandated as a precaution if a bite incident could not be corroborated.
Failure to investigate uncorroborated reports instead taking dictation from the owner as a professional behavior authority i.e. “… AO states that the dog has been increasingly aggressive towards people and has always been aggressive toward other animals.”
Failure to counsel the owner about the single incident on record, the reason for surrender, about possible causes and ways to prevent recurrence while still abiding by safety constraints. MCAS only provides a list of “re-homing resources” that advise citizens to go somewhere else, usually to other rescues with wait lists.
MCAS isn’t mandated to take owner surrendered animals. They chose to accept surrendered animals for a $50 fee, board and euthanasia included.
MCAS managers are unprepared to counsel owners because of their premise that companion animals are potential pests, nuisances and liabilities best controlled by killing if any incident occurs. Education and prevention are not their concern.
The MCAS owner surrender form reads like a dating app. It is not a professional background history form critical to counseling. The MCAS owner surrender form is not followed up with questions.
There were no questions about the specific incident or the age of the child who was walking Mia. Important, as young children rarely maintain proper control. Likely incident factors include protecting the person holding the leash and the behavior of the victim towards the dog. Leash reactivity can contribute towards an incident because leashes prevent a dog from retreating from a stressor. Great Pyrenees as a breed are protective. Without understanding factors leading to an incident, incidents cannot be prevented in the future. Public safety depends upon advancing education and prevention.
Ignorance is the major factor contributing to owner surrenders. MCAS exploits ignorance to victimize and kill animals whose owners failed them. MCAS is happy to be the executioner.
Mia’s reprieve was not attributable to MCAS. The owner’s sister called on June 27, 2025, the same day Mia was to be killed stating Mia was not aggressive and that her sister who owned Mia had over reacted. The sister was told she could not reclaim as she was not the owner, but she could adopt her. Because Mia had a relative who wanted her she became “adoptable” no longer “unhealthy and untreatable.” The plan then was the owner would accompany the sister to reclaim and then re-home Mia. At no point was there any management intention or effort to educate the owner in order to replace fear with facts.
The biggest risk to public safety and the lives of companion animals in Multnomah County is its public shelter where the most unfortunate animals are warehoused, graded and killed every day.
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.
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?
Dolly’ Fund donations intended by the public for the special medical needs of shelter animals is seldom accessed for animals. Despite audit concerns, and documented in 2024 of the diversion of the restricted funds elsewhere, Dolly’s Fund is still not reaching animals with medical needs a year later.
The fund was named Dolly’s Fund in honor of Dolly, a medically fragile dachshund with a grave skin condition that MCAS veterinarians and animal care staff treated in 2010, restoring Dolly’s life. The fund was established as a restricted donation fund by the County Commissioners to be used to finance medical care for animal patients like Dolly, though, as reported in the Oregonian article, they have been using it outside that scope, including to pay for salaries.
Elektra, ID# 350281 and Reznor, ID# 350283
Dolly’s pictures, before and after care, are featured above alongside the pictures of Elektra and her partner Reznor. They were separated at MCAS; Elektra who came with a severe skin condition and evidence of other neglect, in addition to likely being bred for profit, was killed; Reznor went into foster care and a rapid $25 adoption.
Had Dolly been impounded today, the funds now donated in her name would have never reached her. Dogs with special medical needs are triaged and killed at MCAS unless other rescues, often with less funding but an investment in compassion will take them.
In 2025, MCAS no longer saves the lives of dogs like Dolly, despite having the means through Dolly’s Fund and the ability to support dogs with special medical needs through medical and hospice fosters. Once they did. It has become a cull and kill operation devoid of all compassion. If words could resurrect Elektra’s life to save her I would, but it’s too late. She was summarily killed on May 2, 2025, 9 days after being left at MCAS along with her partner, Reznor, from whom she was separated and saw briefly only once on April 24 as he walked by. From Reznor’s records, April 24, 2025: “…Dog followed me to play yard, tail low, and ears back. On the way he had a good sniff with Elektra (350281).”
During her brief impoundment, Elektra was frightened, anxious, and avoidant.
The last behavior note was on April 30, 2025 when Elektra developed bloody diarrhea, an event so commonplace that MCAS has created a diarrhea waiver to “indemnify” (from their wording) themselves against it.
April 30, 2025,
“Passing by kennel in AM I noticed a large amount of blood. Dog was running back and forth, slipping and sliding, ears back, eyes wide, barking with whining growls. I went to outside door, and she approached, continuing to bark. When I cracked door she attempted to move through it, then backed away. I was able to toss leash over her head. Once leashed she walked out of kennel, pacing back and forth near my side. JB had called Animal Health, and CP [an Animal Care Technician 2] came to observe. I put her back in kennel, so they could sedate for an exam. Returned with snake hook to removed [sic] leash. She mouthed towards it once, retreating. I held door slightly cracked, and she approached. I was able to hook and remove lead. She retreated inside.”
