Tag Archives: Multnomah County Animal Services

Killing Joey: When MCAS managers fail helpless animals are made to pay the price

Joey, ID# 340953

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.

Helping the Pets and People Who Need the Most Support Wade Sadler Former MCAS Director, February 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.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Joey’s MCAS records, redacted

Jason Renaud’s dog foster respite proposal, September 2022

Whole Dog Journal, Beyond Food and Water, By Kelly Gorman, CPDT
July 2004 Issue

Set of three articles for Setting stressed dogs up for success. Whole Dog Journal
July 2017 Issue

Giving Out Good Vibrations, Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine, Your Dog, by Arden Moore

Killing Spud, a shy dog, for barking at strangers: Unhealthy and untreatable 

Spud, ID#338010

Spud’s adoption description on January 31, 2025.

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)

Already set up to fail then forced to meet the adopters on leash whose own reactions are not described, (friendly, neutral or fearful) Spud was overwhelmed and flooded with stress overload as one stressor stacked upon the other.

The second failed show repeated the same errors.

February 23, 2025

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.

The county government looks the other way promising a multi million dollar new building without accountability.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Spud’s MCAS records, redacted

Whole Dog Journal, Why dogs bark and how to stop them, by Pat Miller, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, Published: February 15, 2017

“When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels”, Dog Watch March 2006, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.

Is Your Dog Getting Fearful or Anxious? Tufts University, Your Dog Newsletter, 2012

Almight: An urgent call for a humane animal shelter

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.

Multnomah County is not a community that advocates rewarding an abuser by killing and victimizing the abused animal. Instead,our community that values animals’ lives, seeks humane options, and consults with community professionals seeking expertise for advice in planning. They do what they can to heal the damage done.

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.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhD

Citizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog


Almight’s records, redacted

MCAS Task Force Findings, June 29, 2000

The Shocking Truth About Shock Collars, Three Oaks Animal Behavior Counseling, by Karen Holman

Shock Collars: Barbaric, Ineffective, and Unacceptable – NAVTA, by Steve Dale

Whats the problem with low-dose Shock collars, Tufts University, July 2006

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite, Your Dog, December 2008

Words That Wound Your Dog, Tufts University, August 2016

Even Mild Punishment Has a Negative Impact, Tufts University, November 2020

How to Pet a Dog, Tufts University, September 2020 Update

Lethal incompetence: The major cause of animal deaths at MCAS; Killing Millie

Millie, ID# 335233

The Rounds Review managers reject behavior science and training, see safety threats everywhere, or just make safety threats up to meet a kill quota for space. They kill to keep themselves safe from planning and thinking of solutions. In that respect, you can never be “too safe”

Their power to kill is unchecked. Professional participation is no longer a part of this process, in fact is not invited or allowed when offered, nor is there oversight of the Rounds Review managers. Professionals were once integral to the animal disposition and planning. Now they are perceived as a threat to the culture at MCAS. Rounds’ discussions occur behind closed doors. Their decisions may not be questioned.

Every dog goes through this unchecked process. Millie is just one of many of those dogs killed as a consequence of this process.

Millie, first found as a stray on December 31, 2024, was killed two and one half months later, on March 15, 2025 after two very ill considered adoptions. Despite her success in foster care, she was falsely labeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable” by management, and destroyed when records clearly showed that she wasn’t unhealthy or untreatable.” All unwanted dogs are automatically labeled “unhealthy and untreatable” to allow management to dispose of them without taking any responsibility.

The last walk and play groups before killing her were consistent with all other observations in these records.

March 12, 2025 Walk notes

Millie met me at her outside kennel front, jumping and barking, panting. Confident exit, pulled moderately. In agility she sniffed around, another dog entered agility and Millie pulled moderately. In agility she sniffed around, another dog entered agility and Millie pulled towards them whining. We walked to the field wheres Millie pulled less,she sat on command and took treats gently. When she became fixated on something I would gently nudge her or brush her side and she would keep moving, No mouthyness [sp] or handling sensitivity noticed. Returned to kennel and she sat to be unleashed, exited without issue.

March 12, 2025 Playgroup

“Yard summary: Ran in, loose body, tail wagging. Running around with dogs, Some corrections. RR [Rough and Rowdy] to PP [Push and Pull] play with other dogs, especially Clint 335649. Out with 7 dogs, Rough and Rowdy to Push and Pull play.

Millie was never seen or evaluated by a credentialed trainer. The only summaries of her behavior were written by the failed adopters who returned her, in one case after one day, and in the other after three days. All of her foster care notes were positive. Staff notes were positive as well.

After OHS declined to take Millie as a transfer she was ordered killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.”

March 14, 2025

Rounds met and we have exhausted all options reaching out to placement partners. We are unable to adopt out due to unsafe behaviors in pervious [sp?] adopters home. We will be moving forward with euthanasia at this time.”

Placement partners weren’t needed to succeed. A responsible adoption would do. And Millie could have returned to foster care. The “unsafe behaviors” nipping at young children in the first failed adoption but doing well with adults and the 13 year old, and biting the hand of someone with Parkinson’s who reached out to her with trembling hands had non-lethal solutions. The incidents were the result of careless adoptions, easily addressed by proper placement.

Millie’s First adoption

Millie was first adopted on January 12, 2025 then returned 3 days later on January 15, 2025 reported by the adopter for snapping at the 5 and 8 year old children without breaking the skin. According to the adopter there was no discernible provocation. Millie was reported to get along very well with adults and the family’s 13 year old child.

Whenever there are incidents there are always stressors or provocations. But one must ask questions. Dogs are often uncomfortable around young children because of their quick movements and unpredictable behavior.

MCAS asked no questions preferring elective ignorance. They just transcribe whatever is told to them. During this brief adoption Millie was fine with adults and the 13 year old in the home and was noted to otherwise be very well behaved and eager to please.

Between the first and second adoptions Millie was in foster care from February 7, 2025 that ended with the ill fated second adoption on February 27,2025 after which she was immediately returned. When MCAS couldn’t locate a rescue to take her they killed her despite other responsible solutions. Get a training assessment. Adopt appropriately. The significant numbers of MCAS adoption returns make clear little care or thought goes into adoptions.

Millie’s Foster care

Millie was in foster care from February 7, 2025 until February 27, 2025 where she was reported to have behaved very well and was described as “super smart,” crate trained, listened well; does well with other dogs as long as high value resources are not around; walks well on leash, cuddly, very soft mouth taking treats; guards her food and toys.

That is just a short list of her positive traits. The one caveat was “I would suggest she not be around toddlers in her home….” The concern was resource guarding. There were no reports about nipping or bite attempts over the nearly 3 weeks Millie was in foster care.

Millie’s Second Adoption

Millie was adopted on February 27, 2025 and returned one day later on February 28, 2025 following an incident when the adopter who suffered from Parkinson’s disease reached out to pat her with a trembling hand and Millie bit his hand. The adopter attributed the bite to his hand to his trembling as he reached out to her stating he believed he scared her.

It was an unsafe adoption. The stressor was very clear.

There are no reports of nipping during her stay at MCAS from December 31, 2024 to her death on March 15, 2025 other than a “bite” to a wand scanner that frightened her on her return to MCAS on February 28, 2025.

But when the managers could not find a rescue to take her they ordered her killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” when every evidence indicated she was not and she was not “unsafe.” What is unsafe are MCAS careless adoptions to anyone with $25. No one is ever turned away. They lacked initiative and made it her “problem” in order to kill her.

Options

Millie could have been adopted to an adult responsible home. She could have gone into foster care and a trainer could have been consulted if further planning was needed. That requires actual investigation into fully understanding what contexts lead to an animal incident, especially including what decisions a person made in handling their animal, and MCAS doesn’t. If there are questions trainers find solutions instead of destroying animals like broken toys. Trainers once actively participated at MCAS. Now they are not allowed

Nothing is more lethal than elective ignorance and unchecked power at a government agency. MCAS is a killing success. MCAS managers exhaust all options quickly because they do not care and there is no accountability so it has become a quick and easy dump and dispose site for unwanted animals. Now they want a new building to continue the same careless indifference. A new building doesn’t fix the historic institutional failures brought on by an uncaring management that they have chosen to cover up and ignore.

They have been allowed to ignore accountability because the commissioners that are supposed to oversee them are more interested in decorum and complacency. In a recent Koin6 article, Volunteers spoke out about agency failures, indicating that the management has failed to improve in the ways that matter: the critical animal health and safety, alongside shocking mismanagement of volunteers and staff.

The County Commissioners are more concerned with keeping MCAS management from feeling like those failures are their fault, than actually addressing those failures. “It’s not your fault, there’s just not enough space.”

Animals at MCAS are “unsafe.” The managers use the word “unsafe” as a convenience cover for excusing their opportunistic cruelty. Professionals are excluded because they might interfere with the fast progress of the trains running on time to the crematorium. They would be community “intruders” who might question their conduct. Everyone, all of us, animals and people alike, are “unsafe” because of this agency. The solution isn’t ‘let’s get a new building to house cruelty.’ Correct the cruelty.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Redacted records for Millie, 335233

The Oregonian: Multnomah County moving forward with $85M animal shelter rebuild

In response to the article from The Oregonian:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/03/multnomah-county-moving-forward-with-85m-animal-shelter-rebuild.html

To whom it may concern: 

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

Convenience euthanasia and MCAS’ lethal abuse of the power to kill: Kismet

Kismet, ID# 331471

Kismet, one year old, should have had her life ahead of her, and her finder thought she did when he took her to MCAS, mistakenly believing that MCAS is a shelter, not a disposal and culling site for unwanted animals. She was killed for shyness at the instruction of the MCAS managers’ Rounds Review whose professional failures and incompetence are routinely taken out on vulnerable dogs. Never once, given their inadequate qualifications and complete lack of knowledge about animal behavior science and training, do they think about contacting community experts who would help.

On November 27, 2024, a stray was turned into MCAS after being found on Halsey Street in Fairview by a Good Samaritan who had named her Kismet (based off “Kiss”).

He had kept her for over 24 hours, but less than 7 days and checked boxes that she had been an indoor only dog, was easy going, playful and shy greeting strangers; playful, easy going and shy when left alone or crated; playful and shy over house and litter box training. With regard to other animals she was listed as afraid of meeting new dogs, playful with known dogs, easy going with new cats; shy with known cats. Kismet was also described as playful, easy going and very loving towards children under 10 years old.

Why was she killed on December 6, 2024, 9 days later, marked “Unhealthy and Untreatable” when strangers found her easy, safe and loving?

Kismet encountered a hostile, impatient, and toxic agency that did not have time for her, so they killed her and misrepresented the disposition reason.

December 5, 2024,

Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to behavior in shelter and inability to handle.”

The behavior in question at MCAS is theirs.

First, Kismet’s conduct in the world outside was friendly and joyful. That was her baseline. At an agency operated by competent managers with integrity, the goal would be to directly address what was making Kismet avoidant and fearful at MCAS. The only tool at MCAS is copious amounts of psychotropic medication prescribed by veterinary assistants and technicians checked off by agency veterinarians.

On November 29, 2 days after admission, a veterinary assistant prescribed 150 mg of trazodone twice daily; on December 1, 300 mg of gabapentin was added twice daily; and on December 2, the trazodone dosage was increased to 200 mg twice daily. Nothing else was included to address the terror that Kismet was feeling. Furthermore on December 2, animal care notes recorded Kismet had not been eating the prescribed medication.

No or irregular training causes skill disparities in staff

The shelter’s lack of formal and consistent dog handling training for staff has been an official problem ever since it was reported in the agency’s 2016 audit, in the followup 2018 audit, and in its recent 2024 audit.

In the 2016 audit, less than half of staff had received any training at all on how to comprehend signals to animal behaviors let alone how to humanely handle them at all.

MCAS Audit, 2016, Page 5
Animal Services Audit

In the followup audit in 2018, the shelter did not meaningfully address this failure. Sure, they did some training for existing staff in 2016 following the audit, but they have not repeated this training for new staff since. They had not yet begun to make a plan to develop a training program.

MCAS Audit, 2018, Page 14
Animal Services: Important issues still need to be resolved

In the recent 2024 audit, management still doesn’t have a training program. They claimed that it had been “delayed” due to a wider training initiative within the Department of Community Services. The report also mentions that there are “plans” for training in place, but several staff had indicated that there was still no formal dog behavior training. Worse, the only training they received was through watching videos.

A “delay” that has lasted 6 years is not a delay. For 8 years, there has been no formal training, aside from bursts so occasional they come off as a reaction to their lack of formal training being called out. Trainers and diplomates from the community have repeatedly reached out to help the shelter provide regular and meaningful training to staff. Every time, they are met with silence, outright rejection, or nominal acceptance by way of an inconsistent burst of training for existing staff that is not repeated or incorporated into a formal training program. No reasonable person can assess this to be anything short of intentional institutional indifference.

