Tag Archives: Oregon

The practice of sport of killing fearful dogs: Cola and Jubilee

In February 2024, MCAS managers lowered the bar for euthanasia dispositions to accommodate their singular lack of initiative, caring, effort, and service to the public good. They did so without public permission or expert review. Frightened shelter animals have paid the price. Responsibility for their deaths is disowned by labeling all unwanted animals “unhealthy and untreatable” when all of the evidence is to the contrary: healthy but scared, or treatable, manageable and rehabilitatable.

The shelter will never euthanize an animal due to space constraints and only considers euthanasia as an option for animals deemed dangerous.” — Margi Bradway, director of the Department of Community Services

MCAS kills animals without cause all of the time in management sessions. These meetings are closed to experts, rescues, volunteers and staff, who once attended and were part of decisions. It is an abuse of power, but MCAS is never held to account.

Cola MCAS 386348 and Jubilee MCAS 386349, 10 month old American Shelter Dogs

Cola ID# 386348 and Jubilee ID# 386349, both 10 month old American Shelter Dogs, were brought into MCAS on February 25 by a Good Samaritan who found them on an exit off I-205. The Good Samaritan reported she leashed and got them into her car easily. They were killed a week later with Cola killed on March 8, and Jubilee on March 5, 2026. Both were reported to be “unhealthy and untreatable.”

No one would consider 7 days a genuine “trial” effort. The reasons listed by the management for killing them speak to a management culture of explicit incompetence and indifference. Excuses replace solutions. When a professional in a public position of authority doesn’t know what to do, they seek expert advice, such as on how to deal with avoidant fearful dogs. Killing the animal is never the first choice.

Cola, ID# 386348, a 10 month old American Shelter Dog

March 7, 2026, Rounds Review:

Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to sustained levels of fear, lack of progress in the shelter that result in poor quality of life.”

It was a litany of uninspired excuses.

Cola was not afraid before coming to MCAS. MCAS is a terrifying agency for most dogs. It is an environment characterized by a bombardment of constant toxic levels of noise, deprivation of proper care (few outings, socialization and exercise opportunities) addressed only by escalating levels of psychotropics.

MCAS director Erin Grahek, no longer contracts with trainers or veterinary behaviorists, as was once practiced. Since that is an irrational position, it can only be surmised to be driven by opposition to questioning the shelter’s decisions about animal dispositions.

For example, when staff does not know how to manage fearful dogs, don’t pursue a fleeing animal, teach them. ‘Data collection times 3’ is doing the same thing over and over again seeking a different result. That’s not a plan, nor is it an “intervention.”

These are the last entry notes before Cola was ordered killed. It was his first priority walk to be followed up on March 6, 2026 after which he was ordered euthanized.

March 6, 2026, Priority Walk:

I met Cola at his inside intake kennel. He greeted me at the gate with whale eyes, tense body, and fast tail wags to the left. He accepted a piece of hot dog from my hand through the gate, but immediately darted away, defensive barking and weight on his back legs. I decided to go around to the outside kennel and close in the dogs around him to see if that would decrease his FAS [Fear, anxiety, stress]. He greeted me the same way at his outside kennel, taking tossed hot dog and then immediately running away while defensive barking.

I entered the kennel and crouched low to the ground, placing pieces of hot dog to the right and left of me, at decreasing distances from me each time. He eventually was able to take a treat from my hand. At this point, introduced the leash to him, laying it on the ground next to a couple of treats. He took the treats and sniffed the leash once before darting away. I decided to use a treat lure with a long piece of hot dog to keep distance from his mouth and my hand.

When I presented the slip leash near his head, he immediately tensed and froze, lip curled, and then snapped at the leash, making brief contact with it but not holding on. On the second attempted [sic] he snapped at and bit the hot dog, at which point he he realized it was yummy and decided to start cautiously eating it. I was able to slide the slip lead over his head.
He immediately started slinking/crawling towards the door.

