The agency’s service mission, education and prevention, including providing training to its shelter animals was subverted by the managers to what they preferred: A 1950’s animal control model where all animals are viewed as potential public safety risks and, if “flawed,” are dealt with by expedient killing.
Blaming the animals, calling their deaths “necessary” to protect the public is the new county mission. No excuse is “too small.” No incompetence too small to protect.
Owner surrendered dogs
Owner surrendered dogs are particular victims of this system. For $50, without questions or review, MCAS will kill citizens’ dogs. It has become a particularly sought after cheap service by citizens because ethical veterinarians and professionals will not kill an animal as a convenience to an owner. MCAS, funded by public tax dollars, will.
Louie, an 8 year old dog, is one of those victims. His owner was unable to find anyone to euthanize Louie for him after a minor “at-large” preventable bite incident caused by owner carelessness. It meant he did not have to pay for a $200 Notice of Infraction, known by the public as an incentive for “Your money or your dog’s life.” Since the owner was at fault for the incident, it was a great deal for him to escape fine and responsibility for an at-large incident that did not result in significant harm, described by the victim as bites or scratches after he yelled at the dog to go away. After kicking him, Louie bit him on the shin.
Finalized Issue Control Summary May 18, 2026
May 24, 2026 “...Austin expressed interest in surrendering/opting for behavior euthanasia as opposed to PDD Level 4, closing complaint at this time.”
Louie’s behavior did not meet any professional standard for behavior euthanasia. The owner left the gate to the property open when passersby came by the property and Louie did what dogs do: Protect property.
Louie had been Austin’s dog for 7 of his 8 years. There are no prior bite reports
“... Austin stated that his dog has displayed aggressive behaviors in the past and was looking to getting the dog euthanized as the dog was older and he has a third child on the way and is concerned for his children’s safety.” On the surrender profile he checked: “ playful and easy going with children under 10.” He also checked “playful greeting strangers.“
MCAS asked no questions, not even about the obvious discrepancy above. They have become an owner surrender dump site for owners who no longer want their dogs or whose dogs have become inconvenient to their lives. MCAS never investigates claimed history; never asks questions, never counsels on alternatives to surrender. They are just a one stop drop off and kill animal control agency where animals are abandoned by owners for convenience euthanasia, the cheapest deal in town.
This is what the public pays the county for: The disposal and deaths of healthy dogs simply no longer wanted by their owners: The MCAS $50 drop off and kill special.
The 2000 MCAS Citizens MCAS Task Force chaired by Dove Lewis, directed the county to charter a process for progressive humane sheltering at MCAS. It emphasized and incorporated the community’s values and included participants from the community including veterinarians as major participants. It was about ending the needless killing of companion animals. Animals were not to be put to death unless they were irremediably suffering or had a behavior challenge that even after behavior interventions presented a serious public safety risk.
The implementation of humane sheltering charter included:
An MCAS shelter Review Committee
The committee included staff, volunteers, rescues, interested citizens, and, twice a month, a diplomate in behavioral veterinary medicine attended. The diplomate in behavioral veterinary medicine also was on contract to provide animal behavior advice on various agency cases.
The Shelter Review Committees meetings were conducted as open public sessions. Their goal was to seek options and solutions for animals in need. It was not to kill them.
October 2015: The dismantling of the citizens’ task force directive for humane sheltering
The dismantling of MCAS’ humane sheltering mission began with the hiring of Jackie Rose as MCAS Director in late October 2015. Behind closed doors and without scrutiny, Director Jackie Rose created policies contrary to humane sheltering. These policies are still in place today. Director Rose created an authoritarian agency, removing by fiat all public participation and an open democratic decision making process.
The Shelter Review meetings became a private affair: managers only. Decisions about euthanasia no longer permitted public, staff, volunteer or expert participation or input. In new policy statements, staff, citizens and volunteers were denied any say in euthanasia decisions and told they were not permitted to explore options. Meetings once held weekly, during which animal dispositions were discussed and reviewed, now could occur at any time any day of the week. No quorum was required. A pilot behavior and training program, initiated by staff and volunteers to train dogs with special needs to become adoptable, was shut down without explanation or notice.