MCAS Audit, 2024, Pages 10-11Recommendation Status Evaluation: Animal Services: Several recommendations implemented, some still in process

These inconsistencies are why the “behavior notes” in animal records can paint a very different picture regarding an animal’s relative ‘treatability.’ Some staffers coincidentally have more experience in handling stressed out animals than others, as is seen in Kismet’s behavior notes between two different staffers on two different days. On December 2, one staffer’s report indicated that they approached Kismet with a relatively relaxed and disarming demeanor. Another staffer, a day later, directly stared down and was confrontational with Kismet, which earned them her growling and lunging at them.

On December 2, the data collection notes read:

Kismet has not lunged and snarled at me since taking her meds (was able to get her to take meds late this morning using liver. Mostly trembling on bed, barking when you approach. Will still retreat at time [sic]. If the kennels are quiet she will slowly approach me and take treats, keeps her distance when the barking is loud. Ears down, trembling. I continued to treat her throughout the day. She was less inclined to approach me later in the day, she kept her distance but did growl, just a few hollow barks.

At one point during the afternoon I had the door cracked open and she came over and ate treats near the door. I was not facing the right way to attempt to slip leash her, but she stayed near the door and sniffed the opening. When I moved to attempt to let her smell the leash or leash her she retreated outside, trembling and gave a couple of barks.

Note: There have been improvements to behavior, but delay due to her not eating meds and high FAS [Fear, anxiety and stress].”

On December 3, 2024, another staffer’s data collection notes:

Attempted to interact with dog a few times throughout the day. She would retreat with ears back, head low, tail tucked, low growling. If I looked towards her, and remained close to kennel she would bark sharply, sometimes accompanied by a lift lip, or small single step lunge forward. Once I looked away she would continue to grumble and retreat inside, laying down on bed. She trembled hard and throughout all interactions, and most of the time I interacted she would retreat inside and avoid.

A major stressor appears to have been the very loud noise in the kennels dogs are forced to endure. A stressor that the Association of Shelter Veterinarians has already assessed as being harmful to shelter animals in their report, Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters (Section 13, Noise Exposure). Standards that Shelter Director Erin Grahek claims she follows. A claim made without any animal shelter experience, but with the promise that she’ll make up for it by following the leadership of shelter managers. Whether those same managers are central to the long-standing institutional failures at the shelter, aside.

There was no plan to mitigate the noise or even ask the finder to help move her to a quieter location.

Staff are not trained in ways to humanely manage distressed dogs. The management leaves them with a kit consisting of: Pet Corrector, Shaker cans, advice on how to shout commands loudly, and when all else fails, how to use the most force they can in an attempt to trap and subdue animals. A kit that is in complete opposition to what they were supposed to work on in that first audit from 2016: how to humanely handle animals with the least amount of force necessary.

Plans for handling animals are not created beyond ‘observe several times then kill as a solution.’ This is the very definition of lethal incompetence. Nothing is done to make the environment more hospitable. Managers ignore the kennels as they sit enclosed in their offices.

This is not a shelter. Dogs do not deserve to die this way. Workers do not deserve to be traumatized because their efforts to save lives end in needless killing where all that matters is the management’s schedule: ‘The trains have to run on time.’

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Kismet’s records, redacted

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2016

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2018

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2024

Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, 2022 Edition, full copy

MCAS’ deprivation of care: The deaths of newborn puppies.

Buffy, ID# 329918 and Walker, ID# 329916
Puppy, ID# 330764 and ID# 330766

MCAS holds others to minimum standards of care that they themselves fail to meet. Unlike many in the demographic they serve, they have not the excuse of poverty. They have done nothing to improve MCAS’ unsafe toxic environment where stress is normalized and infectious contagious diseases continue to be rampant and unchecked. Citizens are cited for deprivation of proper care. MCAS is given a “free pass” by those charged with oversight.

The story of Buffy, Walker and eight puppies born at MCAS is just one among many examples concerning deprivation of proper care.

Buffy and her partner Walker belong to a homeless person living in his truck. Both Buffy and Walker were found alone in a fenced yard by the renter living there on November 20, 2024. The records at the time noted that Buffy appeared to be pregnant and Walker had a left shoulder injury. MCAS impounded both dogs, placing them under “protective custody,” “due to concerns of either suspected neglect or concerns on care of pet.

On November 26, MCAS spoke to Buffy and Walker’s homeless owner who explained he had been ill and had asked the person on the property, the renter whom he knew, if he could temporarily care of them. The renter confirmed that he knew the owner of Buffy and Walker, but had not agreed to caretaking responsibilities.

Buffy, known to be likely pregnant from her impound notes, did not go through the standard intake process the day she arrived at MCAS. Her puppies were born on November 22, 2024 while she was held in protective custody. This happened in the general intake kennels, an unsafe area, where temperatures are erratic, contagious disease is rampant, and oversight is lacking.

After the birth of the puppies, there was no attempt to move them to the shelter hospital or any safer area. How many puppies were born is unclear: 8 puppies are listed in Buffy’s medical report, only 6 puppies are listed with MCAS identification numbers on November 22, 2024 Intake Found Reports. One sequential number 330767 is missing without explanation: 330763, 330764, 330765, 330766, 330768, 330769.

Medical follow up

Buffy was separately examined in the hospital away from her puppies by an onsite veterinarian on November 23, the day after the puppies were born. She was prescribed twice daily feedings for being “under-conditioned” and also prescribed medication for a chronic bilateral ear infection.

On the same day that Buffy was examined, veterinary assistants examined the puppies and described them as “apparently healthy.” The recommendation was that they should be fostered until weaned but the search for a foster was not permitted until Buffy’s bite quarantine ended on December 4, 2024, a minor bite that occurred while a worker cleaning kennels was moving dirty blankets around Buffy and the puppies on the morning of November 23, an activity that would have been best conducted while Buffy and the puppies were being medically examined because dogs’ maternal protective instincts are high around newborn puppies.

The bite was understandable, there were many ways to serve quarantine without risking disease to the newborn puppies, but blind enforcement rules trumped animal welfare. A creative solution intended to meet both concerns was too much trouble.

November 23 2024, Kennel cleaning that led to a minor bite to the worker

During morning cleaning I entered Sally’s [Buffy’s] kennel to clean around her and her puppies. I started mopping around the whelping bed where they were all laying together, after the floor was mopped I left and returned with clean blankets, I started to peel back the dirty blankets around her slowly at first, she showed some signs of discomfort, slight tenseness of body, staring, and twitching nose, I stopped and reached out my hand to allow contact, she sniffed my hand and then turned back to her puppies.

I returned to slowly moving blankets around her and she again turned to look at me this time lunging at my face, open mouth contact was made and one of her teeth punctured my left cheek, afterwards she did not bite down and immediately pulled back and returned her attention to her babies. I stood up and left the kennel without further issue to notify the management.”

The “puncture” bite pictured above is very minor. The incident was caused by management negligence. They failed to train the worker. Workers are left to fend for themselves, making their own on the spot decisions. They are armed with pet corrector, radios, shake cans and spray water bottles. The worker was never trained on how to manage dogs, especially dogs protective of their new born offspring. Training is important. So is compassion and common sense about welfare. Buffy and her puppies should never have been left, their care abandoned, in general intake.

Four days after birth, on the morning of November 26, 2024, two of the puppies, 330766 and 330764 were found cold and unresponsive, deceased in the kennels.

No necropsies were ordered. The policy that has continued since 2017, by then Director Jackie Rose, leaves the order of necropsies for “unassisted deaths” up to management discretion. In this case Buffy, Walker, and the puppies were owned animals. They were not MCAS’ property. The puppies died while under MCAS care. Their deaths were unexpected, and the cause of death concerning, given the unsafe environment under which they were housed where in addition to poor temperature control, failed supervision, and disease rampancy.

All shelter animals are put at risk when unexplained deaths cannot be investigated via necropsy without the direct authorization of an uninterested management. Without proper investigation, causes of death cannot be identified, and all other animals are put at risk. The managers have given themselves a free pass from accountability by denying investigations. Animals’ lives are disposable property sent to the incinerator. They, the managers, are never going to elect an investigation that might reflect on their own conduct.

Aftermath

The owner spoke with managers on November 26, wanting to redeem his dogs and puppies. He was not charged with negligence. He was given a report of their impoundment at MCAS that did not allude to or admit to the deaths of two puppies. Yet those were his puppies, ironically in their protective custody. The agency forbade Buffy’s departure until after the end of her quarantine on December 4, 2024, leaving her and her puppies at risk for illness, without any explanation to the owner regarding why she had been quarantined at all.

The agency decided to monitor and ‘wait and see,’ instead of placing Buffy and the puppies in a safe environment. This leaves them at risk because kennel cough often progresses into pneumonia and is highly contagious. Let alone the agency’s historic failures with managing disease spread at the shelter.

November 30, 2024, veterinarian note following a check up,

“Monitor for progressing respiratory signs daily due to concern for puppies being exposed to kennel cough.”

November 27, 2024, Supervisor/Management notes; the day after the puppies died

Spoke with AO [ Animal owner] … Discussed that a few of the puppies did not thrive in the shelter and if at any point after reclaim, the puppies are not doing well, to please bring them back to MCAS. Advised that we would not be able to guarantee reclaim at that point, but that we would be able to take them if needed. Advised that Buffy is on BQ and can be reclaimed on 12/4… jkt [Jennifer Turner, Field Services Supervisor.].”

The puppies who died did not “thrive” because they were deprived of proper care in an unsafe environment. To even describe the situation as a “failure to thrive” suggests a fundamental flaw in the moral values of the institution.

On December 2, 2024 the Field Services Supervisor offered the owner an ‘opportunity’ to surrender Buffy and the puppies, which he declined, noting he had help for the puppies and that a friend was driving from the East Coast to take Buffy. It is difficult for MCAS to claim any high moral ground.

The Field Services Supervisor continued,

I told [Animal Owner] that we will consider this litter of puppies to be an accident. And that if he plans on “Buffy” having any more litters that he will need to get a breeding facility license. [Animal Owner] stated that it was an accident for her having puppies and that he is planning on getting her spayed. I gave [Animal Owner] the information of OHS low income Spay and Neuter Program.

When MCAS management err they always move to one-upmanship as a show of superior authority in order to hide their errors in judgment. Why, when someone is homeless, advise them that if it happens again they will need to purchase a breeders’ facility license? Why not offer a free spay and neuter for Buffy and Walker instead?

The irony of the shelter’s focus on limiting breeding in the community is MCAS adopts most animals without spaying or and neutering them first, instead adopting them with spay/neuter vouchers whose rate of redemption is low.

MCAS current spay neuter voucher system based upon a “trust” that adopters will comply; a “trust” rooted in expediency. Given the high risk of non-compliance for voucher redemption, the borderline free gift ($25) of a ‘low fee’ ‘fertile animal’ should be accompanied by the required payment of a breeding facility license until proof of voucher redemption is provided. Otherwise redemption rates will remain low. Or they could return to past practices by securing a path of spaying/neutering animals on site before they are released to the adopter.

Referring low-income owners to OHS, as was done in this case, is off loading responsibilities that the shelter itself has funding for, funding that has been reported by the county’s auditor as being underused. That report showed that for the 5 years prior to mid-May 2023, the shelter only spent about $42,000 with about $316,00 left unspent in its Spay/Neuter Fund. In the 2024 followup report, the shelter has substantially increased its use of this fund, but “consideration of financial need was not a factor in the spaying or neutering of these animals.” An abdication of the intent behind the program to support low-income adopters in order to ‘comply’ with recommendations. MCAS can afford to spay Buffy; her owner cannot. MCAS’ mission is a vacant promise.

As of December 1, 2024 public records, Buffy and her puppies were still in Intake Kennel 9 at MCAS in the general population. MCAS still fails to give workers the training necessary for their daily interactions with shelter animals. This training is especially needed given these animals are often subjected to environmental stress. The workers are on the front lines. That management’s abdication in providing training should be held to account.

Failure to investigate unexplained deaths has happened before. In the linked Oregonian article, LeeLoo survived with emergency care, but another dog, Bear (ID# 297341), did not. Bear was a one and a half year old gentle and playful Labrador Retriever adopted from MCAS in ostensibly good health on October 13, 2024. On October 14, the adopter noted that he seemed unwell, then on the 15th, they called a veterinarian for advice. The veterinarian recommended that the adopter keep watch on Bear. Bear collapsed and died suddenly that evening. MCAS offered condolences and were willing to cover the costs for a private cremation, paw print and pickup. However, they completely neglected to offer paying for a necropsy to study why Bear, a young, supposedly healthy dog, suddenly suffered from lethargy and loss of appetite rapidly deteriorating into collapse and then death a day after he was adopted.