Later on the day of April 30, Elektra was examined by an on site veterinarian followed by an assessment and plan.
“Assessment -Bloody stool 4/29 and blood from anus today- R/O acute hemorrhagic diarrhea syndrome, open -Prolapsed gland of the third eye lid (cherry eye) OD (right eye) -Bilateral otitis externa -LH lameness- R/O OA (osteoarthritis)/ DJD (degenerative joint disease, hip dysplasia, soft tissue injury, open -Dermatitis- likely secondary to allergies – Bilateral otitis externa- – likely secondary to allergies -Mild dental disease High FaS [Fear, Anxiety, and Stress] prior to sedation 2 long scars on ventral abdomianal midline -R/O previous C-section, OVH (Ovariohysterectomy, laparotomy, open)”
The treatment plan included fluids, applicable medications, a bland diet for 7 days or longer if needed and treatment of her ears.
But Elekra was allowed no time to recover and heal. Instead Elektra was ordered killed the following day on May 1, as “unhealthy and untreatable,” a diagnosis unsupported by veterinary assessment and in direct contrast to the available behavior reports.
May 1, 2025,
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to compounding behavior and medical concerns.”
Elektra’s death was not “humane,” as MCAS managers/leaders described. It was opportunistic and borne out of indifference.
The majority of the medical concerns were linked to allergies, none of which were remotely“unhealthy and untreatable.” The medical treatment program was interrupted and disrupted one day after it was prescribed. And Elektra’s fears and anxiety were more than likely linked to the distress caused by her severe skin condition which had not been treated.
Elektra’s medical and behavior concerns were compounded, only in the sense that her anxious and fearful behavioral distress were linked to and exacerbated/caused by her painful medical conditions. Research, as well as common sense, support that pain from medical skin conditions can cause diarrhea, while also creating anxiety/fear and aggression. Relieving pain and suffering from Elektra’s medical condition would have resolved stacked stressors causing behavioral fear and irritability
American Veterinary Medical Association Jul 11, 2022 — Pruritic, atopic dogsshowed significant increases in fear- and anxiety-related behaviors as well as aggressioncompared with a large control)
It is clear that all of her behaviors described in the records were fearful and avoidant; and not aggressive at all.
April 25, 2025,
“Data Collection
Elektra was avoidant in kennel. Barking and huffing, stiff, ears back, eyes wide. Would retreat to far side. When I entered kennel she began small hops with her barks, and some whining growls. Glancing around kennel. I moved to inside door, and opened it, holding her leash and collar inside, she approached to sniff it, and I swung slip lead over her head. She barked at hopped, then followed me out of kennel. In play yard she began high pitched whining.
Followed me through yards for a few laps, then down to agility trail. On trail she began to paint [sic] tongue lolling out, walking at my heel. I crouched down, and she whined and moved away. I sat still for a moment, and she moved near my side for a brief sniff of my treat pouch. Startled and jerked back when I reached for it to offer treat, No interest in treats outside of kennel.
Any movement towards he [sic] would cause her to move away, flinch or whine. Returned towards outside of kennel, and she pulled towards the inside. I began to maneuver slip lead, attempting to open loop. She returned to her barking with small hops, ears back, eyes wide. Some whining growls, then retreating towards inside, tightening loop back up.
I had brought her leash and collar from kennel front, and was able to drop it through slip lead loop, using it to pull the leash over her head. She air snapped at it once when it was near her face. Once leash was off she ran to outside door, seeking exit. I was able to use leashed [sic] and door to block her, and exit kennel. No reaction towards leashes, just avoided them.”
There was only one previous behavior data collection on April 24, and described similar fearful avoidant behaviors, not aggression. Elektra’s behavior harmed no one. It may be that MCAS managers don’t know how to manage an animal’s fear, the majority caused by MCAS environment and policies. But mislabeling dogs to kill them is a deliberate evasion of responsibility and victimizes the animals they have targeted. They designate animals what they have proven themselves to be: “unhealthy and untreatable,” and it is another form of government created animal abuse.
“Historically, the primary role of MCAS has been animal control enforcement and stray animal sheltering. In harmony with County equity goals and the MCAS North Star of providing quality care for animals and equitable services for the community, MCAS is shifting resources toward supporting pet owners to care for and retain their animals. The aim is to prevent animals from needing shelter due to surrender or abandonment, and to intervene prior to the need for enforcement activity.”– 2024 and 2025
MCAS does not support pet owners to care for and retain their animals. For $50 anyone can surrender their companion animals, fill out a check list, then leave them behind. There is no owner surrender counseling concerning alternatives to surrender and no education and prevention. It is a cull and kill dump site for unwanted animals.