April 2019: Jackie Rose left to assume the directorship of Ventura California Animal Control after a 2016 and 2018 poor performance audits. Jackie Rose was ousted ‘retired with honors’ from Ventura Animal Control late 2023 after community backlash over precisely the same leadership she showed in MCAS, beginning with the unjust euthanasia of a specific dog.
February 2020: MCAS Client Services Supervisor Wade Sadler took over as acting director, an assignment made permanent shortly after a hasty public advertisement for the director’s position. There was no credible search for a replacement. The directorship was handed down. The failed policies and practices created by Jackie Rose continued under Wade Sadler.
July 2022: Erin Grahek, a former case manager after failing to advance at the Department of Aging and Disabilities, was appointed acting MCAS director and assumed the directorship permanently in July 2022 during the height of an animal care crisis at MCAS. The external search for a director was cursory and short.
While acknowledging her lack of experience (never having served in any capacity in animal services or welfare), Erin Grahek assured the public she would lead by deferring her power and authority to the agency managers.
“Grahek didn’t come to Animal Services with any animal welfare experience. ‘ 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.”
Under their direction, given the creation of a power vacuum, managers replaced the goals of pet redemption and retention with pre-select adoptions marked by significant returns. They dismantled and removed the entire support system for pet retention and redemption: Emergency Board and Pets in Crisis, advising citizens it was not their job. ‘They were not a hotel.’ No official permission was sought for their unilateral change in the agency’s mission from pet retention and redemption to cheap animal sales.
At the same time animal care was undermined, animals with medical care, behavior or other concerns were assigned waivers disowning all responsibility. Fear waivers most often reflect agency conditions for which MCAS is responsible. Now it’s the animal’s “fault,” not the agency’s responsibility.
Dolly’s Fund, a public fund restricted to the special medical care needs of shelter is seldom accessed for animals anymore. If a rescue will not take them, they are killed or adopted with waivers. All compassion for vulnerable animals has vanished. The managers ended medical and hospice fosters. If they cannot be transferred they are killed.
MCAS euthanasia policies were unilaterally changed by the managers. When they failed to succeed at their assignment, they lowered the bar to allow themselves to count failure as success.
No input from others invested in an animal’s life is permitted. The process is not open. The term ‘Shelter Review’ has been renamed ‘Rounds Review’ for a process that has nothing in common with hospital rounds review among professionals. Euthanasia decisions continue to be decided by managers without any background in animal behavior, science or training. The statements made justifying euthanasia for any given animal in nearly every record defy the facts, professional decision making and risk assessment processes. Animals are killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” when they are not. It is a deliberate and a self serving deception intended to mislead the public and conceal their failures. Only the animals are victims and pay the price.
MCAS continues to fail. The leadership is authoritarian. Management is largely selected through a process of nepotism not qualifications.
That is the challenge County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, the Board of Multnomah County Commissioners and Department of Community Services Director Margi Bradway face: Either honor public service and the lives of shelter animals in their care or to capitulate to management welfare and failure.
MCAS management has only one singular efficiency: Expedited killing and excuses for killing that are alarming in their incompetence and transparent venality. Without ethical or proper guidance, and absent oversight, managers now spend their work hours lining up animals to kill. Nothing more is expected of them.
MCAS management under Director Erin Grahek, with her endorsement ended Pets in Crisis and Emergency Board, intended to help persons with emergency needs. Earlier the management terminated the position of homeless specialist despite the fact that a significant part of their demographic is disadvantaged, homeless or in crisis. It was very clear they didn’t care about their demographic or mission at all. They disposed of it.
T-Bone Jones, ID#380250
T-Bone was a friendly senior dog was taken to MCAS on January 2, 2025, after his owner was evicted and became homeless. She could not afford his care. There are available resources both homeless shelters and housing that permit companion animals and Pets of the Homeless offers assistance with veterinary care and costs that might provide an alternative to surrender allowing his owner to keep him. MCAS did not counsel her about those resources nor notify her of their status as a high kill shelter, meaning they would likely kill him, as they did on January 10, 2026. They killed him as “unhealthy and untreatable,” moribund/end stage disease when he was not. It was a label of convenience.
January 8, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds elects for [sic] humane euthanasia due to multiple comorbidities and quality of life.”