One year later nothing has changed. Managers are given too much discretionary power without oversight to develop policies that are not reviewed by anyone else in government. When dogs die “unassisted deaths” they make note of the occurrence for statistical data keeping, and promptly move on. There is no interest in discovering causes, just as there is no interest in treatment.

Prioritizing an efficiency defined by speed has been the primary motivation for this shelter. Whether that’s in the establishment of the spay/neuter voucher program, where “the change was intended to move pets out of the shelter faster,” or in minimum qualifications for hiring animal care and veterinary leadership positions in order to “quickly fill vacant roles,” according to MCAS Director Erin Grahek’s own words in an article by April Ehrlich on Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


MCAS’ policy on Necropsy, continuing from 2017

Buffy 329918, redacted records

Walker 329916, redacted records

Puppy 330764, redacted records

Puppy 330766, redacted records

Bear 297341, redacted records

The brutal killing of Rune, a Street Dog: a victim of MCAS’ mistakes

Rune, ID# 328701

Rune, a 5-year-old American Pit Bull mix, was impounded on October 28, 2024, after he was found running down the streets and allegedly bit 2 persons. Only one could be identified, a child whom Rune had knocked down and was bruised. He had no apparent owner. A houseless person claimed to have been feeding and providing him shelter for a week, but disclaimed ownership and stated he could not keep him contained because he just kept chewing through leashes.

On November 08, 2024 during his intake exam Rune was described as:

“…Social and easy to handle. He did turn around a couple of times to see what we were doing when scanning/vaccinating but overall did very well for exams and treatments. Sending back to round review with updates after data collection.

On November 11, a worker’s poor judgment prompted an incident. The incident escalated and was further compounded by a series of negative management interventions that only created more frantic behavior on Rune’s part, his stress already amplified by barking dogs on either side of him and across the aisle. Rune was ordered to be killed at the end of quarantine on November 21, 2024, due to a single injury to one worker’s hand when she was holding the kennel door to force Rune to stay inside. There was no management review of unsafe conduct rooted in poor practices that created an incident. They just ordered Rune, the evidence of their errors, killed after quarantine.

MCAS staff are not trained in positive safe practices, including how to manage and deescalate stress when animals are uncomfortable. Their incentive management tools are limited to treats; there are no training plans to teach fearful animals to willingly comply. Unwanted behavior is addressed with verbal warnings (“No”), Pet Corrector, water spray bottles, and shake cans which are a coin flip on whether they momentarily interrupt unwanted behavior or escalate distress in a fearful dog. “Data collections” are intrusions on an animal’s space to identify how ready they are for adoptions. Prioritizing speedy processing comes at the cost of compassion for an animal’s comfort, setting them up for failure.

November 11, 2024 Behavior note from Play group runner:

Attempting to get Rune for playgroup. He was at his door, tail up, panting. Unlatched door and he watched me calmly, then darted to bark towards neighbor. Poked the toe of my shoe through the door and he immediately lunged, grabbing on and tugging. I was able to hold door closed against my foot, and radioed for help after 20-45 seconds. A coworker helped pull my shoe off, as he continued to tug, and pet corrector was used. He redirected towards the pet corrector, then grabbed my shoe as I tried to pull it back out of the kennel. Airhorn was used and he snapped towards that, then jumped up and bit MH’s fingers as MH held door closed. We were able to remove my shoe and latch door. No damage to my foot.

The damage to the worker’s hand is pictured in the record described as:

“…After the shoe was retrieved from Rune’s mouth, through the crack in the door, I continued holding the door as it had not been latched. Rune then re-directed onto my hand, biting my left middle and ring fingers, briefly before letting go. The result was four tares [sic] in the skin on my fingers, two on each of the two fingers, all less than about an inch in length. I also have what appears to be a blood blister.”

Rune’s reactions caused little damage when he was wholly capable of a greater reaction given the escalation of stressors, one stacked upon the other. They were understandably based in fear after he was assaulted when he was in his kennel with no way to get away.

There was no reason for a worker to poke his foot through the kennel. The worker took off his shoe after Rune grabbed it, initiating a tug of war over that shoe. In an effort to get it back, the worker used Pet Corrector, and when that failed, an air horn. Most shelters have warning signs advising visitors to not put their hands or thrust objects into kennels because it’s an unsafe intrusion.

Why was it more important to get the shoe back than to deescalate the incident and create calm? Why not calm down and give the fearful dog space? Did anyone even try to use Counter-Conditioning and Desensitization to change Rune’s association with fear from a negative stimulus to positive with treats and a calm demeanor? Why resort to flooding animals with fear-provoking stimuli like Pet Corrector and air horns at all?

Where does the fault belong?

Both the staff and animals are victims of a protocol requiring that all interactions are compelled instead of invited. The staff are told to process the animals as efficiently and quickly as possible. When a fearful reaction occurs, instead of attending to and accommodating a dog’s fear, the worker is trained to engage in repeated aversive action. All this does is create escalation.

November 7, 2024, Data Collection/Behavior Notes:

Approached outside kennel door. Rune was barking, snapping and jumping against shared kennel wall where Galaxy (272836) was standing and barking. Ears back, tail high and wagging. Held my hand up to door and he snapped at it, contacting the door. He did this several times, resuming fence fighting with Galaxy in between. Closed all barking dogs around him inside, returning to outside of kennel 5 minutes later. He ran out to me, panting, tail high. Snapped towards my hand again, when I held it to the door. Readily accepted treats taking them hard.

He paced and circled around the end of the kennel, looking at the walls, occasionally barking. I poked my leash through the kennel, he sniffed it, then snapped at it. Treated for a minute. Cracked door, throwing some treats on the ground, and attempted to reach in and leash. He grabbed onto leash and began tugging. After 10-15 seconds he let go to eat a treat. Did this twice but was able to leash on 3rd attempt. Once on leash he nosed at door. Pulled a little on leash … Tolerated contact on head, back and sides, but did not acknowledge me when I pet him…Returned to kennel…Reached in and removed leash. He ran inside and began barking at Galaxy.”

When a dog is snapping at an action, waiting just to repeat the same action, instead of taking a different approach, is not accommodating to a dog’s fear.

Continuing the same forced interaction only reinforces that fearful response.

The follow up data collections on November 8 and November 9 were friendly and positive. Rune welcomed all contact and didn’t display any of the previously noted leash biting behaviors. But now he was clearly limping on both back legs and was reported to be having multiple bloody stools. He was friendly and cooperative during the animal health exam addressing the new medical concerns.

Rune was killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” on November 22, 2024, when he wasn’t. The system failed him.

Multnomah County Animal Services managers cause incidents by failing to address toxic levels of stress at the shelter, including unsafe levels of continuous noise bombardment, failure to allow off-site enrichment activities, and failure to teach staff how to manage dogs proactively when the majority of intake dogs at MCAS come from traumatic backgrounds, only to be further harmed at MCAS.

The acute failure by management to improve practices that lead to unsafe incidents through review directly sets the foundation for repetitive failures. Their solution has been to dispose of the “bad” dog, frequently even when a “bad” dog’s behaviors have turned around from fearful to friendly.

Incidents are already primed to occur against a background where significant numbers of animals live in a chronic state of unremitting stress. Untrained workers are pushed to rapidly assess how much contact an often distressed dog will allow. Animals’ stress reduction is primarily addressed by escalating doses of psychotropics while the management chronically fails to provide all of the minimum requirements critical to the mental health of sheltered animals.

The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2022

MCAS managers reject positive animal training for staff, including how to address and manage animal distress. The staff are left on their own to sort it out, e.g. repeatedly pursuing a scared dog who is avoiding them in order to leash him; patting a starved dog while the dog is eating then labeling the dog defensive, a “resource guarder.” Or they are equipped with negative interventions intended to scare or frighten a dog into submission. Negative methods of addressing behavior only work momentarily, often having the unintended side effect of escalating stress.

It is the ‘Perfect storm’ where every element of failure is gathered into one place.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Rune’s MCAS records, redacted

Further Reading:

Beyond Food and Water: Giving Shelter dogs a homelike environment.
Kelly Gorman, CPDT, The Whole Dog Journal, July 2004

How animal behavior science helps shelter dogs

“This is the essence of a scientifically-supported concept called ‘co-regulation’, and it works the same way with dogs as it does with people: When your dog is anxious, overstimulated, or overwhelmed, their nervous system shifts into overdrive, and they may have difficulty settling on their own. But, they can borrow some of your calm to help their nervous system ‘reset’ to a more balanced state.”

Fear, anxiety, and other emotional states affect everyone, dogs and people alike. They are states that are often present  at traditional animal shelters. When MCAS’ program included training using positive methods to reduce stress, experts in veterinary animal behavior science and positive trainers made a significant difference in success rates, helping workers and volunteers become successful in their efforts to help the shelter’s vulnerable demographic.

When training and behavior science are valued, everyone learns. Dogs, often traumatized from living on the streets are helped instead of being sent out the door, unequipped or to the crematorium. Training and behavior gives dogs a chance, making a good life within reach for a shelter dog.

When fast processing trumps animal welfare no matter the cost

Gretchen, ID# 327982 and Holly, ID# 327983

Shelter life is a prison for dogs. It’s stressful, scary, and confusing. Some are on death row and will never make it out. Some are afraid and withdrawn in the cage. Others shut down. Others bark and cry, confused as to why they are there and not living the life they once new – even if that life was not one of a happy home. It’s hell for every dog in there. And they respond in different ways. Given that they are masters of reading energy, they KNOW this place is not good.

Whether its abuse, trauma, lack of early developmental support, or simply being completely overwhelmed by the shelter or loss of the only way of life they have ever known, and now having to interact with strangers or dogs they have never experienced – it can be too much for some dogs….

Fear shows up in a number of ways. Retreat and hide and just pray we’ll all leave them alone. Bark and growl in the hopes we’ll leave them alone. Pressed far enough, a bite may occur in the hopes you will just leave them alone. These dogs don’t want to bite…Most people put far too much pressure on the dog way too fast. Even though your intentions are good, you’re pushing the dog further in their fears.
Building Bravery In A Fearful Dog, K9 Coach

On October 19, 2024, Holly and her partner Gretchen, both young German Shepherd mixes were found on the streets, by a Good Samaritan who said he just opened the door to the car and they hopped in. Once at MCAS both Holly and Gretchen were carried into the kennels. On October 26, a shelter manager asked a staff person to see if both dogs could be walked or picked up to assess them for foster care.

At MCAS, every dog’s welfare is sacrificed for speed when those it’s supposed to serve are vulnerable from depressed areas, disadvantaging them at the start. Instead of approaching each dog individually, MCAS focuses on streamlining its vaunted “data collections” to meet expedient deadlines and goals without regard for their fear.

At the outset, a dog’s first experience at MCAS is an intrusive physical exam with vaccinations. This fear-inducing experience becomes the tone setting experience for every dog at the prison we call a shelter. Often fear is met with an over reliance on excessive psychotropics instead of fear-free management practices. No matter how frightened the dog, the goal is a rapid completion of the protocol, e.g. “allow pets to face, neck, muzzle and shoulders without issue.” For example, when a dog is cowering and submitting to intrusions out of fear instead of happily accepting them, they simply treat the protocol as completed and check off their data collections box and move on to the next step.

October 26, 2024; Behavior Notes for Holly,

Data Collection:

Andrew [Mathias] asked me to see if I was able to walk and/or pick up in able to assess for foster placement. Holly was avoidant of slip lead, but I was able to lasso after a couple of minutes. She attempted crawling up kennel wall, flailed, and pancaked when leash was on, so still unable to walk on lead. I was able to pick up. She froze and was trembling, but displayed no other negative fear based responses to being picked up.

October 26, 2024; Behavior Notes for Gretchen,

Data Collection:

Andrew [Mathias] asked me to see if I was able to walk and/or pick up in able to assess for foster placement. Gretchen was avoidant of slip lead, but I was able to lasso with relative ease. She flailed and pan caked when leash was on, so still unable to walk on lead. I was able to pick up. She froze and was trembling, but displayed no other negative fear based responses to being picked up.”

Note that both of these data collections are almost word-for-word exactly the same. No compassion or care goes into these data collections. It’s just a question of how much force is necessary to ‘get the job done.’ It’s a process more fitting with a privatized prison or an assembly line, than a shelter.

On October 31, MCAS separated Gretchen from Holly “to see if that will help them bond more with handlers.

November 4, 2024; Holly’s Medical update,

Assessment:

Has recently been separated from kennel mate and her FAS [Fear, anxiety, stress] raised again. Will continue FAS meds for new environment.”

Unsurprisingly, both of their levels of stress increased, especially for Gretchen as this contributed to her developing kennel cough.

November 4, 2024; Gretchen’s Medical update,

Assessment:

Currently being treated for KC [kennel cough], also recently separated from kennel mate. Will accept some treats near a hand but not from a hand, will continue FAS meds through treatment and transition to new environment.”