At MCAS, if a dog kills a cat; then the dog should be killed even when there are many safe humane options and despite that owner carelessness caused the fatal incident. That was why Chronus, 5 years old, and Rhea, 3 years old, were surrendered. They were ordered to be put to death on April 18, 2025, one day after their surrender on April 17, 2025.
The agency’s Rounds Review Committee, managers who considered no humane alternatives, declared them “Unhealthy and Untreatable” and ordered them killed despite their positive traits and friendliness towards the other family cats. There was no apparent discussion. Both were promptly and efficiently destroyed in an assembly line one right after the other, Chronus at 8:26 AM; Rhea at 8:31 AM on April 19, the morning after they were ordered killed.
April 18, 2025
“Rounds met and will proceed with euthanasia due to uninterruptible aggressive drive towards other animals in the home, resulting in the death of the animal.”
It wasn’t “uninterruptible,” and the statement “uninterruptible” is not a reason to kill an animal. The statement “aggressive drive towards other animals in the home” was false and an intended over generalization to exaggerate an incident as if it were a willful crime. Both Chronus and Rhea were friendly with the 2 confident resident cats also in residence, but would chase the new fearful cat when it ran from them.
“Dogs killed AO’s cat today. Said they have three cats, have lived fine with the two that aren’t afraid of the dogs, but the newest cat is fearful and will run from them. Today -they chased, attacked and killed. AO had to beat the dogs with a metal pipe to break up fight/attack.”
The owners knew that there was a safety risk with the newest cat but had no plan in place to keep the dogs and the fearful cat safe and apart. There are many known ways to secure the safety of cats when living with dogs. And it is well known that an animal who runs can trigger prey drive in another. The incident was caused by carelessness. MCAS then killed the dogs for owner carelessness. That is retaliatory: To cost them their lives.
At MCAS there is no owner surrender counseling to generate and consider alternatives. This time was no different than any time at MCAS. Both dogs were killed so swiftly there was not even time to re-consider other courses of action after the immediacy of the incident. There was no time to reflect. In the past, former MCAS director Hank Miggins recognized that importance and would defer formal surrender until families had time to reflect so they would not act impulsively immediately after an incident and later come to regret their decision. Now three animals are dead despite effective humane alternatives.
Animals kill out of instinct. Multnomah County managers kill out of convenience, completely subverting the county’s animal services mission, first adopted in the 2000 Citizens’ MCAS Task Force findings, that directed the shelter towards consideration of euthanasia as a last resort. It is almost always possible to preserve an animal’s life and well being alongside public safety. Killing was to be a consideration only after all other options had been exhausted. After the Task force findings were implemented, animal control failed to follow-through with the findings. Now, community members and professional experts once part of the shelter have been excluded.
MCAS managers have subverted the county elected mission with singular efficiency. Their efficiency is rapid killing without cause or reasonable consideration of alternatives, followed in every case by falsely labeling the cause for their victims’ deaths as “Unhealthy and Untreatable” despite all evidence to the contrary. The animals have no representation. In-house managers can act with the authority of a dictatorship having ejected all community members and professional experts who were once part of disposition reviews.
Failing to protect animals
MCAS also fails to address animal welfare concerns. There were no questions asked about the evidence of neglect when Chronus and Rhea were surrendered.
Medical Intake/Update: Chronus
April 18, 2025
“… Dog appeared fearful when attempted to slip lead in kennel. Froze but walked with a loose leash at my side. Ribs are apparent and has obvious waist. 3/9 BCS [Body Condition Score]…
…Plan: Adding second feed to medication list for AH [Animal Health] to manage.”
No need. The next day he was killed.
Medical Intake: Rhea
April 17, 2025
“…Social with handlers and allowed all handling and treatments. Very food motivated and ate ravenously. ACR [Animal Care Review] to AH [Animal Health] due to body condition, and placing on rounds to determine appropriate pathway…
…Over all body posture: Loose, wiggly, accepting contact.”
Personality descriptions on owner surrender profiles
Rhea was described as easy going with strangers; playful with children under 10, a dog who liked playing with toys, snacks, going on walks, being with people, car rides, snuggling and attention.
Chronus was described similarly but also liked exploring his surroundings; might resource guard food from other dogs. Given his underweight, it suggested he was not getting enough food.
Why was the only solution lethal, to kill them, when the incident and other incidents could be easily prevented and they were overall such nice dogs? The county is the agency with uninterruptible prey drive.
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.