They killed him shortly after OHS rejected his transfer back from where he had been adopted three years previous. OHS is a private non-profit, not an open public shelter. MCAS is funded as an open public shelter and has Dolly’s Fund, a Restricted Fund legally bound to be used for the special medical needs of shelter animals. Like with many other cases, MCAS chose euthanasia before using that Fund.
MCAS is not a private non-profit. It’s supposed to serve the entire community. T-Bone Jones just needed a quiet retirement home. Many citizens adopt old dogs with special needs out of compassion. MCAS once had medical and hospice fosters. But the managers ended the infrastructure that synergized with Dolly’s Fund and ended medical and hospice fosters then kept the money they continue to solicit daily. MCAS is also aware of senior dog rescues and rescues that accept dogs with medical concerns. They did not contact them.
The managers reasons for killing T-Bone did not specify that T-Bone Jones “multiple comorbidities” were treatable and manageable and none were causing him pain. He did have a quality of life but they ended that quickly.
January 2, 2026
“… She [AO] states that he is good with people and larger dogs, but is wary of small dogs. Reports there is no bite history.”
January 2, 2026, Owner surrender notes
“Very quiet sweet dog can be aggressive to smaller dogs; lived comfortable [sic] no fight with another large American bull dog; does not bark at night or at home unless has to potty or wants to go for walking is his biggest joy very strong but loving animal.”
January 2, 2026, Summary Intake Behavior Observations
Other Behavior Observations: Brought into Admissions by owner: Readily ate treats, social with staff. Tolerated all physical exam handling without issue. Repeatedly demand barked for treats throughout entire assessment. Able to administer treatments using treat distraction. Making vet care requested due to multiple health concerns. RR if cleared to determine pathway.”
January 8, 2026, Vet Notes
“P [Plan]
-unremarkable geriatric labwork; would recommend thoracic radiographs if pursuing a geriatric work up -See notes from previous exam
January 6, 2026, Recheck exam
“- Heart and Lungs: no abnormalities auscultated -Ambulation: ambulation x 4, no lameness noted”
The remaining areas covered by the veterinary exam were described as unremarkable.
“A [Assessment]
-Muscle wasting on head -R/O geriatric muscle loss, Cushing’s dz, MMM [Masticatory Muscle Myositis] less likely, other -Overweight body condition -Moderate dental disease -SQ mass dorsal to anus- R/O benign vs malignant -Skin tags on right metacarpus and left ventral thorax- mostly benign -Mild dermatitis – R/O parasitic, allergic, endocrine, other -Small melbomiam gland tumor OD [ Usually a benign growth on a dog’s eyelid margin causing irritation, tearing,redness or corneal issues typically treated with surgical removal] -Ear debris AU, narrowed ear canals from previous inflammation
P [Plan]
OK for transfer. Otherwise Rounds Review to decide pathway
Since dog is geriatric with multiple health problems and our capacity is limited, euthanasia would be reasonable. Adoption “as is” could also be considered.”
The range of disposition options proposed by the on site veterinarian is astonishing from transfer to “adopt as is” (making clear that T-Bone was not “unhealthy and untreatable) to kill for because “our capacity is limited.’’There it is: Kill for space. MCAS’ long term policy that shelter animals not be killed for space was dismantled approximatelya year ago when the management lowered the bar to accommodate management incompetence and failed initiative.
The “multiple health problems” referenced in the record were minor and did not require major care (skin tags, overweight) or easily treatable (moderate dental disease, benign growth on eyelid margin, ear debris). They are commonplace. They just require compassion and practical solutions.
It was just easier to kill an old dog whose owner could no longer care for him because of her impending homelessness. Now T-Bone Jones’ owner has lost her dog and her dog has lost his life. Paradoxically the increase in killing is occurring after MCAS added more managers. But more managers have not cured indifference to the plights of Multnomah County’s homeless animals and vulnerable demographic. And more fosters will not cure dishonest management either.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
T-Bone Jones’ public records, Owner details redacted
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.
The corruption of MCAS made its debut with the County Chair and Board of Commissioners when years of MCAS failures described by citizens, staff and volunteers were finally documented, investigated, and reported by multiple media sources, including The Oregonian and Koin News.
On every measure, MCAS is worse now. What should have been a wake up call became a white wash.