We exited the kennel with him darting back and forth frantically in front and behind me, body low to the ground, ears pinned back, and whale eyes. Every so often he would pancake to the ground and some light leash pressure would get him moving again. We walked by SB and Maximus, at upper agility to which he had no reaction – remained tense, whale eyes, tucked tail, etc.
We made our way down to agility at which point he he half laid/crouched down and peed all over himself and then sat in it- frozen in fear and not wanting to move.

A train was going by at this point which startled him. After it passed, he began walking again and was able to eat a bite of hot dog off of the ground. He continued walking in the same manner back to his kennel. In his kennel he frantically avoided me,
giving me side whale eye with tense low body and tucked tail- nor accepted treats on the ground. I decided to leave the slip lead on him for the moment given his high FAS and reaction when I placed it earlier. I then exited the kennel. As soon as I left, he began to eat the treats I left on the ground.

Forcing a fearful dog to perform violates common sense and every professional guideline. Cola did the best he could. He likely would have thrived in foster care. His life was safer on the streets than in the shelter.

Jubilee, ID# 386349, a 10 months old American Shelter Dog

Jubilee had an even more cursory review before he too was killed.

March 5, 2026, Rounds Review:

Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to severe fearful behaviors that result in frantic attempts to escape human contact to the point of causing self harm

That was one incident on March 2, 2026 that did not result in self harm, and was the result of gross mismanagement.

March 2, 2026, Behavior Notes:

Pet was separated from kennel mates on back side of intake. As I entered, pet retreated to the back corner, occasionally stomping forward and barking with stiff body language. While moving in with a leash, pet jumped up towards the window and was able to climb through, leading to the top of the kennels. He remained avoidant and it took multiple staff members to corral him. He was then leashed and wrapped in a blanket and safely removed from the kennels.

Terrifying and cornering an animal is not how anyone attempts to get a helpless fearful dog out of a kennel.

After 3 data collections on consecutive days, (March 2, 3, and 4) Jubilee was ordered killed. On each day Jubilee would hesitantly alternate between approach and avoidance, never displaying aggressive behaviors.

March 4, 2026, Data Collection:

I entered the inside of kennel. All three dogs were against the side wall, and gave some nervous whining growls and barks. I sat down a few feet from them and began treating. Jubilee stayed between the two other dogs, but would stretch forward to take treats from hand or off the ground. He would push in front of his kennel mates to take them, and climb over Cola (386348) on one or two occasions. If I attempted to move closer to them, or when I pat [sic] the ground next to me he began growling and barked a few times, while shying away. After sitting and treating for several minutes I ended interaction.

An empirical analysis of MCAS euthanasia dispositions

Instead of meeting challenges, MCAS kills the victims. Animals are pre-selected for euthanasia if they do not meet the Operations Manager’s goal of speedy entrance and exit, maximizing efficiency with a focus on inventory management, not public service. Any animal with even a minimum challenge requiring any effort is pre-selected for euthanasia. The search begins for “reasons,” then takes isolated events out of context in order to opportunistically justify killing. A killing that is then labeled as “unhealthy and untreatable.” Its a slick game.

The rest of the Rounds Review go along to get along. Some owe their management promotions to the Operations Manager. What matters is the survival of their collegiate culture, not public service or the lives of shelter animals. The trains run on time.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Cola’s MCAS records, private information redacted

Jubilee’s MCAS records, private information redacted

MCAS’ old Euthanasia policy: “Animals will never be euthanized for lack of space in the shelter.”

MCAS’ current Euthanasia policy: Omitting the language that animals won’t be euthanized from lack of shelter space.

Leash Training for Fearful Dogs: Parts 1 and 2 from Dog Kind Training.com
https://www.dogkindtraining.com/blog/leash-training-part-1
https://www.dogkindtraining.com/blog/leash-training-for-fearful-dogs-part-2

The inexcusably dishonest killing of Buddy, whose jailed owner had no one to redeem him

Buddy, ID#297465

MCAS managers specialize in inventing multiple reasons for killing companion dogs placed in their care. Buddy was a dog with so many positive features and options, killed because they don’t want to make an effort. As a plan they list excuses: Exaggerations, vague generalizations and at times outright dishonest conclusions characterize their work much as a delinquent child might try to explain why they didn’t do their homework. The difference is children aren’t paid but MCAS managers are highly salaried. MCAS managers, without accountability or oversight, kill because that takes less time and effort than trying.