MCAS believed that they could force the dogs to rely on the handlers and instead took away an important source of comfort, amplifying their stress. What Holly and Gretchen needed was a thoughtful management plan addressing their fear. What they got was a program that amplified their fear. MCAS has rejected all behavior and training expertise critical to the care of its dogs in favor of force-based practices.

Both were forced into Play Groups, part of MCAS’ “data collection.”

October 31, 2024; Gretchen’s playgroup experience,

Greeting: Carried into yard by CT.

Entry: Carried into play yard by CT…

Yard Summary: Remained pressed into corner of play yard for some time. Accepted nose to nose sniffs from Athena 328695. More interested in handlers, placing herself near or behind us to avoid other dogs.

Exit: Bumped as she is overwhelmed by other dogs playing.”

October 31, 2024; Holly’s playgroup experience,

Greeting: Carried into yard by CT, avoidant of coming to fence.

Entry: Resistant to coming into yard. Let Galaxy 272836 into yard to greet her, lifted leg, rolled onto back and showed belly when came in for sniffs.

Yard Summary: Possibly seeking an exit, she darted into play yard. Moved around perimeter of yard on her own, some lip licking at Galaxy. Came in for nose to nose sniffs with Athena 328695. Nervous pacing of play yard throughout and not much interest in other dogs.

Exit: Not enjoying playgroup.”

Their goal should be to keep stress at the lowest level possible, not to overwhelm and flood a fearful dog. At MCAS, uniform protocols precede animal welfare. It is entirely possible to gather information about a dog without forcing stressful encounters. All that is being gathered is how a dog responds to stress.

On November 4, both Gretchen and Holly went to a foster home, with a foster that does care about pacing and allowing them the time to decompress from their traumatic shelter experience. A shelter is not a prison but it is at MCAS where the needs of traumatized animals take second place to the trains running on time.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Other sources of guidance about taking care of fearful dogs:
http://fearfuldogs.com/, http://strayrescue.org/

Gretchen’s MCAS Records, redacted

Holly’s MCAS Records, redacted

MCAS’ self inflicted shortage of volunteers harms animals and the community

MCAS Volunteer Manual June 2024

…it is also important to note that the shelter environment can also be difficult for some. Volunteers are expected to be able to mentally and emotionally process the reality of serving in the shelter environment and we ask that you make an informed decision about your ability to volunteer with us.”

Nathan Winograd on volunteer rights

MCAS managers show that they assume that all shelters are run as authoritarian organizations and that killing animals is an inevitable part of shelter reality when they claim they are just like any other shelter. That view means that volunteers must adapt, leave voluntarily, or be fired… if they care about animals. Freedom of speech is forbidden.

It is false that all shelters are authoritarian and must be run on discarded “control” models. That was not the choice of the community. It is one imposed by sitting managers. When MCAS had a higher save rate, anyone—volunteers, rescues, staff, and ordinary citizens—could offer and also help seek resources for dogs at risk. They were not told to ‘know their place.’ That is why there was a higher rate of participation and saved lives. Animals with special needs received training addressing their needs, not death sentences.

It is MCAS’ management that is at fault. And it is their decision to run an agency as an authoritarian organization against county standards.

MCAS has 46 volunteers listed for October who routinely walk dogs. It is not enough. That number is consistently very low. Volunteers are critical to MCAS. They primarily address the welfare needs of dogs at the agency. Because volunteer numbers are so low, MCAS is currently failing all minimum mental health standards for dogs.

The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2022

The effect is not ‘change and correction’ but to kill more animals and tell the community to accept that is inevitable. Most animals become distressed at MCAS and MCAS only treatment plan is to kill dogs who are the victims of the agency’s toxic environment, not correct the environment, not welcome volunteer active participation, and not help animals thrive. It is about smothering compassion. Volunteers are advised to get used to it or they can leave.

The entire volunteer manual is about authoritarian control. It reflects a failed agency culture under current management. Unless that is changed the agency will not thrive and more importantly, the workers, volunteers, animals and community will bear the consequences of that failure.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2022


MCAS Volunteer Handbook, June 2024

MCAS Volunteer Hours for October 2024

MCAS’ toxic environment: The cause of Winnie’s death

Winnie, ID# 300464

Winnie is a neglected six year old German Shepherd mix found as a stray on October 17, 2024. She would have been better off left on the streets in the care of strangers, not left instead at MCAS where disease and indifference are rampant. Winnie was hospitalized at MCAS after developing kennel cough and pneumonia on the same day that she was approved for foster care on November 11, 2024. By then, she had been at the shelter for 24 days. On November 12, 2024, the managers rejected life saving medical care in favor of expedient killing. They assigned her to immediate euthanasia that day.

November 12, 2024,

Rounds met and due to multiple previously diagnosed chronic medical conditions with the current medical concerns causing a concern for her QOL [Quality of life], rounds elects to move forward with euthanasia.”

The managers’ justifications for euthanasia are self serving and dishonest. More time is dedicated to finding reasons to transfer or kill animals than to save their lives, despite having over a million dollars in Dolly’s Fund, a historically misused restricted fund for special medical care needs of shelter animals. It is the managers’ quality of life that might be affected if they were to work towards their funded mission. Winnie had “…multiple previously diagnosed chronic medical conditions,” but they were treatable, manageable, and even correctable. Winnie’s quality of life depended upon and required medical care. They denied it.

On November 12, 2024, the on site veterinarian recommended:

Rounds Review to decide next steps: Recommend starting IV fluids and IV antibiotics (at MCAS or DLEAH [Dove Lewis Emergency Animal Hospital]) or euthanasia.”

The only mention of the significance of prior chronic conditions occurred during an earlier stray intake in February 2024. They were described as treatable and manageable and were considered so until Winnie contracted preventable kennel cough and pneumonia at MCAS. Which then became a rationalization for wanting to clear space with as little effort as possible.

On February 6, 2024, Winnie was brought in as a stray exhibiting signs of neglect (with similar concerns noted on previous stray intakes: August 2020; October 2023).

February 6, 2024, Health Exam; Veterinary recommendation:

OK to be adopted by finder at end of hold time if they can continue treatment/ management of skin and ear conditions which will likely need long term (potentially lifelong) management.”

From multiple MCAS record entries, it is clear that Winnie had a fine quality of life with chronic medical conditions.

October 23, 2024, Data Collection:

Readily approached me at outside kennel door, wagging tail with perked ears. Easy to reach in and leash. Pulls a bit on leash, sniffing and wagging tail. Readily accepted pats on head, back, chin, and neck. Wiggling back and forth in front of me as I pet her. Sniffed dogs in neighboring kennels, whining and bumping kennel door with nose, high wagging tail. Tossed treats which she ate as I exited kennel.”

Even with chronic medical conditions, Winnie was a happy dog interested in the world around her with a quality of life. Chronic, treatable, manageable and correctable medical conditions, most secondary to neglect, didn’t become a management “concern” until MCAS managers were hopping around seeking to pile on excuses to kill her out of their indifference.

MCAS managers changed the rules to legitimize and normalize killing for space and convenience. They have no compassion for animals and the public they serve. Those in charge of MCAS supervision go along to get along and look the other way.

Veterinarians and others serve the managers, not the mission.

Before 2016, veterinarians had a more central role being part of the Rounds Review (formerly Shelter Review) committee. They were mandatory presences, part of the minimum 3 parties necessary to form a quorum. These meetings were open to invested parties such as trainers, staff, volunteers, rescues. The meetings also included a specific diplomate in behavioral veterinary medicine on contract to the agency twice a month. After 2016, former Director Jackie Rose changed the language such that Veterinarians were no longer required to be present, being relegated to optional advisory roles.

Under Director Erin Grahek, the Rounds Review meetings are supposed to include staff veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians. However, as is seen in Winnie’s record, these meetings are far too short to possibly include any meaningful input from veterinary staff. The Rounds Review met and decided Winnie’s fate over the course of 4 minutes on November 12, 2024, and immediately after the managers signed off on her euthanasia. The speed with which these decisions are made is consistent across many records, and public records requests regarding what parties are present are ignored.

Staff veterinarians could and did frequently consult with other community veterinary professionals and were actively part of critical care decisions including final dispositions. MCAS used to have medical and hospice fosters to support animals with special needs. Handicaps and illness were not considered the end of life.

MCAS is no longer a public shelter but a private preserve. That is why Winnie died. The managers, trusted to care for shelter animals, did not want to put in more time or effort than is necessary to sign off on her euthanasia. 4 minutes could never be enough time to weigh a life. The money was there, in Dolly’s Fund.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Winnie’s MCAS Records, Redacted.

MCAS Rounds Review Policies, 2014; Working Draft under Former Director Michael Oswald

MCAS Rounds Review Policies, 2016; under Former Jackie Rose

MCAS Rounds Review Euthanasia Policies, 2024; under Director Erin Grahek, Page 3

MCAS uses ultimatums and threats instead of compassionate solutions: Buba

Buba, ID# 327482

Buba, a 2-year-old German Shepherd, was surrendered to MCAS on October 12, 2024. His owner, who had taken care of him for a year, was in jail and the family could no longer continue Buba’s care. On the owner surrender form, Buba was described as fearful and shy, afraid of strangers, new dogs and cats but easy going around children under 10 years old. Buba was also described as protective, afraid of car rides, and being at the veterinary office. He liked walks and solicited pats and attention.

The circumstances that led to his owner’s family no longer being able to care for Buba are not documented in the report. MCAS offers no counseling to owners surrendering their animals about resources that might allow them to keep their dogs. Nor do they provide respite fostering for persons and families in crisis. On the day of impound, October 12, Buba’s owner was unsure when he would be getting out but gave the names of the family permitted to redeem him.

After 3 admissions exams attempts on October 13, 15, and 16, he was forwarded on October 17 to what is called “data collection.” “Data collection” in this agency refers to visits to a kenneled dog in order to gather more information about its willingness for contact, for being leashed, walked, and how far their personal boundaries can be pushed. Buba was scared, retreated, and avoidant. They made no effort to accommodate for Buba’s mental state beyond prescribing behavior medication. There no intervention plans to address a dog’s fear. Instead, untrained staff do the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. The only interventions for fear, anxiety and stress are escalating doses of psychotropics.

Buba’s fear was visible.

October 13, 2024; Admission Exam Attempt # 1

Observations During Interaction: Approaching dog on outside run, dog immediately raised his hackles when he saw me, started growling and barking, and retreated quickly into his inside run. From his inside run he was hard staring at me with a tense body and whale eye. Given this behavior, I am not comfortable attempting an intake exam/treatments today. Ended interaction.”

On the evening of October 12, a veterinary assistant had prescribed psychotropics for Buba with the following note: “High FAS [fear, anxiety, stress] with safety concern on Intake.

MCAS staff are not taught skills to help them befriend anxious dogs who become afraid in a strange environment. “Treat and retreat” is an exercise based upon the premise that one does not advance on a dog afraid of the person in front of him, but gives the dog space to make decisions on his own. Unsafe conditions are created by staff and management who then assign blame for their actions to a dog calling the dog they have just made more fearful by their advances “unsafe.”

October 14, 2024; Admission Exam Attempt # 2

Observations During Interaction: Approached inside run and shut guillotine when Buba did not see me yet. I stepped into his line of sight and tried to speaking to him softly – he began growling, barking and retreated quickly into the furthest point of his kennel. Throughout interaction he was giving me a hard stare, whale eye. Again, I am not comfortable attempting an intake exam/treatments today and believe this dog is a safety risk. Ended interaction. ACR for Behavior meds: 10/12/24. – on meds now.

The staff person made the same errors of engagement as during the first admissions attempt that escalated fear instead of creating space and comfort. They trapped Buba in a narrow confined space, shutting the guillotine door of his kennel so he could not retreat.

The staff worker escalated Buba’s fear, then called him a safety instead of reviewing his/her own behavior as a stressor.

October 15, 2024; Admission Exam Attempt # 3

Observations During Interaction: Approached outside run after closing guillotine, dog retreated to furthest point of kennel, he began barking repetitively, growling, ears semi flattened back and was urinating on himself. He would not come forward to handlers, and did not want any treats that were tossed to him. Same behaviors as last 2 attempts. Per protocol, removing from awaiting intake and placing on rounds review to determine next steps.

Instead of reviewing what they were doing and could do differently to be effective, staff repeated the same approach over and over again and expected a different response. There was no pause to consider or review how they could change their approach in the exam process. They’re utter lack of training set Buba up to fail.

His psychotropic medications were not readjusted from initial levels to address Buba’s escalating stress. MCAS Veterinary assistants and technicians independently diagnose and prescribe medications in violation of Oregon State Laws. Their veterinarians that then sign off on the prescriptions are also not in accordance with the law. They need to be present to make the diagnosis themselves, not just defer to assistants and technicians.