At the time of the investigative media reports about MCAS, the reaction of those in charge, in particular County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, was to express ringing regret and devise a “review,” not an investigation, including a belated attempt to address MCAS’ failure to implement the MCAS 2016 and 2018 audit recommendations. (“Animal shelter needs a system of accountability not another review.” Nick Hanauer, Special to the Oregonian, March 15, 2023)
The failure to investigate led to the continuation of bad leadership habits and practices that have included the removal of all checks and balances, and ignoring or changing policies intended to protect the public and shelter animals they find onerous or tiresome. Those habits are ongoing.
One of these policies concerns necropsy investigations of unexplained sudden animal deaths either at MCAS or shortly after leaving MCAS. The failure to honor this policy is not a “one of a kind” failure. There are at 3 least recent case examples now including the most recent: Romeo, also known as Pepper (public records attached).
By MCAS policy, a necropsy for sudden unexplained deaths is required for clear reasons: agency illnesses that could affect the entire shelter population versus an isolated death without agency wide animal health implications. The necropsy policy has been functionally eliminated by simply ignoring it. It has been replaced by ‘I am so sorry,’ private cremations and a paw print if an adopter was the owner of the sudden death victim.
What follows is not a complete list of ignored or sabotaged policies:
MCAS has normalized failing to spay and neuter animals before adoptions with “Cry Baby” excuses.
Adoption sales for $25 or less, a temporary measure started in June 2022, continue to the present with new specials named every month. What was temporary has been made permanent, “normalized.”
“Hot Deals, Cool Pets Adoption Special Summer’s heating up, but our adoption fees and pets are as cool as can be!”
Waivers disclaiming all responsibility for shelter animal health and behavior concerns, for example, diarrhea, kennel cough, low body weight scores, fear, jumpy mouthy, etc. have replaced proactive plans and interventions and health care for shelter animals: For example, dental waivers. After paying a $25 adoption, adopters are advised to seek expensive dental care at a cost that far exceeds the adoption fee. How many will? MCAS once did dental cleanings as recommended as part of the adoption. Now all animals are adopted “As is” including neither spayed nor neutered: the Breeders’ special.
Pet retention and redemption mission goals: Owner retention and redemption rates are at an all time low. Approximately 25% of MCAS stray animals are returned to their owners. MCAS leadership has dealt with that failure not by improving its practices but by changing its assigned goal, abandoning pet redemption and retention for pre-selected $25 adoptions during the stray and owner hold time.
This is just a short list for the ‘Somewhere Multnomah County Lost Its Shelter’ Academy Awards nomination. It happened because MCAS leadership has normalized failure and achieved ‘success’ by removing all accountability and eliminating all policies that they don’t like because these policies don’t work for them. And that failure comes from another failure: The County Chair who looked away. It cannot also be attributed to the County Board of Commissioners whose subjects are ill served. The Commissioners in Multnomah County have little power by design. The county board has become a strange marriage of autocracy and democracy.
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.
The commissioners believe a visit to the shelter prepped by errant managers tells them all they need to know about operations deserving a new building. One is needed. The public and animals do. The managers don’t deserve one. They need a new attitude. There is no “creative use of space.” And one guided visit to impress commissioners does not create “expertise.”
How shocking that the county hears none of citizens stories affected by MCAS, don’t pay attention to data, citizens reports, and public records, do not pay attention to long term volunteer concerns, and don’t realize that funding has been redirected from pet retention and redemption to sales of unneutered and unspayed animals for $25 dollars to anyone and the kill rate is escalating. All of that will be transferred to a new building when what is needed first is new management.
I have never read a more shallow opinion about MCAS’ “creative” use of limited space made by the respondents who believe a one time guided visit creates expertise. It’s like saying “I went to a seminar once about doctors so now I’m a doctor!” MCAS has no creative use of space except killing when under past administrations they did have multiple outreaches and made a greater effort to care for and place animals they now kill as “unhealthy and untreatable” to get rid of them when by any objective standard they are not. It is called lying. This article about the managers “suffering” in an old building would be best titled “The art of the con.”
Over 80% of the MCAS demographic, over represented by low income working people, homeless and minorities live in Portland. Transportation by MAX and bus ends several miles away and MCAS has unfriendly policies and working hours to the public making redemption difficult. So why would you build a palace in Troutdale instead of purchasing a building in Portland?