Buddy was the entire emotional support for his owner who was arrested October 15, 2025, and none of the reasons listed for killing Buddy were legitimate. Buddy’s owner just had no friends who could redeem Buddy on his behalf. Respite fosters were once central to MCAS’ now sabotaged pet retention mission. Even without that, Buddy could have easily been placed in a foster or medical foster, He could have also easily been adopted as a special needs dog.

Helping the Pets and People Who Need the Most Support Wade Sadler  MCAS Director February 2020

“At MCAS, Sadler has championed programs to make services more accessible to the pets and people of the community…. “Yes, I care a lot about animals,

but I also want to be able to help the people attached to those animals. We’re considering the social justice perspective relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and what it means for the services we offer. How do we help the people who are struggling, who need the most support, or who aren’t accessing our services?

MCAS managers have completely violated the agency mission.

November 3, 2025

Spoke with Herbe [Multnomah County Department of Corrections, counselor] at 863362- Herbe confirmed that there is not a current release date set for AO. Advised that we have not been able to secure placement, and with pets medical/behavioral history, will likely be moving forward with humane euth. Herbe inquired about an additional week to determine if the AO will be released. Advised that at this point, we cannot offer an extended hold but if she gets additional information, to please call asap in the event the pet is still in our care. Herbe expressed understanding. //jkt”

Understanding that MCAS has given a rigid ultimatum without options is far different from an acceptance of the alleged “reasons” behind the ultimatum. There is no evidence on record that MCAS sought any placement options despite their statement otherwise. Some options are listed above: respite fosters, special adoptions.

In a similar case, as an individual rescue, I took a senior level 2 dog from MCAS who belonged to a prisoner. I boarded his dog and with his permission and, after 6 months, placed her in home. She died of cancer loved and regarded as worth the effort about a year later. No one thought it wasn’t worthwhile. Her name was Mumbles. Do not tell me it can’t be done.

Buddy was killed on November 7, 2025 as DM-UU2, ‘unhealthy and untreatable,’ ‘moribund end stage disease,’ when he was not. All dogs killed at MCAS are labeled unhealthy and untreatable to cover for MCAS lack of effort and responsibility.

November 5 2025, Rounds Review

Rounds met. Due to multiple medical issues that impact quality of life and aggressive behavior towards other animals, move to humane euthanasia.”

What affected Buddy’s quality of life was compelling his death. All of his daily behavior monitoring sheets from August 2025 were positive, some marked with hearts. There are none for his recent admission. It may be a discontinued practice.

The veterinary record contradicts the euthanasia statement made by the managers.

October 31, 2025, Vet Exam

Assessment:
-Gingival mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic
-Subdermal mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic
-Moderate peridontal disease
-Heart murmur [ 2/6 left systolic; regular heart rate and rhythm]

Plan:

Full sedation for biopsies would be necessary to reach diagnosis for both masses, however even if they are benign, they need to be completely excised due to both of them bleeding; this will be a much more involved procedure and needs to be schduled as a mass removal surgery combined with neuter under general anesthesia rather than sedation and small biopsy; this can be done at MCAS when staffing allows but ideally recommend transfer to rescue due to our very limited surgical capacity.

-Given the chronicity of masses and visible characteristics there is a very good chance both masses are benign.

– Recommend transfer to a rescue for behavior reasons as well; he is an EXTREMELY friendly dog toward people but adopters need to be screened since he cannot be around other dogs.”

While living on the streets, there was one dog aggression incident on April 28, 2023 involving a small dog on leash when Buddy was briefly at large. The probationary time for a Level 2 designation, one year, had long passed without any further incidents. An incident does not define a lifetime unless MCAS needs to make it so for convenience. The pictures are not attached to this record.