ORS 686.360,

All duties of a veterinary technician must be performed under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. The Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board shall promulgate rules regarding the services a veterinary technician may perform, including, but not limited to:

(1) Obtaining and recording information cases.
(2) Preparation of patients, instruments, equipment, and medicants for surgery.
(3) Collection of specimens and performance of certain laboratory procedures.
(4) Application of wound dressings.
(5) Assisting the veterinarian in diagnostic, medical and surgical proceedings. [1975 c.619 §8; 1989 c.171 §79; 1993 c.491 §13]

ORS 686.130 (15),

(15)Permitting the veterinary technician, preceptee, or student intern to perform a duty, task or procedure not specifically permitted by the board. [Amended by 1975 c.619 §5; 1979 c.744 §57; 1993 c.491 §7; 2009 c.756 §60]

On October 16, MCAS failed again when the family members who had brought Buba in on behalf of the owner had returned to reclaim him, planning to rehome Buba to a cousin. Instead of facilitating a reclaim by the same persons who had brought him in, MCAS told the family that they must tell the owner, someone with a noted possible language barrier, to call in and give permission to reclaim Buba. The agency could have made that call and contact immediately while they were at MCAS. Given the circumstances, this was an acceptable option. Instead they prolonged Buba’s stay, continuing their “data collection,” despite having an immediate effective solution.

What is clear in cases like Buba’s is that MCAS managers run an authoritarian agency governed by contempt towards the public accompanied by the use of threats and intimidation. The agency told the family they must be the ones to get Buba’s owner to call the agency and give permission. Requiring permission normally wouldn’t be problematic, but Buba’s owner was in jail. The Agency would have had far more leniency and flexibility in being able to contact the jail, from one governmental agency to another, than the family ever could.

This requirement turned out to be entirely unnecessary, as the Rounds Review Committee authorized Buba’s reclamation to a family member anyways 2 days later on October 18. The same day of this authorization, the Shelter directly threatened that if the family member didn’t show up by the end of that business day, they would kill Buba the following morning.

These threats are exactly how the managers at MCAS believe their public service is meant to be fulfilled. They govern with irrational fears, impatience, blatant ignorance, and a total lack of compassion. Their conduct is the absence of any knowledge about public service whatsoever.

October 17, 2024; Data collection

Dog barks and runs as far away in kennel as possible, sitting out of sight. Would only eat treats with no one present. Attempted to interact from inside, then outside door. If I opened door to get a look at Buba he would begin to growl and tremble. Closed him outside and sat by kennel door, he barked and leaned back into wall, ears flat, lifting paw. Bounced a tennis ball, and his ears perked up for 1 second, then he returned to barking, same reaction to squeaky toy. Cracked door, and asked if he wanted to go on a walk, showing my leash. He began to tremble heavily and growl. Left lots of treats. Ended interaction.

On October 18, two events happened within an hour of each other. Buba began to become less fearful.

Morning interactions

Closed out for morning cleaning. Sitting against the back wall of outside kennel, against building. Ears perked, furrowed brow, looking at me. I tossed a few slices of hot dog, he looked at the ones that got close to him. I walked away to interact with another dog, when I came back he was in the same spot but all the treats had been eaten. I started to toss more hot dogs and he stood up and slowly walked around and ate them. Willing to come up to fence, ate a few treats through the fence but skittish and would retreat back to the back of the kennel if I moved too quickly. I feel confident could get him out of the kennel.”

The record does not mention if the owner was able to call out from the jail to allow his relatives to redeem Buba from MCAS. On October 18, the same day Buba was making behavioral progress. MCAS called the family of Buba’s owner, who was still in jail, advising them that Buba was scheduled to be killed the following day, October 19. They said the family had until the end of the day, October 18, to redeem him, telling him he was scheduled to be euthanized due to “behavior.” They stated that Buba was “dangerous.” But the Buba’s records document otherwise: he was avoidant, fearful, and retreated at every turn because he was scared. The worker, during the last interaction on the same day he was called “dangerous,” stated “I feel confident I could get him out of the kennel”. But MCAS uses fear and intimidation to bully as motivations at every turn.

October 18, 2024, 2:31 PM

“… Called finder [family] Eloise at… and asked if she wanted to pick up the dog, stated expected outcome. She stated she wanted to reclaim dog. I told her she would need to get this dog out of the kennel because its dangerous for our staff. She said she can do that. Advised of hours of operation and outcome tomorrow is she does not reclaim dog.

The finder and relative of the owner redeemed Buba on October 18, 2024, a week after he was surrendered. MCAS management never met with the family before his surrender. There was no owner surrender counseling to ask what resources they might need as alternatives to surrender. They both harmed the family and harmed Buba at their overfunded animal prison on the hill.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


MCAS Guiding Principles, formally in effect since 2016

Buba’s MCAS Records, Redacted

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community

Jasmin, ID# 292723

The February 2023 investigative report by OPB April Ehrlich, addressing MCAS’ failures could be published today. A year and a half later there has been no substantive change.

In a 2018 report, auditors noted that multiple staff were concerned the shelter had adopted out unsafe dogs.”

MCAS does not adopt out “unsafe dogs.”They adopt dogs out unsafely because of bad policies that disregard animal welfare, including low standards and $25 adoptions, when ‘cheap’ is an invitation to impulse buys. Markdowns are intended as incentives. When ‘discount specials’ never end, save changing their name, that speaks to the agency’s failure and the corruption of its values.

Adoptions: How adoptions go wrong.

Over the protests of staff and volunteers, Jasmin, a wonderful dog whose history included a severe attack by another dog, was to have an adoption restriction requiring that she be the only dog in the prospective family. Instead, management overrode that restriction and adopted Jasmin to a family with another resident dog. Days later she was returned by the family after a dog attack. MCAS managers killed her for their careless indifference. The practice of facilitating poor adoptions and killing dogs who have been sent to unsafe homes and returned happens all of the time.

Playgroups: What was intended to relieve the stress of constant confinement after working with Dogs Playing for Life, has been repurposed into an evaluation about adoptability based upon ‘observed’ social skills in the play group, filtering out dogs that, in their assessment, can’t be adopted and so should be euthanized.

This test is deeply flawed because of the debilitatingly stressful environment fostered by this shelter’s management policies. Dogs known to be reactive to other dogs are included in playgroup tests, often muzzled, increasing their anxiety and fear. Playgroups include dogs in heat, injured dogs, dogs suffering kennel cough, disabled, blind, and deaf dogs, diagnostic categories whose illness or vulnerabilities place them at risk.

Intake: Dogs are rushed through intake regardless of their levels of distress, a process forced by the management’s edict for speed efficiency. If distressed, they are attached by leash to an i-hook, escalating fear and anxiety by trapping them, and then the intrusive exams proceed. They are then labeled with ‘handling sensitivity’ and/or ‘fear’ or ‘jumpy/mouthy’ waivers for defensive reactions brought about by insensitive handling. For example, if they “head whip” when intrusive exams are conducted. When staff behaves insensitively, on the orders of management, the dogs are blamed for their reactions. Everything becomes the dog’s fault.

Data Collection: “Data collections” are visits to kenneled dogs, usually but not always up to 3, to evaluate how many personal space intrusions, including checking teeth, ears, and physically checking spay/neuter status, a dog will tolerate from a complete stranger in a shelter environment. Staff are not trained about animal behavior, how to recognize stress and how to gain safe compliance for physical exams. The emphasis is always on speed. Pushing dogs down or pursuing them to leash is unsafe conduct. The only tools management provides are negative: The word “No”; Pet Corrector, spray bottles and shake cans all of which can backfire by escalating stress.

Fosters: Are not screened, except to make sure their companion animals are licensed, and chosen randomly. They receive no training and are not provided behavior training resources. The absence of professional guidance creates safety risks. If an incident occurs it is again the dog’s fault according to managers, not their own poor policies.

Adoption Returns: Adoption Returns are commonplace because of poor and indifferent adoption standards. Only the dog pays the price.


Multnomah County shelter has a policy to offer emergency boarding services for up to a month.

Director Erin Grahek and Operations Manager Marian Cannell ended emergency board and respite fosters a while ago without announcement, excusing this with the statement that they have insufficient space. ‘Space’ is a matter of creativity. Respite fostering and emergency board have been replaced by the ‘ 6 day hold mandatory’ for owned animals, after which MCAS assumes ownership.

Redemption and retention are their funded missions. When one lacks the skills to honor it, one does not just get rid of the mission. MCAS accommodated for respite and emergency board in the past despite an equal or greater intake, smaller budget and fewer managers. What did previous directors do differently when space was available? The funding is there. The imagination, will, initiative, and values are not.

Attached is a proposed respite foster program County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson placed on a short list over a year ago. Why hasn’t it been funded? Other space limitations are the result of multiple adoption returns, as many as 6 times in one case.

Owner surrenders outside the scope of those that the county is mandated to take are often about owners’ deficits and mismanagement. Issues that could be managed by providing counseling before accepting a surrender, as former Multnomah County Animal Control Director Hank Miggins once required.

There is no veterinary social work position to proactively help people keep their animals when a crisis occurs. Frequent adoption returns and high intake from owner surrenders are challenges that should be met with policy change, but the management instead chooses to prioritize speedy intake with speedy adoption to create space.

“‘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,Erin Grahek said.”

That program has failed completely. First, a leader must know the difference between competent effective sheltering and poor sheltering. A distinction that is not learned from following the managers’ lead. It has to come from a director’s lived professional experience or they will not be able to lead, and instead be relegated to a director in title only. Operations manager, Marian Cannell hired in November 2022, and the supervisory managers demonstrably lack the skills and background necessary to run a humane progressive animal shelter that meets this community’s needs. Management positions have been filled based not upon skills proficiency and a broad-based search, but upon personal loyalty to existing management.

The community and homeless animals bear the costs of government failure. The February 2023 report from OPB April Erhlich could just as well be today’s report.


Service to managers is more important than serving the community, what is really needed to return service to the community is a system of accountability.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Jason Renaud’s Respite Program proposal from September 2022

Cornell University: Shelter’s Move Towards Alternatives, Dogwatch Newsletter, Vol 4, No.20, April 2016

Jasmin’s [292723] records, redacted

Rationalizing the cruelty of killing Sheba, a senior Aussie who exceeded her stay

Followup to: Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba

Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270

On September 23, 2024, the Rounds Review committee recommended Sheba, also known as Sundown, to be killed. Two days later on September 25, 2024, she was labeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable” despite all recorded evidence to the contrary.

Management does not justify their euthanasia decisions beyond labeling animals as “unhealthy and untreatable.” Rather than meet professional expectations of accountability, they have lowered expectations upon themselves making dogs pay the price.

The MCAS management has categorically rejected behavior and training, despite recommendations by formal audits in 2016 and 2018. Recommendations that had been glibly acknowledged in 2018, despite recent reporting by the Oregonian in 2023 demonstrating that there is still a dire lack of training throughout the agency’s personnel. This lack of training is especially problematic since the demographic the shelter serves significantly disadvantaged areas and whose adopters are often ignorant about animal behavior. Problems that all contribute to a protocol defaulting to euthanasia for convenience or ‘savings’ on space or medical care.

September 23, 2024, 9:45 AM Rounds Review:

Rounds discussed and will move forward with humane euthanasia due to unpredictable aggressive behaviors outside of the shelter and lack of transfer resources.

If Sheba’s behaviors were truly motivated by “unpredictable aggression outside of the shelter” then she would be very unlikely to be made available to rescue.

There was no evidence during Sheba’s extended stay at MCAS concerning “unpredictable aggression” with dogs or people in any notes despite the fact that she was in multiple play groups with other dogs. In every one she was friendly and tolerant of other dogs.

May 8, 2024, Behavior Notes, prior to adoption on May 8, 2024:

PLAYGROUP

Greeting: Panting, walked over to fence with handler. A little avoidant of dogs initially, Turned and sniffed them. Small butt wiggles. Steerable.

Entry: Walked in, greeted handlers. Tolerated other dogs sniffing her. Sniffed them back.

Summary: Dog tolerant to dog social. Sniffing with dogs. Hung out by handlers. Friendly with people and interested in dogs. Limited energy.”

September 20, 2024, Behavior Notes, after being returned on September 10

PLAYGROUP

Greeting: Brief snffs with with dogs. Went off and sniffed around and peed. Checking in with Runner, tail wagging.

Entry: Walked in. Tolerated sniffs from other dogs. Gave a few brief sniffs.

Yard Summary: Hung around Primary and Secondary [Playgroup handlers], sniffing their legs and wagging. Started whining, jumping, and soliciting pets. Some whining and panting next to handlers. Dog tolerance seen in play group.”

After the Rounds Review committee decided that Sheba should be euthanized due to “unpredictable aggression,” she was in another playgroup that showed exactly the same friendly behaviors she had consistently shown in playgroups prior.