Once again the County Board of Commissioners have made clear they don’t care about their constituents at all. They are there to parrot and protect managers only. They don’t hear nor do they solicit the public voices of those whose animals end up at MCAS. The tune out workers. Interview those who have left traumatized by working in an inhumane authoritarian environment.
A new easily accessed building for the public is needed. But most of all what is needed is a county commission that cares and a working shelter. We order and read about 2000 pages of MCAS public records weekly. I have personally read these records for 25 years. What is happening internally now is shocking. The county commissioners should read them too instead of abandoning those most affected by MCAS while protecting their own. Grahek herself fails to reach standards set by national animal shelter guidelines. She had no experience whatsoever in animal sheltering before assuming the directorship after failing to advance at the Department of Aging and Disabilities. She was nominated anyway. That is the definition of the art of the con.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhDCitizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog
There is no longer any transparency about management decisions to kill at MCAS, no apparent logic, no evident thoughtful analysis. There has not been for some time. After 2016, outside experts, volunteers, and rescuers once part of and critical to animal disposition decisions were excluded. Since 2016, decisions are made by a closed circle of no more than 3 managers whose reasoning is seldom disclosed and when it is disclosed follows no known assessment process. All animals are almost always uniformly killed as DB UU-2.*
When incidents can be prevented, caused by human error, and/or resolvable with management and training, killing is elected as the final solution.
The standard problem solving template used by professionals is SOAP: Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan.
MCAS applies SAP. MCAS goes from, S (subjective), for example, ‘animal can’t get out on leash,’ to A (assessment) ‘Unhealthy and Untreatable,’ then onward to P (plan) ‘Kill.’
Agency managers sum up their decisions vaguely. For example: “Killed for behavior:” Seldom are the behaviors specified. From reading records it is clear that most incidents do not require death as a solution.
*Asilomar Accord definition: Dog Behavior, Unhealthy and Untreatable, defined by aggressive or anxiety conditions, with intensity level 3. Intensity Level 3 is described as “Animal is sustaining self injury. Its welfare is compromised or inflicting serious damage/putting others at risk.”
Once again, Multnomah County Animal Services denied the auditor’s conclusions. And once again, the County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of Commissioners attempted to push aside the reported misuse of funds, and announced no need for investigation, despite the fact that the shelter failed to implement more than 50 previous recommendations needed to improve conditions for shelter cats and dogs up to national standards.
The county’s response to the Auditor’s report over the misuse of funds brings George Orwell to mind:
“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.” George Orwell (1946)
The County Chair and Board of Commissioners have also abandoned MCAS’ lofty funded mission announced first in for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget then repeated for the FY 2025 budget, a nod to aspirational goals that never do come true:
“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.” — Community Services FY 2024, 2025Adopted Budget,
The problem is Multnomah County government’s willingness to squirm around facts to protect its fading image and lost goals: Will this lipstick on a pig (apologies to the pigs) do or should I pick another shade? After tampering with the facts, nothing changes and there is more and more to hide.
The Spay/Neuter Fund
The spay/neuter monies donated by the public intended to help low income families pay for spay/neuter surgeries have been diverted to general adoptions instead of their intended purpose. That is cheating. MCAS had community service clinics where low cost surgeries were performed as the fund was intended. They also had a mobile spay/neuter van donated by Petco, that never left MCAS.
The intention of the donated public funds was public service to help low income populations. The only argument that can be given is that their policy for Spay/neuter donations state that the funds “may” be used as the program describes. This has little meaning, as the policy for Dolly’s Fund states how it “will” be used, but they misuse it all the same. The agency has historically reached into donors’ pockets without their knowledge, using the funds for expediency.
The power of double speak.
The glib way the county explained the diversion of spay neuter funds for low income families to support their general adoptions voucher system is embarrassing. They can’t help themselves.
“This program makes vouchers available for all adopters who need financial support, which especially helps low-income families in need, Serena Cruz, the county’s chief operating officer, wrote in a memo.”
Serena Cruz’s response is misleading. The vouchers aren’t going to low income families. They are going to everyone who adopts a $25 dog, the cost for dogs on an endless ‘special sale.’ It is also a disclaimer of the county government’s responsibility to spay and neuter all animals before they leave MCAS. They can. MCAS once spayed and neutered all animals—cats and dogs—before they left the agency when they had a lower budget, fewer managers, and a significantly higher intake. This shift in policy began as a temporary measure that then turned into the permanent practice we see today.