April 28, 2023, Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary #279900

“ … MARIA stated that she put out her hand to fend off the dog and was bit…Maria stated the owner was close by and was able to regain control of the dog.”

What is remarkable is that living on the streets is challenging for all dogs, and yet there were no further incidents of any sort.

Options

Buddy could have been treated at MCAS accessing Dolly Fund dollars intended for the special medical needs of shelter animals. But that restricted fund is seldom accessed for animals. For interim care, medical fosters are always available. Instead Buddy was killed to save the managers’ effort and time consuming thought.

October 16, 2025

Called MCDC 83689 to speak to Curtis W [AO]

He stated that Buddy was dog aggressive, he also stated that Buddy is trained to do a number of tasks, including turn lights on and off. He also knows sit, lay down and roll over (per owner)”

There are multiple types of dog aggression, every one manageable, some rehabilitatable (for example, common place leash reactivity). MCAS made no effort to seek clarification about what the owner meant by “dog aggression.” All dogs? Under what circumstances? They needed an excuse to kill him then falsified the reason. Buddy was not “unhealthy and untreatable.”

The agency freely violates its public service contract and were this a normal government would be investigated and held accountable.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Buddy’s records, redacted

MCAS’ Pets in Crisis Policy, Started November 2016, ended July 2022

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives, Cornell University, Dog Watch Newsletter, April 2016

Dog-Dog Aggression-Whole Dog Journal May 2024_Pat Miller

Jason Renaud’s Dog Respite Proposal, September 2022

Propaganda instead of progress as MCAS tries to distract from failure

Remember, a dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream.”  — W. C. Fields

MCAS has opted out of course-correction with diversionary propaganda. These are two recent examples of events described as “news” that distract attention away from their failure to help animals in their care at all. None involve animals.

Example 1:

Fantastic newly wrapped transport vans, thanks to the incredible generosity of Friends of Multnomah County Shelter Animals, and our community!…”

New Wheels, New Look: Thank You for Making Our Transport Vans Shine!”

 Jul. 17, 2025

We’re thrilled to announce that MCAS is sporting some fantastic newly wrapped transport vans, thanks to the incredible generosity of Friends of Multnomah County Shelter Animals, and our community!

Thank you for Making our Transport Vans Shine!


MCAS provides the Friends of Multnomah County Shelter Animals with a wish list. MCAS singularly uses micro-chips in its restricted pet redemption efforts. Its pet redemption rate is the lowest in decades for many reasons. Microchips for those who cannot afford them were not on the list.

Example 2: Rare outreach events that do not include animals up for adoption or in need of foster care. This one features costumed pets! But not from MCAS.

Outreach Event: Wood Village Pumpkin Fest

Date and Time

Sat, Oct. 25, 2025
 11:00 am –– 1:00 pm

Join us at the 10th Annual Wood Village Pumpkin Fest at Donald L. Robertson City Park. Pumpkin Fest is an art and cultural event featuring pumpkins, a pet costume contest, and a Trunk-Or-Treat!

Tags 
Outreach Event
READ MORE

During Michael Oswald’s directorship adoption outreach events occurred every week with fewer managers, a smaller budget and a far greater intake that included cats, not just “cats in danger.” A significant number of MCAS adoptions occurred at weekly outreach events. Now even with fancy new vans MCAS cannot make it to the fair. It is a mile too far.


Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Shelter negligence and animal welfare violations: Logan, adopted and abandoned at a homeless camp

Logan, ID# 339745

It is not unusual for MCAS’ $25 adopted dogs to be recycled and end up in the same or worse circumstances than those that compelled their original impoundment at MCAS.

When Logan’s original owner, Charlotte, was hospitalized for a mental health crisis on March 13, 2025, the shelter asked her one day later on March 14 if she had anyone who could reclaim Logan on her behalf. She did not. The MCAS staff person then asked her if she would like to surrender Logan over the telephone and she did not. She was offered no resources. She was then advised of the hold date ending on March 19th. Fear of losing their pets often causes additional grief and distress to hospitalized owners.