September 23, 2024, Behavior Notes, after her euthanasia schedule was finalized

PLAYGROUP

Greeting: Whining at the fence. Tail wags at all the handlers.

Entry: Walked in and sniffed with Mirage [Another dog], FDBD sniffs [muzzle sniffs and butt sniffs] with tail wags.

Yard Summary: Wagging tail and whining at the fence, soliciting pets from the handlers. Interested in other dogs but gets overwhelmed. Will greet new dogs, More interested in people. Solicited pets and attention.”

Nothing about her behavior met any standard for aggression at MCAS.

April 30, 2024, Intake notes after being held in protective custody for abuse and/or neglect.

Behavior observations: Very overweight and severely matted along entire body. Somewhat nervous and avoidant during exam, but allowed all handling and readily accepted treats throughout exam. This animal is being placed under protective custody for further investigation into her poorly [sic] condition. Once cleared from PC [Protective custody] can be placed up for adoption inf not RTO [Returned to owner].”

On her adoption return intake notes, no personal aggression was observed. Nor was any aggression towards people observed throughout the remaining days of her shelter stay.

September 10, 2024, adoption return intake notes

Exam performed when in admissions room – nothing appeared amiss, able to administer [de]wormer and flea control without issue. No aggression during time in shelter, able to easily kennel ( from outside, other dogs shut inside) and take off loop, no sensitivity shown.

Placing on rounds for review.

All behavior notes before and after her return were positive.

Why was Sheba killed for “unpredictable aggression” outside of the shelter, when none of those behaviors were reported in a stressful shelter?

MCAS never sought clarification of the owners’ reports of “unpredictable aggression” towards people and/or dogs. The only information provided by the adopters was that during their 4 month adoption Sheba “had bitten 3 or 4 times during her time away, none causing bleeding to their knowledge, only ripping pants once…” and “that they cannot keep her because of her behavior.

Had MCAS managers taken any interest in seeking to understand what was reported to be “unpredictable” about Sheba’s behavior despite the fact that there was no evidence of unpredictable behavior at MCAS, they could have easily discovered the likely challenge in other comments the adopters made in the notes:

September 11, 2024

Wife of [adopter] called in and wanted to provide more information about their time with the dog. She said that the dog had pretty intense separation anxiety, doesn’t think dog does well with children, but says the dog bonds pretty intensely to the person to the person that brings her home. Also states that she thinks the dog would do well for someone who has a yard, because their place didn’t have a yard so she would take the dog out for exercise and stated dog reacted strongly to other dogs and people.”

MCAS’ failure to follow up with an informed interview transitions into failing its community and shelter animals. They are responsible for their welfare and fates.

To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.

When It Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels, by Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D, CAAB, from DogWatch Newsletter, March 2006.

The behaviors that the adopters may have intended regarding the difficulties they reported with handling Sheba could easily be commonplace leash reactivity alongside being protective of the adopter. This is especially likely if the adopter was holding the leash tightly, exhibiting anxiety that led to Sheba feeling anxious and taking a protective stance.

Educating her adopter was one remedy. However, MCAS also considers owner, adopter and foster surrender counseling irrelevant to addressing behavior concerns. The primary way they have addressed behavior concerns has been over prescribing tranquilizing medication not unlike how unethical nursing homes drug out their residents to keep them quiet.

A different adopter with a better understanding of dogs and behavior would have also been an option. Scholarly research supports that most failed adoptions are about owners, not dogs.

Study: Saving Normal: A New look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters

Findings: There is no compelling evidence “for the notion that the general population of relinquished dogs in shelters are there because of relationship-breaking behavioral incompatibilities in their prior home.” Most dogs labeled “behavior” are normal as “surrenders often say more about the people doing the surrendering – about ‘owner-related factors, needs, and expectations’ – than the dogs being surrendered.” As such, shelters should stop thinking of dogs as having “behavior problems” and instead refer to them as ‘behavior incompatibilities” with the person they were living with before being surrendered.”

No Animal Left Behind, Nathan Winograd, October 25, 2024

Saving Normal: A New Look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters

Being loved and cherished is not incompatible with having some behaviors or habits owners might prefer dogs not have, if given the choice.

There was a time when parents following an incident with the family dog would ask: “What did you do to the dog?” There was nothing wrong with Sheba. MCAS never fact checked the adopter’s report. They then robbed her of her life because animal care isn’t a managerial priority, but saving on money and space is. There were multiple options and this is made clear in other parts of the record.

‘But the trains have to run on time.’

September 15, 2024,

Emailed breed specific rescues.

September 18, 2024

Rounds met and we are waiting to see if a rescue comes forward. Will FU [Follow up] 9/23

September 19, 2024

HUNAH [Herd U Needed A Home | Border Collie And Mixed Canine rescue] declined due to lack of fosters.

September 22, 2024

Emailed senior dog rescues.

Took Sheba to Agility. Took treats eagerly at back of kennel. Mild pulling. Kept stopping to eat foliage. Back at kennel accepted pets, butt wiggling all the while.

Rounds discussed and will follow up 9/23 on rescue placement.

When no senior rescue responded in the single day they waited, the managers ordered Sheba killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.” She was viewed as expired merchandise.

When managers prioritize securing vacation time, pay, and ease in work, they treat criticism as antagonism and see no reason to improve their performance so long as county officials have their back.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


MCAS Records for Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270 , Redacted

MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

Updated from initial posting: TIME SENSITIVE/URGENT: Please protest Malaki’s impending death

Malaki, MCAS ID# 324511

Malaki’s death was ordered by MCAS on September 29, 2024 and carried out on October 02, 2024 despite his happy nature, quality of life, and the existence of realistic humane alternatives. The humane alternatives ranged from management to curative.

On September 30, 2024, the day after Malaki was ordered killed by the MCAS’ Rounds Review, his behavior notes in a play yard outing challenged their description that he was moribund, medically unhealthy and untreatable (DM-UU 2: Moribund/End stage disease). Public pleas for his life went unheeded.

September 30, 2024

Brought him out to a play yard. Knows sit, sat to let me leash him up. Very friendly and wiggly boy. Ran around the play yards Sniffed everything. Some interest in tennis balls. Mostly just wanted to hold them in his mouth. Spent most of the time jogging and walking around. Flopped on the grass and solicited pets, loves belly rubs. Played a little in the pool water. Sy came to take him for a walk through Agility. Very sweet and friendly dog, loves dogs and people. Playful.

September 29, 2024 Rounds Review.

Due to severe medical issues affecting his QOL [quality of life] electing euthanasia with veterinary recommendations.

Nothing in Malaki’s record supported killing him. The contrast between the two entries could not be more at odds. The agency’s veterinarian, a primary care veterinarian, Dr. A. Fischbach, never consulted with veterinary rehabilitation specialists or surgery specialists. This is despite describing medical conditions that are wholly objectively treatable, manageable, and correctable–if animal care was a managerial priority.

On September 12, 2024 Dr. Fischbach examined Malaki for reported lameness.

Animal Care Review (ACR):

Mobility issues in hind end. Started Carprofen 9/8 for discomfort.

Musculoskeletal:

-Ambulatory x4 with hind end stiffness

-Resists extension of both hips; slight yelp on extension of left hip

-Mild crepitus [joint popping, caused by a number of things, including air bubbles, or Arthritis can cause bones to rub together, which can lead to pain and stiffness] in left tarsus [the bones of the ankle and foot]

A [Assessment]:

-Hind end stiffness- r/o OA [osteoarthritis] DJD [degenerative joint disease], hip dysplasia, IVDD [Intervertebral disc disease] open

P [Plan]

-Decrease carprofen to 200 mg PO SID and continue indefinitely

-Recommended adopter monitor mobility and for signs of pain and establish care with their vet to discuss diagnostic and management options


Medically clear: yes with indemnity for suspected OA/DJD

On September 21, 2024, Dr Fischbach reviewed veterinary records and radiographs from a private veterinary clinic, indicating a concern for a bilateral cruciate ligament injury and chronic pain in October 2023. The owner at that time described Malaki as struggling to hold himself up to urinate and defecate.

Eleven months later, in September 2024, Maliki was able to run around and play with other dogs while at MCAS. The only intervention was carprofen for pain relief. There was no reference at MCAS about difficulties holding himself up. He was described as able to walk and even run, meaning whatever physical compromises Malaki had did not interfere with his current quality of life. He was not functionally disabled.

Nevertheless, Dr. Fischbach withdrew her previous medical clearance and recommended euthanasia if all of the speculative conditions and speculative care needs could not be provided. She did this without consulting specialists in veterinary rehabilitation medicine or surgeons knowledgeable about the physical compromises Malaki was reported to possibly have.

Long term pt will need surgery for cruciate ligament disease as well as physical therapy, and additional treatments for chronic osteoarthritis (Adequan injections, Librela injections, joint supplements).”

If unable to provide the above, recommend humane euthanasia due to chronic pain affecting [quality of life].”

Why?

Why were there no veterinary consultations when that is the purpose of Dolly’s Fund, a restricted donation driven fund for the special medical needs of shelter animals?

Why save Dolly’s Fund and not the dog?

Suspected cruciate ligament injuries can successfully be addressed through surgery. Pain from almost any condition, including osteoarthritis, can be managed and controlled through multiple modalities including medications and laser light therapy, among others. Even agility carts play a role in creating mobility options for dogs with mobility compromises. As far back as 2005, a Malamute was ironically featured in a report in Dogwatch March 2005, titled “Get Them Moving Again: Customized two-wheel carts can help dogs with mobility problems enjoy life. Carts introduce mobility back to dogs of all sizes. Carts are available for rent at low cost at Back on Track Veterinary Rehabilitation Center in Portland, Oregon.

It had already been confirmed throughout Malaki’s behavior described in agency’s notes that Malaki’s pain was already well managed even without confirmed diagnoses and curative treatment.

Dolly’s Fund was never accessed despite its availability and a large endowment that increases daily. That is because if MCAS cannot foist off dogs with medical needs to other rescues, their second plan is to intentionally mislabel them as “unhealthy and untreatable” because they do not want to provide needed care.

When Washington Malamute Rescue (WAMAL) declined to take Malaki, Malaki’s life ended despite that his condition was neither severe nor incurable. He became inconvenient.

September 29, 2024

WAMAL Declined due to no space and they wouldn’t be able to provide the necessary care he needs.”

MCAS could provide care. It was dipping into Dolly’s Fund, the managers wanted to avoid because they have diverted the funds away from animal care. They could easily have paid for Malaki’s consultation through Dolly’s Fund and his follow up care through an MCAS foster. That was once practice. Afterwards they could have featured Malaki as an example of the good work Dolly’s Fund was providing sheltered indigent animals.

MCAS managers didn’t want to take care of him, so they killed him as a convenience. By mislabeling him as “unhealthy and untreatable,” they disowned their deliberate failure to provide care, and their cruelty, knowing he indeed had a fine quality of life. They took that away from him.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Malaki’s Records, redacted save for Dr. A. Fischbach’s references

Priest: The shocking abuse of a street dog MCAS failed to protect

Priest, ID# 272726

The KGW news report that following the search-and-seizure warrant executed [October 8, 2024] from a home in the Portland’s Lents neighborhood, where 15 animals were taken, some people in the neighborhood said they had made several complaints to animal services over the last few years and nothing was done is familiar.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/there-was-a-threat-made-neighbors-still-living-in-fear-following-15-dogs-cats-rescued-from-portland-home/283-fd9eb5f7-cef2-4be4-a93c-115102196f0b

MCAS’ failed due diligence over animal neglect and abuse: When dogs bite people it’s news. When people hurt dogs, its not.

Priest (formerly known as Prince), a Labrador Retriever American Pit bull mix, first came to MCAS’ attention on August 16, 2022 when a social worker, who frequently visited the Prince’s owners, reported significant concerns about his physical care and welfare including knowing one partner had struck and physically punished Prince. Similar concerns were expressed on November 19, 2022, February 8, 2023, and June 11, 2023.

MCAS visited and did nothing despite the credibility of the reporters. Finally, on October 6, 2024, an unknown homeless party surrendered Prince claiming he was aggressive, pointing to scars on his arm that he reported required stitches. Since he was unlikely to have stitched the alleged bites himself, there would be previous medical and quarantine reports. None are on record. MCAS sought no corroboration of any of the alleged bite injuries or alleged incidents.


MCAS due diligence failures occurred at multiple junctures in Priest’s short life, including a deplorable failure to investigate the claims made by the homeless individual who surrendered Priest on October 6, 2024, tying him to a tree and alleging that he was at large trying to bite people. He reported that Priest belonged to another homeless person who had left Priest in his care because that individual was no longer able to care for him. No effort was made to verify that ownership was transferred. Priest’s known owner’s name and housing location was on record. When the homeless caretaker, not the owner, surrendered Priest he showed off scars on his arm describing them as scars from significant previous bites that required stitches.

