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.
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.