MCAS also did not honor Oregonlive Reporter Austin De Dios request for figures on voucher redemption despite the fact that these figures are readily available. Why withhold this?
The real reason MCAS wants animals out as quickly as possible is their rejection of their funded service mission replacing the public’s mission with a pet store model: ‘Four on the floor; out the door.’ To expedite a speedy exit, animals go out cheaply and unaltered (“Adopters Welcome!”) and are often just as quickly returned, un-altered and harmed by the experience of thoughtless adoptions. Some are killed as a result of MCAS negligent adoption practices. There is no net gain, just a revolving door, when adopted animals are returned after their adoptions have been driven by speed and low/no standards. Speedy isn’t the answer when they are returned unaltered, after a soiree into the community.
The ‘get them out of here fast anyway you can’ plan isn’t working because its not thoughtful, service oriented, and doesn’t lower intake when so many are returned, often in worse shape than when they left, or dead.
“Staffing shortages,” “budget constraints,” and “increasing veterinary costs,” the factors MCAS lists as responsible for the necessity of adoption of the voucher system have nothing to do with why MCAS has adopted a voucher system. That is just another sorry excuse and lying by misdirection: ‘Look here, not there.’ MCAS is fully staffed and has been for awhile; has more managers than ever and every year is granted a larger and larger budget despite taking in fewer animals; cats are left out in the cold.
They changed the mission to what is easiest for them: Cheap sales. The short wait for an animal to be spayed or neutered before leaving is an obstacle to rapid fire adoptions, so they abandoned the funded mission that includes reducing overpopulation by constraining breeding, and replaced it with what works for them: Sales and give aways that can serve as opportunities for breeders. There are off record reports of exactly that happening.
There are no budget constraints. The budget is unconstrained and increasing year after year without any improvement in performance. MCAS budget for the fiscal year 2025 is $15.684,365. MCAS continues to fund failure year after year at a higher and higher cost to the public.
The diversion of Adoption Outreach monies to fund salaries
It is just a continuation of pick pocketing and dishonoring government obligations. Outreach at diverse physical locations has been proven critical to increasing adoptions. Most adoptions once took place at outreach events. There are almost no outreach events now. But outreach works. MCAS Operations manager Marian Cannell has sponsored only two events—one at the Oregon Rail Heritage Center on August 19, 2023 and another at Theresa’s County Feed and Pet Store on June 15, 2024—during her several years of tenure. She did this while calling out ‘Red Alert’ alarms to the media and the public to adopt because MCAS is “at capacity,” implying more animals will be killed due to a lack of space.
The outreach events fund is flush with donations and not being actively used, so why not borrow it for another purpose, distinct from its intended use? This seems to be Serena Cruz’s rationalization. However, robbing one account,a restricted account of earmarked funds,to pay for the salary of the program communications coordinator is dishonest theft. The assertion that the program coordinator is critical in “managing outreach efforts,” when there have been only two outreach events in two years, is a bridge too far.
The county did it because it was easy. They’ve never faced consequences for taking from restricted funds. Outreach events are what lead to increased adoptions. The coordinator’s salary siphons from the money intended to subsidize these events. When animals get out of the dismal surroundings of the agency they are adopted.
Dolly’s Fund for the special medical needs of indigent shelter animals
Very little of Dolly’s Fund donations are being spent to cover the medical needs of vulnerable animals at MCAS, the explicit, legally binding, designation for how those funds are to be used. Instead of medical care and medical fosters to care for vulnerable animals, most are expediently killed, especially if a less well funded rescue won’t take them off MCAS’ roster.
These abuses are well documented in MCAS public records animal status reports. Under former Director Michael Oswald, Dolly’s Fund did go to the care of individual animals, instead of being misused as it is now. Animals are now killed with the disclaimer: “We don’t have the resources,” when they do have the resources but lack the will and initiative.
MCAS managers have rejected all of the programs that work to reduce shelter crowding and shelter over population: Outreach events, pet redemption and retention efforts, compassionate emergency board for persons in crisis, and owner surrender counseling. Why try when failure is successfully excused and any excuse will do? Multnomah government’s culture is ‘this work does not matter.” The work incentives are pay, benefits and vacations, not service.
County citizens and the county’s homeless animals deserve better. They deserve a government that works. The role of county government should be to protect public services not public servants and failure. Failure will continue to predictably cascade until the culture of this government changes. It is not just about financial malfeasance. It is about professional malfeasance as well. Homeless animals are marked “Unhealthy and Untreatable” when they are not, as an act of convenience to justify killing them while taking no responsibility. Change and recovery can only begin by removing the current indifferent and opportunistic management at MCAS, a society where a culture of cruelty prevails.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Public Records: Jamie Waltz to County Chair Deborah Kafoury and Serena Cruz “Temporary” suspension of spaying/neutering animals before adoption
Introduction: MCAS asked me to help with one of the dogs impounded at the agency for over 2 months. It was a surprise but I hoped that the request represented a breakthrough, an opportunity to correct the agency’s persistent misperception of the public as an irritating nuisance, best sent packing, by demonstrating what cooperation could achieve. I was wrong. The effort turned into an impossible mission, an effort sabotaged by the agency’s policies and personnel, a lesson in the futility of hope for improvement.
Incident Summary: The request for help had been extended and accepted in late March. The object of the request was Harley, a blue heeler/pit bull mix whose owner, a homeless African American with an unresolved methamphetamine addiction, was likely to remain in jail, leaving Harley with nowhere to go. I had made arrangements to be helped by a qualified trainer, a person with extensive experience with special needs dogs, particularly pit bulls and pit bull mixes, and had previously helped at MCAS and many rescues and sanctuaries.
The problems surfaced immediately on the day before the scheduled appointment when the Grinch began stealing Christmas. I was told that because Harley had a bite history (while at a homeless camp under chaotic circumstances) we could see Harley only if I signed an inter-agency rescue organization agreement, one that read like the unilateral surrender of a conquered defeated nation (attached). Never mind that I was not a rescue organization or that it made no sense to become one in order to provide requested assistance, the form was demanded. The form requires permission for MCAS to conduct unannounced inspections and demands production of all of my records about the many animals I had placed into new homes. It was wholly inappropriate to the purpose or needs of the visit.
But I found a way. Jill Cameron, a rescue with which I am already associated kindly put Harley and me under her umbrella. Working through Jill Cameron’s approved Thunder Ridge Rescue, the trainer and I arrived at MCAS early in the afternoon on April 4. We signed the liability forms and entered the agency’s labyrinth of obstacles. We were first advised first that only one of us could see Harley, only for a maximum of 15 minutes, and only at the kennel gate or inside his kennel, limitations that greatly hindered an effective assessment, one that in fact defeated the purpose of the pre-arranged appointment and left one of us out of the necessary equation. Hoping to salvage the visit without a coin toss, I asked for a modification that would allow us to see Harley together because we both needed to be present. The trainer was conducting the evaluation; I was there to observe and communicate to potential rescue resources.
When I approached the shelter manager for help (We were expected. We had spoken in the morning), he complained that he was on an important conference call and waved me away. The staff person in charge of monitoring us sought other staff counsel. We waited for a resolution. At first we were advised that each of us could see Harley for 15 minutes but only separately. Ultimately it was agreed that the trainer and I could see Harley together, but only for a total of 15 minutes, not 30. The time limit was non-negotiable. The severe time constraints — not the evaluation goal — dictated the meeting length but the time permitted was non-negotiable. Our request that we be permitted to conduct the evaluation outside the narrow confinements of the kennel was also refused. Was I requesting to visit a Taliban prisoner suspected of terrorist activity? The severe restrictions were bewildering. We were permitted to see Harley only from outside his kennel grate or inside the kennel – the enclosure in which he had been housed continuously without exercise and without any social contact for three months. We were not allowed to take him for a walk on the premises, in an interior room or play yard, options commonly permitted in the past. But we persisted and began the effort, watched closely by a specially assigned kennel attendant.