There was no reported bite on October 6, 2024, despite the fact that the caretaker was chasing Priest, caught and tied him to a tree, so the officers photographed alleged previous bite scars from alleged previous incidents they made no effort to verify.

By state law, medical facilities must report bites for quarantine purposes. The officers sought no corroborating information, including prior quarantine or medical reports which would be on file at MCAS since the reported bites required medical care i.e. stitches. The officers also failed to ask questions about circumstances that led to the claimed bites for which no documentation apparently exists.

Instead, the responding officers unquestioningly transcribed whatever the surrendering individual reported, i.e. that Priest would bite without warning, and that he had allegedly acquired Priest from another homeless individual who had left Priest in his care because that individual was not able to care for him. They did not ask the name of that party to verify the report. Given that alleged dire warning, they allowed a woman familiar with Priest to load him into the truck without incident.

Why was Priest so compliant about being chased, tied to a tree, and then permitting another homeless person to load him into the animal control truck without incident, while the officers stood by?

CAUTION! MULTIPLE bite history reported to be unpredictable and aggressive toward people and dogs!”

Where was the evidence? Evidence would exist if there were a series of severe dog bites requiring medical intervention, in particular stitches. The agency ‘s own records do provide clear evidence of repeated abuse towards Priest. There is not one bite complaint on file but there are multiple animal welfare checks from the public concerned about mistreatment towards Priest, beginning in 2022, including beatings and neglected care that MCAS addressed cavalierly leaving him unprotected to suffer.

August 16, 2022, Complaint 273770, Cruelty and Neglect:

PR is social worker and has become increasingly concerned for the safety of a houseless couples dog. She visit [sic] frequently and has noticed that the dog is often without water and is tied to a tree consistently and appears to be underfed. She also states she knows that the boyfriend has hit the dog…. Jamie [The owner] is currently suffering from a mental crisis. I greeted a couple that were located next to the address in a tent. The man stated that he did not but was aware of the dog and dog owner in question. The man stated that the dog owners JAMIE and ANTONIO were a houseless couple who lived inside the Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge. …The man said the dog is known to be aggressive and is known to be tied to the trees for long periods of time. The man stated that he has watched the dog on several occasions for days at a time before Jamie comes back.”

The officer located the owner with Priest, saw Priest was leashed and had access to food, water and shelter. She took at face value the owner’s statement that when Priest was left, he always had access to water, food and shelter, discounting first hand reports of neglect from other witnesses. The officer offered food and a muzzle, closing the complaint stating no violations were found at the moment and resources were given.

November 19, 2022, Complaint 276216, Cruelty Neglect:

PR states that she works for street response and has client who isn’t properly caring for their dog (small black dog with white patch on chest). PR states that the dog is owned by a couple and the male consistently hits the dog and the dog was ran over by a bicycle about two weeks ago and is limping… PR is requesting a welfare check.”

December 1, 2022,

I arrived at the location listed and found Prince off leash while JAMIE was attempting to recall him. I asked JAMIE how I could help and she stated that “Prince” would not listen to her. JAMIE then stated she has a back injury and cannot move fast enough to get “Prince.” After some time, a person who “Prince” was fond of arrived and jumped into their arms. Jamie was then able to leash “Prince.” I explained to JAMIE that “Prince” needs to have a collar or harness on at all times. I also suggested that she keeps “Prince” on tie down with supervision if she is unable to handle him due to her injuries. I explained to Jamie that we can ticket for this and will let her off with a warning this time but further violations will lead to a citation. During this interaction, I observed “Prince” to be in ideal condition and was not limping.”

The officer made a welfare check regarding Priest’s limping weeks after the complaint and never addressed the primary complainant’s concern about physical abuse except for a mild suggestion:

I then explained the reason of the visit to JAMIE. JAMIE explained that sometimes ANTONIO yells at “Prince” and can handle him rough but he does not abuse the dog. I then explained to JAMIE that “Prince” appears to be in ideal condition but suggested she tells ANTONIO to handle him gentler or we maybe have to visit them again.”

The officer was excusing the abuse, trivializing credible reports, and instead focusing on leash ordinances violations.

February 8, 2023, Complaint 278100, Source OHS:

Our vet hospital staff relayed a concern to us this afternoon. I am checking to see if you have the resources to attempt a welfare check on the dog. OHS was contacted by a person looking for vet care for a dog that was apparently hit by a car yesterday in front of several witnesses. The caller is not the dog owner. The dog owner lives in a tent at Milwaukee and Mitchell, …I don’t have a description of the tent. The hit by car happened yesterday at that location. The dog is reported to be in the tent, not moving, not eating, crying. The caller thinks the dog is critically injured. The dog is a lab/pit mix, black in color, named Priest. Apparently the dog has been hit by cars and bikes before. …Caller stated the boyfriend of the dog owner is also physically abusive of the dog…”

On February 9, 2023 the officer arrived at the campsite, the tents had been relocated to the other side of the park where there were 3 tents, one with a crate outside. No one was present. He did not know which tent belonged to the Prince’s owner so he left.

When the officer returned the next day on February 10, he learned someone had called the Portland Police and they had taken Prince to Dove Lewis. Dove Lewis did not do x-rays because the homeless owner did not have funds and recommended that if Prince was still limping in a few days he be taken to a cheaper veterinary clinic for follow up. The officer observed that day that Prince was still limping on his back leg, and advised the homeless owner to take Prince to a veterinary clinic for follow up because the injury could be a fracture. He would be back in a week to see that the owner had complied. He did not direct the owner to resources.

On February 16, 2024 the officer followed up, the x-rays had still not occurred. The owner had a voucher for a free x-ray but no transportation to collect it.

March 1, 2023, the officer returned to the park; the camp had been cleared. The officer had a telephone number for the owner’s partner but could not immediately reach him so he closed the case.

During this incident complaint, at no point did MCAS offer active assistance, for example, driving to redeem the free voucher needed for the x-rays and dropping it off to the owner when transportation was the restriction. They never addressed the frequent credible reports of abuse. Instead, they were bystanders to neglect and harm.

June 11, 2023,Complaint 281166, Officer report:

I was greeted by the vet staff and the dog owner,…whom I had met previously for several complaint [sic] all unfounded. JAMIE stated that last night, her dog “Priest” stepped on a clamp the night before, she stated that she attempted to get the clamp off the dog but was unsuccessful.”

The officer transported Priest and his owner to Dove Lewis for care but had no questions about how a dog could become caught in a clamp. The dismissal of all previous neglect and abuse charges as “unfounded” beggars reality. What is fact is that reports of abuse were marginalized and dismissed without investigation.

On October 6, 2024 Priest was impounded and taken to MCAS, with an unchecked uncorroborated report by a caretaker that he bites without warning.

The day he arrived MCAS attempted an admissions exam despite his high levels of distress.

October 6, 2024 Admissions Exam Attempt #1

“…Did not want anything to do with treats, did not come closer than just outside guillotine door, Hardly registered hot dogs thrown in from a distance, simply stared. Due to this behavior and ACO notes regarding quick behavior changes and biting without warning, requesting behavior care and waiting a day before attempting any contact for safety.”

October 7, 2024: Admission Exam Attempt #2

Approached kennel front, Priest was resting on bed in kennel. He raised his head and looked at me and began growling. I knelt down and called his name, he began to slowly get up with tense, forward posture while hard staring and continued whale eyed and growling. Given his history and current behavior, I am not comfortable attempting to interact with him beyond this today, ended interaction.”

No one should examine a traumatized dog the day of intake and “fail” them. At MCAS, management’s subjective fears replace establishing objective facts every time. Fear not facts drive employee and management behavior most of the time.

Nothing in previous complaints suggest Prince was a dangerous dog who bit without warning. In fact he was the victim of abuse. He was by report easily managed at the camp among persons who knew him. The bite reports were never verified.

Priest was repeatedly failed by MCAS and his story, the story of one homeless dog who lived unprotected by the animal control agency charged with protecting him and animals in danger, will likely end sadly, saving those who victimized him, killing him, the victim of abuse.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Priest’s Public Records, redacted

From Shelter to Prison: When MCAS creates its own “space” problem

Operations Manager Marian Cannell, the current defacto MCAS director, came on board the Titanic in November 2022. Since then, a significant escalation of dogs held indefinitely in legal custody has occurred at MCAS. For example, September 29’s intake records show 25 out of 50 dogs were there on an indefinite protective custody legal hold (record attached). Dogs on protective custody legal hold are subject to the shelter’s notoriously poor animal care. It is as though the dogs are being punished for the alleged misdeeds of their owners.

The dogs held indefinitely on protective custody legal hold represent a dramatic escalation. The rationale behind why they are being held is worth asking. The reasons they are being held cannot be reviewed since these are legal cases and the records, including the animal care records, are redacted until the case is closed. In two recently released cases where the records have been released (attached below) the dogs were the victims. MCAS killed both once the legal cases were resolved, lending ironic meaning to the term “protective custody.”

Managers will tell anyone who asks that they are holding the dogs in custody for the city and county but it is MCAS that seeks and filing the charges most of the time. It seems a zealous focus on enforcement over sheltering, without any clarity about why so many more dogs are on legal hold, lending to the perception that the agency has been repurposed as a dog prison. Like a prison, the shelter suffers from over capacity issues because so many become long term residents, but unlike a prison, dogs don’t have the rights to not be killed for space because the prison needs “room.”

Marian Cannell, with Director Erin Grahek’s full cooperation, has redirected the agency’s mission away from its funded intention of prevention, education, and service to one of treating animals not as companions whose lives deserve respect but as potential pests, nuisances and liabilities best killed.

The kill rate for dogs judged “unadoptable,” for reasons that are not professionally justifiable, has escalated dramatically. For example, a distressed dog who snapped when a muzzle was forced on him and also when a loop leash was swung over his head, was judged “unsafe,” unhealthy, and untreatable, then killed. He was not. There were solutions short of killing him for signs of agency stress.

No one in government has meaningfully addressed the regression that fails to meet the needs of this community, let alone national standards for animal care. There are less draconian solutions than impoundment, followed by execution, for dogs placed on protective custody legal hold. The shelter is uninterested in alternatives and has not explained why there has been such a dramatic increase in enforcement cases and custody holds. Is it a need or just a matter of preference?

When MCAS complains about space limitations, in large measure it is self inflicted. The response from a failing agency that makes poor choices has not been creating a system of accountability, but more funding to support failure after a pointless review process.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Two records, formerly protective legal custody holds. Redactions have been applied to protect the identities of private persons and non-managerial staff.

MCAS In Care Inventory snapshots: September 30 2024 vs September 25 2023.
Redactions indicate dogs in protective custody legal holds.

TIME SENSITIVE/URGENT: Please protest Malaki’s impending death

Updated in: MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

Malaki, ID# 324511

Malaki is a sweet-natured senior Alaskan Malamute mix set to be euthanized due to ambulatory compromises. Malaki qualifies for Dolly’s Fund and foster care.

Under the current management, MCAS has discontinued accessing the over one million dollars in Dolly’s Fund restricted to the medical needs of shelter animals. Instead in violation of the intent of the public fund, they have re-directed donated monies to spay and neuter vouchers and, at most, comfort care should dogs with medical concerns be transferred to Dove Lewis for care.

Concerns about management conduct

1. Inappropriate behavior testing

While seeking rescue options, why did the management place Malaki in 2 dog play groups, one on September 20, 2024 and another on September 23, 2024 to assess his dog compatibility skills when chronic pain affects behavior and when physical activity aggravates a bilateral cruciate ligament injury?

2. Not valuing the lives of dogs with disabilities

Why are the only options MCAS considers rescue or death for handicapped animals even as the agency continues to gather public monies for the special medical needs of shelter animals but instead redirects it elsewhere?

The Oregon Humane Society declined to take Malaki back on September 14, 2024 after obtaining veterinary radiographic records taken in October 2023 for Malaki. The attending veterinarian suspected advanced bilateral cruciate compromises that the OHS medical team does not have the capability to treat. Now MCAS managers are seeking senior dog rescues to take Malaki with a follow up on September 26, 2024, which usually implies a literal deadline: Euthanasia.

On September 21, 2024 the on site MCAS veterinarian outlined a treatment plan that if other rescues could not take him, Malaki should be euthanized. Why?

“Long term [physical therapy] will need surgery for cruciate ligament disease as well as physical therapy, and additional treatments for chronic osteoarthritis (Adequan injections, Librela injections, joint supplements). If unable to provide the above, recommend humane euthanasia due to chronic pain affecting [Quality of life]

Nothing in the record suggests Malaki now on pain relief and other osteoarthritis support medications is suffering at all.