March 14, 2025 the day after hospitalization:

…Charlotte then stated she didn’t want him adopted, I [MCAS staff] then advised she loses ownership of her dog after that time should she not come and reclaim. Charlotte understood.”

What Charlotte understood was that MCAS would not help her keep her companion dog. MCAS’ primary funded mission is pet redemption and retention, a mission they deliberately ended without county approval. Maybe they thought no one was looking. An abdication of Governmental oversight and accountability at MCAS has led to a culture of self determination and independence from government rule. They do what they want, not what the county mission instructs. As part of mission elimination, the management also eliminated Pets in Crisis, and Emergency Board, the support for pet retention, labeling them as ‘too cumbersome.’ These support programs were replaced with 6-day owner holds. There are more creative solutions to support owners in crisis, with some alternatives described in the attached files.

The elimination of pet retention programs

MCAS denied Charlotte an extension of the hold time. Denial is discretionary and dependent upon the good will of the operations manager. It can be arbitrary. On March 18, 2025, MCAS management “Called and spoke with the social worker Sarah and let her know that due to shelter capacity that we would not be extending the hold. She is aware and will let owner know.” But respite foster homes are unaffected by “shelter capacity.”

Logan was now “adoptable” from MCAS. He was adopted on March 23, 2025 for $25, quickly becoming ill. On March 28, 2025 his adopter called in concerned about kennel cough symptoms. Nine days after the adoption, on April 6, 2025 the adopter brought Logan back intending to return him. Logan was still ill with kennel cough. The adopter reported that he had never received the promised antibiotics. During admissions after speaking with animal health, the adopter reconsidered surrendering Logan; the necessary prescription was filled, the last contact with animal health.

Logan was next found on August 2, 2025 [Complaint 301537, August 2, 2025] after a citizen called MCAS to report that an individual seemed to be in a mental health crisis, reported to have been “untying his black dog to run loose in the streets.” An MCAS officer responded and the person identified by the complainant, described to the officer that while the dog was tied up he was around all of the time. There was no reference to letting the dog run loose.

The individual the officer had approached reported that “the dog was new to him.” When asked where he had gotten the dog, he responded “…that the animal was tied to his camp a few nights prior and he did not know where it came from.” After running a microchip scan, the MCAS officer discovered that Logan had been identified as adopted from MCAS by someone other than the homeless person who had just recently found him tied to his tent. The officer offered to take Logan to MCAS in order to contact the owner. He advised the homeless finder that he was more than able to come to MCAS to adopt Logan if his owner on record did not reclaim him.

The finder barely knew Logan. No, the homeless finder is not qualified to responsibly adopt Logan. He lives in a tent, where he noted he had to return rapidly out of fear of losing his possessions. He does not have a secure enclosure or the means to care for Logan.

What is anyone at MCAS thinking? The MCAS adopter, although immediately contacted when Logan was taken to MCAS on August 2, has not reclaimed Logan from MCAS. It appears that Logan may have been abandoned by his adopter. Instead of following up on those concerns, MCAS has moved on. Logan is now on “Pre-select” adoptions meaning he can be adopted as of August 9, when the legal stray time for owned animals ended, by anyone with $25 in their pockets.

How is this a “shelter” instead of a con? There were other options.

During Logan’s original impound on March 13, 2025 when his owner was hospitalized, a Portland Police Officer asked to be considered to foster and/or adopt Logan. That offer was ignored. The original owner lost Logan because MCAS would not extend a short hold time permitting a respite foster. In the end, Logan ended up on the streets at risk.

That does not represent responsible animal care and adoptions. What has occurred is the normalization of failure. MCAS is emboldened each time the managers get away with mission violations. That is how corruption starts: One unchecked failure at a time. The mission, caring for and protecting pets and people, disappeared like a magic trick. It flew off, gone into the universe of false promises.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock


Logan’s records, redacted

Dog Respite Proposal, Mental Health Association of Portland

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, DogWatch Newsletter, April 2016.

MCAS’ Adoption page for Logan (link working as of August 15, 2025)

https://www.multcopets.org/adoptable/339745

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