The kennel attendant clearly saw her duties as those of a prison guard. She was there to enforce a series of rules that made the evaluation process extremely difficult or impossible. Because Harley rushed the kennel door when we approached (after prolonged unrelieved confinement this was the only small space he knew was home), we used treats as a welcoming gesture and within 5 to 7 minutes he was calming down, sitting at the gate on command and giving friendly eye contact. He had been reported to be a very good dog by family and others. But the clock and its 15 minute limit kept ticking down as the guard counted the remaining minutes out loud. At the three minute mark, we were told that we would have to leave when the clock struck one. I am guessing the last minute was needed to make a timely exit. We ended up with fewer than 10 minutes of meaningful contact, hardly enough for the effective evaluation needed to provide the assistance that MCAS had itself requested. Still it was clear from the brief visit that Harley has a sturdy temperament, able to tolerate social and physical deprivation and remembers his behavior training.
To encourage and maintain his socialization, as we left the kennel area we asked if the staff could follow the Open Paw practice of placing a small bucket of treats outside Harley’s kennel so that staff could give him treats as they passed by, a practice proven to lessen barrier aggression. This request was refused. The staff monitor said no, stating that Harley got two meals, water, and a Kong a day. That was the rule. (Note: a follow up e-mail to Michael Oswald requesting re-consideration reversed that restriction by permitting a treat bucket). Our request that Harley be permitted the needed exercise to lessen stress was rejected for alleged “public safety” concerns despite the many protocols for safety that when implemented properly indeed allow exercise without a problem. After all, Harley is a dog with a sturdy disposition who has maintained his health despite agency imposed isolation and exercise deprivation that would drive most sentient beings crazy. He is described as very good with his owner’s one year old child, disciplined and well mannered, fine with the owner’s mother’s dogs, noted as a very nice dog by one of his owner’s social workers. He could easily be exercised safely. Lack of exercise all by itself can lead to stress and an increased safety risk.
The stumbling blocks posing as rules continued. Our experiences during Harley’s limited evaluation do not come close to conveying the rigidity that interferes with normal human behavior. As we left the kennel area, I recognized a dog whose owners we are attempting to help and made a passing friendly remark to the dog as I went by. I was told to stay silent and keep walking because talking to dogs on Intake is never allowed, not even a brief friendly passing acknowledgement. Even attempting to confirm the dog’s identity was forbidden. As I glanced at the card kept outside the kennel, the guard leapt in front, waving her arms back and forth to block my vision. I was told that reading was also forbidden, what was contained on the posted kennel card was only available through a formal request for public records.
I then asked to take pictures of a senior dog that had been surrendered to MCAS after her owner died. I had made that request in multiple previous e-mails after being advised she was only available to rescue. Although I had purchased the pictures taken for her breed identification they showed none of her personality and the rescue groups I contacted asked if I could arrange more. I was refused, informed that today’s appointment was limited to a visit with Harley. I would need to make a separate request and return (if the request was granted).
After the visit ended: Just before leaving, I asked to speak to John Rowton and Michael Oswald about the day’s experience and the disturbing number of rules that interfered with providing the help the agency itself had requested. Mr. Rowton reported that all would have been avoided if I had arrived at 1:30 instead of 2:00 p.m. despite the fact our arrival time was within the flexible time table. I was then told that MCAS had achieved 700 rescues, all uneventful when not involving me. Both the number and the claim of smooth sailing are simply false. The real meaning of this false and totally irrelevant comment was made clear when the trainer overheard two MCAS employees leaving Mr. Oswald’s office mutter “Just another day with Gail,” a comment that sums up MCAS’s hostile attitude toward most citizens, not just me. We remain “outsiders” even when invited to help, a fact proven when someone whom came to adopt left, complaining about her own rude treatment and stating that she would never return.
Conclusion: I am still going to continue, as promised, to pursue rescue and foster options for Harley. It is a commitment I made and will honor. After 15 years of working with shelter dogs I have great confidence in them. Uniformly, once they leave the stressful environment at the shelter, they quickly become good companions. What they are reacting to are layers and layers of pointless rigid rules that don’t improve public safety and compromise animals’ emotional health and well being. Thoughtful enforcement isn’t so extreme that it impairs and harms homeless animals’ mental health. Excessive enforcement also creates public alienation.
The 2000 Task Force recommendations were never implemented because of a county culture of intransigence and obstinacy. That has to change. That was the social contract. Now it should be honored. The county’s failure to honor that contract seeking change is best summarized by the reflection:
“Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies”. (Robert Kennedy)
13 years later, it is time to honor the promised change.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog Sherwood, Oregon