September 07, 2024, Intake notes:

Behavior observations: Dog was easy to loop leash and walk to intake room. Did well for all handlings and treatment. Paced throughout time in exam room and continued to look for a way out of room, scratching door at times. Overall was social with handler. Adoption pathway once medically cleared if not reclaimed.”

September 23, 2024, ‘Behavior Walk’ notes:

Malaki greeted me at his outside kennel with a wiggle butt and a smile, no issues leashing. We did a loop in the front parking lot, he pulled moderately. Accepted contact and leaned in for pets. Returned to kennel and exited without issue.”

September 23, 2024, Play Group notes:

Yard Summary: Had him out for a little while but he kept trying to run around and mount other dogs so we felt it was better to bump him.”

Why kill a happy, well adjusted dog whose pain is controlled and who has a quality of life even without extraordinary measures and interventions?

Live Options

MCAS can pay for specialist consultations with Dr Bianca Shaw of Back on Track Veterinary Clinic who has assisted with MCAS dogs before. They can also pay, often at discount, for a veterinary orthopedic surgeon for a detailed or even cursory review of options from practical management to rehabilitation. Having gone to Back on Track for dogs with far greater compromises than Malaki—one being Tash, an MCAS Akita/Husky mix with significant ambulatory problems—I know compromises can be managed well, from carts to medications, even if they are not cured.

MCAS has claimed it has no resources when it does: Dolly’s Fund. MCAS also has a foster care system that can manage a dog with Malaki’s physical compromises. People are willing to adopt compromised dogs.

They just don’t want to take on the ‘chore’ involved in taking care of medically compromised animals despite having funding through Dolly’s Fund. Even though success stories of animals that are rehabilitated through Dolly’s Fund would directly encourage the effectiveness of the donation driven fund.

If MCAS is unwilling to spend Dolly’s Fund for its purpose, please distribute it to private non-profits and clinics who will help dogs with disadvantages.

This is a community of compassion in fact with mandates directing respect for all lives including those of the handicapped. Please don’t kill Malaki. He deserves his life, unjudged by others.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


The general number is 503-988-7387, it is a hard number to get through sometimes.   Every manager’s phone number and email is listed below:

MCAS Director  Erin Grahek erin.grahek@multco.us, 503-988 6233
Monday through Friday
She took over as interim director starting from the first week of July 2024. She was appointed director in September without a background in animal sheltering.  MCAS has been in crisis with massive staff departures ever since. 

Operations manager Marian Cannell  marian.cannell@multco.us, 503-988-6763
Monday through Friday  

Animal Care Operations Manager andrew.mathias@multco.us,  503-988-9989
Tuesday through Saturday  

Field Services Supervisor Jennifer Turner   jennifer.turner@multco.us, 503-988-9079

Animal Care Supervisor  dalynn.torres@multco.us, 503-988-4610 
Sunday through Thursday

Client Services Manager echo.gill@multco.us,  503-988- 9086
Tuesday through Saturday

Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba

Updated in: Rationalizing the cruelty of killing Sheba, a senior Aussie who exceeded her stay

Sheba, ID# 315270

Sheba (also called Sundown) was a senior Australian-Shepherd mix found severely neglected on April 29, 2024. She was described in her adoption biography as:

Introducing Sundown, the courageous 8 ½ year old Australian Shepherd with a story of resilience. Sundown’s journey has been marked by medical challenges, but her spirit remains unbroken. Despite her obstacles, she exudes warmth and affection, captivating everyone she meets with her soulful eyes and gentle demeanor…

Awaiting euthanasia

How did Sheba go from the adoption floor to death?

As the death rate ticks up at Multnomah County Animal Services, more and more animals die needlessly because of MCAS’ leadership incompetence and venality. The leaders no longer mask their incompetence with plausible deniability. Instead they look for baseless excuses and quote senseless unverified statements to justify the inexcusable killing of shelter animals under their care. Multnomah County government places absolute trust in the agency’s explanations, allowing any excuse to disown its historic failures.

Sheba is only one of the increasing numbers of victims from this county shelter.

On September 23, 2024 “Rounds discussed and will move forward with humane euthanasia due to unpredictable aggressive behaviors outside of the shelter and no rescue options.” They also forgot to add that the moon is made of blue cheese.

Once Shelter Review was a robust meeting that included a diplomate in behavior veterinary medicine, independent trainers, workers and rescues, anyone who had an idea. It no longer does.

Sheba’s plight

Nothing in the records support the claim that any of Sheba’s behavior was at all “unpredictable.” When the managers become restless about which dogs to kill next instead of seeking resources they hunt for excuses. Sheba could have been a foster dog and an adoption with additional requirements but all she really needed was a responsible owner.

The ‘behavior expert’ they consulted was a $25 adopter who opined that during their brief adoption from May 09, 2024 to September 10, 2024 “…she has had bitten 3 or 4 times during her time away, none causing bleeding to their knowledge, only ripping pants once. They stated she’s unpredictable, and is either great with others or terrible, acting aggressively, and that they cannot have keep her because of her behavior.

The unprofessional managers asked no questions. They took adopters’ remarks at face value because they too know nothing about animal behavior. Animal behavior is not “unpredictable.” It is situational and context driven. But they can’t ask questions because they don’t know what questions to ask. No amount of managerial training can correct this misconduct when they are looking for excuses to take a life.

A follow up statement made by the adopters suggests that the behaviors Sheba was exhibiting were leash reactivity. Behaviors that are commonplace, wholly manageable, and correctable.

September 11 2024,

“Wife of [adopter] called in and wanted to provide more information about their time with the dog. She said the dog had pretty intense separation anxiety, doesn’t think the dog does well with children, but says the dog bonds pretty intensely to the person that brings her home. Also states she thinks the dog would do well for someone who has a yard, because their place didn’t have a yard so she would take the dog out for exercise and stated the dog reacted strongly to other dogs and people.”

Sheba displayed no aggression in any playgroup or other setting since the time of her initial impound on April 29, 2024. The very day the managers signed off on her Euthanasia on September 23, 2024, she was noted as being “…interested in other dogs but gets a little overwhelmed. Will greet new dogs. More interested in people. Solicited pets and attention.” She was placed into protective custody hold for severe neglect, not aggression.

Her other playgroups on May 8, 2024 and September 20, 2024 did not suggest the dog aggression the Rounds Review Committee used to justify her killing. The only notes that relate were the vague remarks of the owner taken at face value, despite Sheba’s behavior at the shelter to the contrary.

May 8, 2024

Play group summary: Dog tolerant to dog social. Sniffing with dogs. Hung out by handlers. Friendly with people and interested in dogs.

September 20, 2024

Greeting: Brief sniffs with dogs. Went off and sniffed around and peed.
Entry: Walked in. Tolerated sniffs from other dogs. Gave a few brief notes.
Yard Summary:
Hung around [playgroup staff], sniffing their legs and wagging. Started whining, jumping, and soliciting pets. Some whining and panting next to handlers. Dog tolerance seen in playgroup.

After Sheba’s return to MCAS on September 10, 2024, all of the information about her from the intake, data collection, and walk notes were uniformly positive.

September 10, 2024

Exam performed when in admissions room- nothing appeared amiss, able to administer wormer and flea control without issue. No aggression during time in shelter, able to easily kennel (from outside, other dogs shut inside) and take off loop, no sensitivity shown.

September 18 2024, Walk notes

I had never interacted with Sundown before this interaction. Sundown had a loose wiggly body when I approached her outside kennel. When I entered she kept the loose body and let me easily put the slip lead on her. She ignored the dogs in other kennels. She pulled a little bit, but walked well on lead and wanted to smell around. She responded better to Sheba when recalled She was returned back to her kennel without issue.

Every record of Sheba’s behavior, as noted on the 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, and 22nd, described a very social and friendly dog who loved being with others.

On September 15, MCAS emailed breed specific rescues. On September 19, one declined due to lack of fosters. Another call to senior rescues went out on September 22. Just one day later, the managers declared they had exhausted all options. Their false narrative of inexcusable lies and lack of initiative were the reasons for their decision to kill her. She will be declared “unhealthy and untreatable” to preserve their status as infallible in the eyes of the county government. Sheba was made to pay the price of their failure with her life.

Nowhere else in the county are such well funded managers given so much latitude without accountability to kill helpless animals. Animal care is not improving at MCAS. Its failures are hidden behind smoke and mirrors.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS’ protocol for handicapped dogs; Tic Tac: Kill unless rescued

Tic Tac, ID# 325340

Before 2016, caring for the special medical needs of animals in the community was an actively implemented part of MCAS’ mission. On paper, their Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 budget, it still is.

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 2024-2025 Adopted Budget, page 11.

Current MCAS management ended its quality care commitment to shelter animals, passing off its responsibility to independent rescues. Rescues that, despite lacking the resources of a well funded government agency, are successful in providing quality care to their animals. MCAS has rejected its mission without any public notice and under the cover of silence.

Dolly’s Fund is a public fund restricted to the care of shelter animals with special medical needs now stands at well over a million dollars, with donations increasing daily. It has been intentionally diverted to unrelated expenditures, taken away from animals in need and is now directed in part to fund the agency’s spay and neuter voucher system and, on occasion, emergency visits to Dove Lewis where most commonly MCAS does not approve funding for additional life saving care.

MCAS managers’ refusal to allocate Dolly’s Fund dollars towards the care of its shelter animals with special needs was accompanied by ending the medical and respite foster program. Unless the agency hands off its responsibility towards its special needs animals to a rescue, they are killed as “unhealthy and untreatable.” They do this despite these animals being fully treatable and rehabilitatable.

Physically handicapped animals are denied necessary care unless a rescue or humane organization responds before the Rounds Review, often within days of an animal’s intake, decides to kill the animal. Jackson 322762, a very personable physically handicapped dog, was thriving despite his handicap, was denied care and recently killed despite humane options. If Dolly’s Fund were allocated to his care, his story would have fully captured the letter and spirit behind the donation driven fund.

MCAS should have at minimum provided medical foster and rehabilitation consultation itself, or looked for further options. Instead of the initiative and commitment they purport in their mission, their approach uses short deadlines in which animals are killed unless a rescue intervenes.

Tic Tac, a disabled puppy’s rescue in progress

Tic Tac, a three month old, is a social Chihuahua mix full of vim and vigor. He was taken to MCAS on September 13, 2024 and diagnosed with a bilateral carpal deformity. Meaning that his gait was abnormal; he had difficulty walking because his limbs were fixed in a flexed position and could not be extended.

On September 14, 2024, the county animal care veterinary department medically assessed Tic Tac. The plan was to seek transfer to a rescue for consultation with a neurologist and/or orthopedic surgeon, pending a followup radiograph of the spine and limbs on September 15, 2024. That radiograph showed no overt fractures or dislocation, or evidence of trauma.

September 14, 2024, Vet Consultations Notes:

– Recommend seek transfer to a rescue that can provide further care for severe gait abnormalities; this would involve scheduling a consult with a neurologist and/or orthopedic specialist to discuss surgical treatment options and/or physical therapy/rehab options to see if abnormalities can be corrected/managed; if unable to improve gait with surgery and PT/rehab, the only alternative option would be fitting pt for a cart.

– If no transfer options available, recommend humane euthanasia as abnormalities forelimbs are particularly severe and will affect quality of life if not able to be addressed; not an adoption candidate. …

… Medically cleared? (Yes/No): clear for transfer; not clear for foster or adoption.

Why wouldn’t MCAS pay for a consultation with a veterinary rehabilitation clinic, when Dolly’s Fund is more flush with money than ever been? Why would MCAS assume that nobody in a progressive city and county would adopt or foster a special needs dog after a treatment and care plan was in place?

Tic Tac showed everyone that handicaps are not the end of life. His feisty personality is so clear in notes on September 15, 2024.

“… Approaches kennel readily. Whimpers, grumbles and howls to solicit attention. Prefers to be at front of kennel to watch hospital staff members. Cuddly, did great in medical swing carrier while entering data at desk. Allows treatment and handling readily including unsedated rads. Dog selective- suddenly stood up and began barking and growling loudly while treating large lab in hospital next to kennel. Redirected and quieted after several minutes with positive verbal reinforcement…

Tic Toc’s record illuminates another enormous vacuum at MCAS: Waivers dismissing responsibility replace training and behavior that address challenges thoughtfully with a plan. Waivers, including “dog selective” waivers, are intended only as cautionary warnings that don’t inform or teach. Their primary intention is to protect the agency management by ensuring that the adopting parties ‘have been advised.’ A positive reinforcement plan is about seeking change and would include rewarding a dog for responding positively not fearfully as the distance to stressors is incrementally reduced.

MCAS has the resources to care for Tic Tac and other dogs like him and once did care for them. Whether a rescue has stepped forward for Tic Tac is not known yet. MCAS has the resources, they just don’t want to put out the effort. There are no consequences for killing as a convenience.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock