There was a time MCAS had compassion for senior and discarded dogs like Mr. Perfect Potato Esq and Angel Baby, who had been left abandoned at a park when a driver dropped them off in a carrier on February 6, 2026. Not now. Under Director Erin Grahek, Operations Managers Marian Cannell, and Andrew Mathias, medical and foster hospices were disbanded. Instead of a warm place to spend their final days Mr. Perfect Potato Esquire and Angel Baby were impounded and left at MCAS where those abandoned are supposed to get care. Instead dogs like Mr Perfect Potato Esquire and Angel Baby found no safety here.
Both were killed shortly after intake. Their lives were judged by their medical handicaps, that were not progressive and were manageable, instead of their needs for comfort and care in their final days.
Angel Baby was killed on February 8, two days after impound.
Angel Baby – February 7, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds met and elects humane euthanasia due to declining medical and QOL. If the dog’s condition continues to decline, we have approval to move forward with euthanasia at that time. Follow up 2/09.”
The last veterinary technician note entered before Angel Baby’s euthanasia on February 8, 2 days after intake, makes clear that the animal care veterinary staff technician was frustrated by Angel Baby because:
“…Dog continues to not attempt to eat and is fighting against all handling for medications. Proceeding with humane euthanasia due to QOL and current suffering.”
There are no behavioral record notes about Angel Baby’s suffering. It seems that when MCAS staff become frustrated with the care of an animal, instead of seeking advice from an expert, they kill the object of their frustrations and describe it as “quality of life.” Whose quality of life is open to question? Caring for distressed medically compromised animals can be frustrating. The goal is to learn how.
Plan: -Start buprenorphine 0.3 mg/ml, 0.15 ml SC BID for pain while on stray hold -Recommend humane euthanasia at end of hold, sooner if declining or if pt is not eating despite pain management.”
The veterinary technician health exam notes entered the same day, February 6, an hour after the veterinary notes already indicated her frustration at attempting to give Angel Baby an injectable vaccine for pain:
“Health Exam- Admission Behavior Observations: Fear-Anxiety-Stress (FAS) Observed Intake: Low Other Behavior Observations: Allowed all handling for exam and treatments, had difficulty with injectable vaccine.”
Venting frustrations over medical management of a distressed senior dog by killing the dog is inhumane and wrong. Euthanasia was not the only option at the end of the hold time. Even before the end of hold time, Angel Baby could have gone to medical or hospice foster and been monitored in a hospitable environment but MCAS instead opts for a killing efficiency.
Mr Perfect Potato Esq was killed February 12, 2026, 6 days later after the hold period ended, and 4 days after his companion.
February 11, 2026, Rounds Review
“Rounds met and will move forward with DVM recommendation of euthanasia due to multiple medical concerns.”
All of the medical concerns were manageable and treatable
February 10, 2026, Recheck Veterinary Exam
“Assessment: -Severe peridontal disease -Diarrhea -Lethargy -Hyporexia -Stertorous breathing -Geriatric Overall quality of life seems poor.
Plan: Rounds Review. Recommend humane euthanasia. Continue current treatments until then. “
Earlier veterinary notes on February 7, observed
“…Cause of inappetance and possible abdominal pain not identified on radiographs.”
The lab work results reported on February 9, were open, none with any certain diagnostic cause, and none requiring intensive intervention (e.g. low thyroid levels). “Multiple medical concerns,” in particular inappetance, can be managed.
The day Mr Perfect Potato was killed, he started eating.
February 11, 2026, Medical update
“Assessment: Dog ate some of wet food after dose of entyce and did defecate.”
MCAS’ impatient culture regards the lives of senior disabled dogs as not worthwhile. They are killed as “Unhealthy and Untreatable,” when they are not but their lives are not considered worthwhile. These were dogs once fostered by the community. Their support care cost little and their lives were valued. The cure was and still is compassion.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Angel Baby’s records, private information redacted
The 2000 MCAS Citizens MCAS Task Force chaired by Dove Lewis, directed the county to charter a process for progressive humane sheltering at MCAS. It emphasized and incorporated the community’s values and included participants from the community including veterinarians as major participants. It was about ending the needless killing of companion animals. Animals were not to be put to death unless they were irremediably suffering or had a behavior challenge that even after behavior interventions presented a serious public safety risk.
The implementation of humane sheltering charter included:
An MCAS shelter Review Committee
The committee included staff, volunteers, rescues, interested citizens, and, twice a month, a diplomate in behavioral veterinary medicine attended. The diplomate in behavioral veterinary medicine also was on contract to provide animal behavior advice on various agency cases.
The Shelter Review Committees meetings were conducted as open public sessions. Their goal was to seek options and solutions for animals in need. It was not to kill them.
October 2015: The dismantling of the citizens’ task force directive for humane sheltering
The dismantling of MCAS’ humane sheltering mission began with the hiring of Jackie Rose as MCAS Director in late October 2015. Behind closed doors and without scrutiny, Director Jackie Rose created policies contrary to humane sheltering. These policies are still in place today. Director Rose created an authoritarian agency, removing by fiat all public participation and an open democratic decision making process.
The Shelter Review meetings became a private affair: managers only. Decisions about euthanasia no longer permitted public, staff, volunteer or expert participation or input. In new policy statements, staff, citizens and volunteers were denied any say in euthanasia decisions and told they were not permitted to explore options. Meetings once held weekly, during which animal dispositions were discussed and reviewed, now could occur at any time any day of the week. No quorum was required. A pilot behavior and training program, initiated by staff and volunteers to train dogs with special needs to become adoptable, was shut down without explanation or notice.
April 2019: Jackie Rose left to assume the directorship of Ventura California Animal Control after a 2016 and 2018 poor performance audits. Jackie Rose was ousted ‘retired with honors’ from Ventura Animal Control late 2023 after community backlash over precisely the same leadership she showed in MCAS, beginning with the unjust euthanasia of a specific dog.
February 2020: MCAS Client Services Supervisor Wade Sadler took over as acting director, an assignment made permanent shortly after a hasty public advertisement for the director’s position. There was no credible search for a replacement. The directorship was handed down. The failed policies and practices created by Jackie Rose continued under Wade Sadler.
July 2022: Erin Grahek, a former case manager after failing to advance at the Department of Aging and Disabilities, was appointed acting MCAS director and assumed the directorship permanently in July 2022 during the height of an animal care crisis at MCAS. The external search for a director was cursory and short.
While acknowledging her lack of experience (never having served in any capacity in animal services or welfare), Erin Grahek assured the public she would lead by deferring her power and authority to the agency managers.
“Grahek didn’t come to Animal Services with any animal welfare experience. ‘ I will bring on strong professionals who have the animal welfare background that I don’t, and marry that with my experience as a manager and a leader in Multnomah County,’ Grahek said.”
Under their direction, given the creation of a power vacuum, managers replaced the goals of pet redemption and retention with pre-select adoptions marked by significant returns. They dismantled and removed the entire support system for pet retention and redemption: Emergency Board and Pets in Crisis, advising citizens it was not their job. ‘They were not a hotel.’ No official permission was sought for their unilateral change in the agency’s mission from pet retention and redemption to cheap animal sales.
At the same time animal care was undermined, animals with medical care, behavior or other concerns were assigned waivers disowning all responsibility. Fear waivers most often reflect agency conditions for which MCAS is responsible. Now it’s the animal’s “fault,” not the agency’s responsibility.
Dolly’s Fund, a public fund restricted to the special medical care needs of shelter is seldom accessed for animals anymore. If a rescue will not take them, they are killed or adopted with waivers. All compassion for vulnerable animals has vanished. The managers ended medical and hospice fosters. If they cannot be transferred they are killed.
MCAS euthanasia policies were unilaterally changed by the managers. When they failed to succeed at their assignment, they lowered the bar to allow themselves to count failure as success.
No input from others invested in an animal’s life is permitted. The process is not open. The term ‘Shelter Review’ has been renamed ‘Rounds Review’ for a process that has nothing in common with hospital rounds review among professionals. Euthanasia decisions continue to be decided by managers without any background in animal behavior, science or training. The statements made justifying euthanasia for any given animal in nearly every record defy the facts, professional decision making and risk assessment processes. Animals are killed as “unhealthy and untreatable” when they are not. It is a deliberate and a self serving deception intended to mislead the public and conceal their failures. Only the animals are victims and pay the price.
MCAS continues to fail. The leadership is authoritarian. Management is largely selected through a process of nepotism not qualifications.
That is the challenge County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, the Board of Multnomah County Commissioners and Department of Community Services Director Margi Bradway face: Either honor public service and the lives of shelter animals in their care or to capitulate to management welfare and failure.
Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) has an intake of over 7,000 animals per year, and has maintained a high live-release rate for shelter animals even with the trend of increasing intakes. Monthly and annual reports for the division are available online, including all intakes and outcomes, and veterinary services provided for the animals.
The agency’s alleged live release rate does not accurately reflect reality. The reported live release rate is inflated by numerous variables including significant adoption returns. As in, a unique animal being adopted, then returned, then adopted out again means that that animal contributes ‘2’ counts to their live release rate. This is setting aside that a live release rate does not reflect care or housing conditions at MCAS. What MCAS has steadily maintained is a high lie release rate – Where indeed no two days are ever the same.
The agency’s specialties are propaganda and distraction intended to shimmy out of accountability. The evidence is clear throughout records, public experience, and commentary. One must go through the propaganda front first.
These are just a few recent highlights from last week’s records
Deprivation of animal care: The willful abandonment of animals’ emotional and social well being
MCAS Director Grahek and Operations Manager Andrew Mathias systematically continue to fail to meet even the minimum requirements for shelter animal’s mental health and well being (Beyond Food and Water … “Open Paw’s Minimal Mental Health Requirements for Dogs”). They dismantled programs once in place that worked: Regular exercise and enrichment outings into the community; Weekly adoption outreach events; ongoing behavior and training programs to engage animals and improve their lives.
An absence of volunteers
Volunteers are critical to animal welfare. The numbers of volunteers are low compared to animal intake numbers.
On the February 3, 2026 Intake Inventory there were 41 dogs in the adoption kennels; 41 dogs in Intake (including 2 dogs on Security). That means 80 dogs, (less 2 on Security who are generally not walked), needing consistent exercise, enrichment, and walks outside the toxic kennel environment. 40 volunteers dedicated to walking dogs is a very low number.
Those numbers are critically low because MCAS is also a toxic environment for volunteers, not just animals. Often a positive feedback cycle occurs where lack of enrichment and exercise escalate animal stress. Often animals become frantic with the stress of constant confinement. MCAS will warn volunteers to not walk animals if they are uncomfortable when an animal becomes distressed but the managers do nothing to create a safe world for volunteers, staff or animals. The single intervention is copious medication. MCAS will only treat stress with escalating levels of psychotropics, a practice once commonplace at orphanages and any facility where vulnerable populations were housed without oversight. MCAS will solve these concerns with excuses exonerating themselves, not solutions. Creative fiction is their forte.
Volunteer numbers December 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 Dog Walking: 40 volunteers Dog walking Hands On training: 1
January 1, 2026 to January 31, 2026 Dog Walking: 38 volunteers Dog walking Hands On training: 4
MCAS spay neuter and in house breeding program
MCAS continues to fail to spay and neuter every companion animal that is adopted to the public, alleging as one irrelevant distraction (Look here, not there) that more unspayed and unneutered companion animals are being taken in as strays since past history so please excuse them. No, that is not the point. We are speaking about dogs adopted out, not total intake. It’s their job. The fact that the management can’t do their assigned work for overwhelmingly generous salaries and benefits means they are incompetent. Incompetence is inexcusable. The public should not be paying for a management on work disability welfare program.
MCAS in-house breeding program
Miss Wolfie, ID#381469
Dogs Playing for Life is a nationally recognized program intended to relieve shelter stress. At MCAS it has been redirected and diverted to being used as a stressful test of dog compatibility. Dogs are randomly assigned to play groups that often in fact create additional stress. That is especially true if a female dog in heat is included among several unaltered male and female dogs. It creates disruption and conflict. The practice continues. The only tools used to intervene in spontaneous conflicts are spray bottles and shaker cans, tools that are fairly useless when fights occur.
Miss Wolfie’s record, January 28, 2026, Playgroup,
“Behavior Notes:…We have noted potential conflict drive with other females, which may possibly be due to her being in heat.”
Why put dogs in heat in play groups unless you want to provoke a fight? Almost as an afterthought, Miss Wolfie was spayed after the in heat group play two days later on January 30,2026
Saving Dolly’s Fund restricted to the special medical needs of shelter animals; Depriving animals of critical medical care
Clifford, ID#380920
MCAS continues to deprive animals of critical medical care. The funds are readily available through Dolly’s Fund but they dodge that fact and their responsibility by issuing waivers, disowning any responsibility for that care. Adopters adopt the dog ‘as is.’ Waivers virtually insure that that care will rarely be received because few citizens who adopt an MCAS dog for low fees will pay for additional future medical expenses.
How cheap can the managers be? Very cheap. They advertise an animal with a handicap that assuredly will require medical attention in the near future as “charming.” In Clifford’s case the managers attached a waiver for cleft palate.
After rescues including the Oregon Humane Society, declined to take Clifford, and after he was an adoption return, the management asked the on site primary care veterinarian to perform the cleft palate repair surgery. It is very clear from the clinical veterinary literature that surgery for cleft palate requires advanced specialized surgical training. MCAS deliberately elected to fail both Clifford and the MCAS primary care veterinarian, instead setting both up to fail with their request that the in house veterinarian do the surgery that she was unqualified to perform and that could be easily paid for from Dolly’s Fund.
It wasn’t enough to ask OHS once. They were bound and determined to save Dolly’s Fund.
January 26, 2026
“OHS declined again as they do NOT take cleft palates, cleft lips, or oronasal fistulas.”
MCAS managers view shelter animals’ lives as not worth the effort, not worth saving or improving their lives. Their dishonesty and evasiveness in every area speak to a culture that has been totally corrupted.
When no medical transfers accepted Clifford, MCAS made Clifford available for adoption with a waiver with the veterinary statement that while currently Clifford seemed to be able to eat and drink adequately and “there is no sign of inflammation/infection involving the congenital defect at this time.” It was also noted that “Dog will likely be more prone to infection involving the nasal cavity and aspiration over the course of his life than typical dogs.”
That is a very conservative observation, an understatement at best. The likelihood that Clifford will develop serious medical concerns is in fact assured when one reads through the current available veterinary medical literature.
“…Dogs with a cleft palate often develop serious medical issues like aspiration pneumonia if the condition is not corrected, usually with surgery.”
But MCAS will not correct medical conditions with funds the public continues to donate for that purpose. Instead animals with treatable special medical conditions are killed or are placed on pain management while other rescues are sought as the MCAS managers sit on Dolly’s Fund as if it were a personal bequest for their use for unknown purposes.
The County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of County Commissioners have allowed government sponsored animal abuse with public funds and have by looking away endorsed it.
MCAS managers specialize in inventing multiple reasons for killing companion dogs placed in their care. Buddy was a dog with so many positive features and options, killed because they don’t want to make an effort. As a plan they list excuses: Exaggerations, vague generalizations and at times outright dishonest conclusions characterize their work much as a delinquent child might try to explain why they didn’t do their homework. The difference is children aren’t paid but MCAS managers are highly salaried. MCAS managers, without accountability or oversight, kill because that takes less time and effort than trying.
Buddy was the entire emotional support for his owner who was arrested October 15, 2025, and none of the reasons listed for killing Buddy were legitimate. Buddy’s owner just had no friends who could redeem Buddy on his behalf. Respite fosters were once central to MCAS’ now sabotaged pet retention mission. Even without that, Buddy could have easily been placed in a foster or medical foster, He could have also easily been adopted as a special needs dog.
“At MCAS, Sadler has championed programs to make services more accessible to the pets and people of the community…. “Yes, I care a lot about animals,
but I also want to be able to help the people attached to those animals. We’re considering the social justice perspective relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and what it means for the services we offer. How do we help the people who are struggling, who need the most support, or who aren’t accessing our services?”
MCAS managers have completely violated the agency mission.
November 3, 2025
“Spoke with Herbe [Multnomah County Department of Corrections, counselor] at 863362- Herbe confirmed that there is not a current release date set for AO. Advised that we have not been able to secure placement, and with pets medical/behavioral history, will likely be moving forward with humane euth. Herbe inquired about an additional week to determine if the AO will be released. Advised that at this point, we cannot offer an extended hold but if she gets additional information, to please call asap in the event the pet is still in our care. Herbe expressed understanding. //jkt”
Understanding that MCAS has given a rigid ultimatum without options is far different from an acceptance of the alleged “reasons” behind the ultimatum. There is no evidence on record that MCAS sought any placement options despite their statement otherwise. Some options are listed above: respite fosters, special adoptions.
In a similar case, as an individual rescue, I took a senior level 2 dog from MCAS who belonged to a prisoner. I boarded his dog and with his permission and, after 6 months, placed her in home. She died of cancer loved and regarded as worth the effort about a year later. No one thought it wasn’t worthwhile. Her name was Mumbles. Do not tell me it can’t be done.
Buddy was killed on November 7, 2025 as DM-UU2, ‘unhealthy and untreatable,’ ‘moribund end stage disease,’ when he was not. All dogs killed at MCAS are labeled unhealthy and untreatable to cover for MCAS lack of effort and responsibility.
November 5 2025, Rounds Review
“Rounds met. Due to multiple medical issues that impact quality of life and aggressive behavior towards other animals, move to humane euthanasia.”
What affected Buddy’s quality of life was compelling his death. All of his daily behavior monitoring sheets from August 2025 were positive, some marked with hearts. There are none for his recent admission. It may be a discontinued practice.
The veterinary record contradicts the euthanasia statement made by the managers.
October 31, 2025, Vet Exam
“Assessment: -Gingival mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic -Subdermal mass- r/o benign vs neoplastic -Moderate peridontal disease -Heart murmur [ 2/6 left systolic; regular heart rate and rhythm]
Plan:
Full sedation for biopsies would be necessary to reach diagnosis for both masses, however even if they are benign, they need to be completely excised due to both of them bleeding; this will be a much more involved procedure and needs to be schduled as a mass removal surgery combined with neuter under general anesthesia rather than sedation and small biopsy; this can be done at MCAS when staffing allows but ideally recommend transfer to rescue due to our very limited surgical capacity.
-Given the chronicity of masses and visible characteristics there is a very good chance both masses are benign.
– Recommend transfer to a rescue for behavior reasons as well; he is an EXTREMELY friendly dog toward people but adopters need to be screened since he cannot be around other dogs.”
While living on the streets, there was one dog aggression incident on April 28, 2023 involving a small dog on leash when Buddy was briefly at large. The probationary time for a Level 2 designation, one year, had long passed without any further incidents. An incident does not define a lifetime unless MCAS needs to make it so for convenience. The pictures are not attached to this record.
April 28, 2023, Finalized Animal Control Issue Summary #279900
“ … MARIA stated that she put out her hand to fend off the dog and was bit…Maria stated the owner was close by and was able to regain control of the dog.”
What is remarkable is that living on the streets is challenging for all dogs, and yet there were no further incidents of any sort.
Options
Buddy could have been treated at MCAS accessing Dolly Fund dollars intended for the special medical needs of shelter animals. But that restricted fund is seldom accessed for animals. For interim care, medical fosters are always available. Instead Buddy was killed to save the managers’ effort and time consuming thought.
October 16, 2025
“Called MCDC 83689 to speak to Curtis W [AO]
He stated that Buddy was dog aggressive, he also stated that Buddy is trained to do a number of tasks, including turn lights on and off. He also knows sit, lay down and roll over (per owner)”
There are multiple types of dog aggression, every one manageable, some rehabilitatable (for example, common place leash reactivity). MCAS made no effort to seek clarification about what the owner meant by “dog aggression.” All dogs? Under what circumstances? They needed an excuse to kill him then falsified the reason. Buddy was not “unhealthy and untreatable.”
The agency freely violates its public service contract and were this a normal government would be investigated and held accountable.
Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS) managers have settled into their placid dump and dispose animal care practices after generously giving themselves permission for killing for any reason at all (See: MCAS assures animals aren’t euthanized for space and the response, “don’t believe euthanasia assurances”). By expanding the reasons for killing, they have replaced initiative and thought with excuses and laziness. Pet stores evaluate more carefully why a “product” has been returned than MCAS does to the nearly free animal dump site store that was once a public shelter. Since any excuse will do, the death rate is climbing rapidly, each death excused as “unavoidable” when any close reading of the record reveals gross incompetence driven also by indifference.
Only the death delivery day changes, The pattern is the same.
Previous practices
Under previous leadership, every adoption return was assessed to evaluate how to improve the odds towards a successful adoption; verification of alleged incidents was sought. if a dog with challenges needed help achieving adoption success, a plan, often including training, was implemented at MCAS. Dogs with challenges were not automatically killed or exported to rescues. Potential adopters were carefully screened. Staff had checked for landlord approval. Dogs left the shelter spayed or neutered.
Disposition Reviews included experts from the community, rescues, volunteers, and staff. Now all dispositions are decided behind closed doors by managers only, granting the power to kill without cause.
MCAS makes up rules for exclusion from adoption, fostering, or killing that must be followed. Then they decline an animal opportunities and kill an animal because their hands are tied by the rules they made up. The absolutist rules they conceived were created without any community input and their summaries are vague and devoid of objective information. These are not rules that assess risk. They are like the game of Lotto: Put the red apple card on the red apple picture when the causes and solutions for incidents are multi-faceted, not simplistic.
October 21, 2025, Rounds Review
“Due to multiple bite history, this dog does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster. We will seek transfer, follow up 10/24.”
“Multiple bite history”, a vague general term that implies serious public safety concerns, exaggerated by omitting details… The term “multiple bite history” is automatically linked to “does not meet criteria for an adoption pathway, nor foster” regardless of merit or circumstances. Thinking is not allowed. The outcome is automatic.
In evaluating bite histories, it is never about “multiple bites,” but how the bite incidents happened. Key questions include, ‘What were the stressors’ and ‘can future bite incidents be prevented.’ In every summary conclusion there should be factual support and objective documentation. In this and nearly every case there is none: No bite pictures, no Emergency Room report; no questions. The managers are blind scribes.
In most cases, the adopter has created the stressor but MCAS gives adopters free passes because MCAS Operations Manager Andrew Mathias runs MCAS like a car lot: If you don’t like the dog, bring him on back. We will dispose of him for you.
MCAS allows a short timeframe when they seek a rescue to take animals they intend to dispose of due to the deeply flawed judgment of the Rounds Review, entirely beholden to MCAS management. Few rescues can respond rapidly and MCAS has rapid deadlines. ‘The trains must run on time.’ In the past, MCAS set up a pathway for success. If a rescue was not available, volunteers, trainers, and staff trained to work with a dog’s challenges often provided training followed by careful placements. Death or transfer to rescues were not the default options for dogs with challenges.
When MCAS Rounds Review met again on October 24 after recommending seeking a rescue transfer on October 21, they gave seeking rescue options one more day until October 25, before killing Leo. There is no reference in his records about which or how many rescues were contacted.
October 24, 2025
“Rounds met and will place individual pleas out to rescues – Due to human aggression and multiple bites will be moving forward with euthanasia if no rescue placement is found. Will FU 10/25.”
October 26, 2025
“JRT Terrier rescue declined due to possible dog/dog aggression noted in both adoption returns along with multiple bites resulting from potential resource guarding.”
October 27, 2025
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”
When it comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Cornell University Dogwatch Newsletter, February 2005:
“Labels can be misleading. Because aggression can be very specific rather than generalized, labeling a dog as possessive, dominant, territorial, or predatory can be misleading. Labels imply that a dog’s behavior is consistent across a variety of circumstances, which may or may not be the case at all. To better understand and, when necessary, modify aggressive or other kinds of behavior, it may be more useful simply to focus on describing the behavior and what triggers it.”
Analyzing and Modifying Aggression, Dr. Suzanne Hetts and Dr. Nancy Williams
MCAS has an allergic reaction to responsibility. MCAS managers set up a series of self-generated limitations and false “requirements” that they then reference as “forcing them” to kill Leo. Owners often create opportunities for aggression. MCAS instead of educating the owner, kills the victim. Leo was not universally aggressive.
MCAS writes in generalities to escape solutions. There are solutions.
Leo’s History
Leo’s owner went into an acute care facility, leaving Leo in the care of a couple who turned him in to police officers on August 27, 2025 stating that Leo was becoming aggressive. The officers took Leo to MCAS. MCAS did not ask questions about what was meant by “aggression.” Nor did they speak to Leo’s original owner about Leo expecting to ask if he was willing to surrender him. He was not and was going to try to seek other options.
Until his first adoption on September 5, 2025, Leo’s behavior was positive and unremarkable:
August 28, 2025
“Playgroup
Yard Summary: Some brief spats of play with Latke. When Bram rushed towards him he corrected hard, jumping up and air snapping at his side. Disengaged and did not have any other issues.
Returning to Kennel: Wanted to pull back towards playgroup. Tolerated being picked up and carried back to kennel, relaxed in handler’s arms.”
There was only one data collection.
September 2, 2025
“Data collection
When I passed outside kennel in a.m. I called to Leo, he came running out to greet me with wagging tail. Jumped up on door and licked my hand. I returned later to move him to an office. He readily approached inside door. I opened it and placed slip lead as he hesitantly walked out. Walked well to office, loose body, some tail wags. Removed leash and he began to drink from water bowl. Accepted pets on head and back as he drank. Retrieved a few more items for office setup, and he had begun to whine and paw at pen people were present.”
Adopted for $25 on September 5, 2025 and returned on September 9, 2025, the return reasons reflect an adopter whose repeated actions created stress. There are no bite pictures. MCAS takes faith based information.
September 9, 2025
“AO stated dog rolled around in something outside so they took him inside to his walk in shower and dog began biting at water, then bit at owner. Dog bit again Sunday 9/7 when AO was sitting on the couch and was trying to move the dog by pushing pillow in his face. Dog had lunged towards the owner while growling and bit the owner multiple times. This morning 9/9 AO attempted to clip some of dogs matts [sic] on rear end with scissors and dog bit him multiple times again. AO states that dog is great and would sleep next to him in bed and always follow him around. AO marked not great with kids and was unable to clarify. ”
The adopter reported he had to “punch the dog off, then sprayed with water bottle.”
Instead of analyzing the circumstances of the incidents, MCAS applied waivers to disown responsibility. The waivers included Resource Guarding, which is speculative since the bite incident did not occur because Leo was protecting the couch but because of the adopter’s aggressive actions when he precipitously pushed a pillow in Leo’s face. Forcibly washing Leo and clipping off mats was the direct result of the adopter’s handling insensitivity, not Leo’s handling sensitivity. There are examples throughout the record where Leo welcomed and was responsive to contact. He just didn’t welcome bullying. He also didn’t welcome forced intrusive intake exams when MCAS did not practice “fear free handling, ” and instead applied a “medical handling waiver” to dismiss their use of force.
Following this adoption, MCAS also added a child restriction waiver based on a written remark in the owner surrender form “No Kids” which was never clarified by the returning adopter or MCAS. There are no bite pictures; hence no ability to confirm whether the reported bites broke the skin, and what incidents, if any, preceded such bites. No information was sought about whether or not medical attention was acquired.
There are no further notes about Leo’s behavior at MCAS before his second adoption for $25 on September 21, 2025. He was returned October 13, 2025, 22 days later for bite incidents.
Ownership History, second adoption
“Bite me on hand when getting him off table.
Bite me on thigh again after trying to get him down.
Bite my grandson on upper left arm when he got into my car.”
The first two bites were provoked by the adopter’s mismanagement. MCAS had no questions about the adopter’s methods of seeking compliance with commands. The bite to the grandson as he was entering the car was reported to have broken the skin but MCAS sought no bite pictures and did not ask if emergency medical attention was sought, leaving uncertainty for whether the other two incidents broke the skin.
It is unclear if this was an example of referenced potential resource guarding. It is flimsy speculation. There are no other examples in the record that suggest resource guarding. Being forced off the couch seems more a reaction to the first adopter’s aggressive conduct than resource guarding.
Leo was adopted with a no child restriction. The second adopter ignored that restriction. How old was the child? How was he behaving when he entered the car where Leo was already settled in?
“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to human aggression and multiple bites with no transfer options.”
The human aggression was a human who was aggressive against a small dog. The “multiple” bites were provoked and minor; it is unclear how many of the alleged bites broke the skin. The two bites reported to have broken the skin (no pictures, no evidence) by report seemed insignificant.
Limiting options to rescue only
It is not up to rescues to “correct” challenges that occur because of MCAS errors in judgment. Correct the practice of careless adoptions that lead to incidents. The Jack Russel Terrier rescue’s reasons for declining Leo were for “possible dog aggression” and the simply incorrect summary that all the alleged “bites” resulted from potential resource guarding—conjectures based upon vague uninformative entries in MCAS records.
About “possible dog aggression: One adopter described Leo as playful and easy going with new dogs, also adding that his dog was afraid of Leo but there was no conflict. What did that mean? Leo did well in the play group. The second adopter circled both “easy going” and “poorly” in the survey question about meeting new dogs. There was no clarification about the conflicting information in that response.
Poor and/or inaccurate history taking by MCAS costs animals options. MCAS repeatedly fails to take an objective detailed history. They create uncertainty by their poor history taking compounded by a lack of understanding of dog behavior. Rescues then without reliable information are more likely to reject potential candidates. It is how they solve the dilemma of conflicting or absent history. MCAS creates the rejection.
MCAS also screens adopters poorly and seldom intervenes to decline an adoption that seems problematic. They set the road to failure; Then uniformly label the dog “unhealthy and untreatable” for their failure if a rescue cannot be found.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
Leo’s MCAS records, redacted (Updated from ‘Awaiting Euthanasia’)
Set of Resource Guarding articles: (1) Guarding Resources — Including You, (2) On Guard?, (3) Mine, All Mine!, (4) Guarding Dog?, (5) Food, toys and owner: ‘Mine, all mine!’, (6) Peace in the Pack.
Failure is built into MCAS government when cronyism replaces public service, where contrary opinions are designated as ‘unprofessional’ or ‘undermining the mission.’
The recent advancement of Andrew Mathias from Animal Care Supervisor to Operations Manager at MCAS by Director Erin Grahek and Director of Community Services Margi Bradway represents an enormous betrayal of public trust. Andrew Mathias, originally hired by former Director Jackie Rose, collaborated with Jackie Rose to reverse all humane policies and public participation at MCAS. He personally ended Open Paw, a program intended to reduce shelter stress, deprived animals of needed care, and was instrumental, along with former Director Rose, in trivializing the 2018 Audit recommendations, and developed the “waiver” system that disowning all responsibility for all animal care (Kennel Cough waivers, Fear Waivers, Handling Waivers, etc.).
“Longtime volunteer Kelley Sherman and former volunteer Debbi Stegemeyer remembered Andrew Mathias, one of the shelter’s two animal care supervisors, telling volunteers at a meeting shortly after the 2018 audit was released that they didn’t have to worry about its findings. ‘I want you all to know that MCAS is already doing good enough,’ Sherman recalled Mathias saying. Mathias declined to comment to The Oregonian/OregonLive.”
Andrew Mathias applied to the position of Operations Manager in July 2022, but was rejected as a candidate due to an implicit lack of shelter and animal experience alongside administrative leadership skills. Skills that he has not developed since July 2022, based on repeated management failures documented by local media, no matter what scapegoats the shelter may create.
“From: Jamie Waltz Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:25 AM PDT To: Erin Grahek Subject: Re: Shelter Manager Next steps Thank you for having this conversation with Andrew. Jamie On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 5:01 PM Erin Grahek <erin.grahek@multco.us> wrote:
Thanks for all of your support in this process. I met with Andrew a few minutes ago and let him know that I was not going to be offering him the position. I did say that Heather would be a good source of interview feedback, having been on both panels. I told him that I wanted to continue to explore and find a candidate that had good shelter/animal experience and organization skills and the higher level of management experience and strategic visioning skills. That I really see this position being a support to the management team and the director, therefore needing to be a both/and candidate.
He seemed to take it well, we had a good talk. We will see. Take care and have a good weekend.”
The slow slide to failure that began long ago accelerated rapidly in 2016 when Jackie Rose was appointed director, or rather, as dictator. Ms Rose, unsupervised, reformed all policies, concentrating power in her own and managers hands, leaving workers, citizens, rescues and expert consultants powerless. Those policies, all unexamined, remain in place today. They have created a collective culture of unchecked arrogant entitlement. These are some examples:
Once, owners who had surrendered their impounded dogs while in a state of emotional distress were permitted to reclaim them with the appropriate infraction ticket and corrective restrictions if a violation had occurred. Now, within minutes, they have no right to reclaim. It is entirely up to the management’s discretion. There are no rights to appeal.
Experienced rescues are forbidden to appeal euthanasia decisions by the Shelter Review Committee, a group of in-house managers with limited animal behavior backgrounds or rehabilitation experience. MCAS now permits no discussion and refuses to listen to options that will save animals’ lives without any risk to the public. In every case a process that will save lives has been replaced by policies dictated by a corrupting absolute power.
The new volunteer policy manual warns volunteers to not question management judgments to kill specific animals, nor disclose these dispositions to the public, nor advocate for animals when they saw a decision they believed was unjust or there would be consequences, designating such actions as “unprofessional” or “undermining the mission of MCAS.”
2024 MCAS Volunteer Handbook
“Volunteers are expected to act professionally at all times when engaging in MCAS activities. This includes adhering to, and showing support of, the policies and directives of MCAS staff and refraining from allowing conflicting personal views to overshadow the expertise and purpose of MCAS…” (Page 5)
“…Multnomah County Animal Services maintains the sole discretion to determine animal dispositions and outcomes. Volunteers may not solicit changes to determined dispositions or individual outcomes without express approval from MCAS, including seeking rescue for animals on behalf of MCAS, seeking adoption placement for animals that are not available for adoption, or otherwise disregarding the disposition determination processes in place at MCAS. These activities undermine the mission of MCAS.” (Page 10)
“The lawsuit claimed MCAS employees regularly shared their frustrations with shelter leadership, and Bedrosian sometimes joined to discuss her concerns with their euthanasia and adoption policies.
According to the declaration, shelter leaders warned the volunteer against questioning their actions and policies in April 2023 — stating she made people feel ‘uncomfortable.’
About two months later, a volunteer coordinator told her that only staff could discuss topics like adoption and euthanasia.”
“…Bedrosian privately communicated her concerns with the shelter manager and was terminated the following day, according to the suit.”
The triumphant departure of Jackie Rose to a sunnier climate; The devastating fracture of the No Kill mission left behind.
Oregon citizens first learned of MCAS Director Jackie Rose’s April 12, 2019 departure to Ventura County Animals Services from California newspapers, where media reported that a joyful welcome awaits her scheduled arrival on May 1, 2019. There was no prior word or warning from local Multnomah government that Ms. Rose had moved on until surprised local citizens brought it to their attention.
After a 3 ½ year tenure, all that Jackie Rose left behind for Multnomah residents were unfinished audit goals surrounding continued well documented substandard care, and increased concerns about the welfare and well-being of staff and animals. Her legacy, multiple new policies that stripped away animals’, citizens’ and staff rights, continue. They are marked by a lack of empathy and passed unnoticed because of a lack of government oversight accompanied by apathy and indifference. As Bob Dylan once said, “there is no success like failure and failure is no success at all.”
Everything about Ms. Rose rejects the core of No Kill – the basic principle that every life counts and requires every effort to find and implement humane solutions. Under her leadership, “inconvenient” animals are routinely killed after being labeled “unhealthy/untreatable” even when the records demonstrate that they were only scared or had treatable conditions. Killing at MCAS has become an act of convenience, one taking place behind closed doors and disguised as “necessary” to create a perfect marketing vision.
MCAS’s progressive path forward began with a 2000 MCAS Citizens’ Task Force and a commitment to achieve a No Kill mission by 2005. After three and one-half years of Ms. Rose, MCAS could not be further from that goal. Its claimed successes are belied by unverifiable “high live release rates” that have been promoted by low adoption standards, multiple free or nearly free adoption sales, revolving door adoptions and a high adoption return rate. The mission is numbers only: “Any home will do.” Animals returned over and over again are traumatized, ultimately offered to rescue or killed. It is a factory goods model, not a humane shelter model.
The peoples’ mission lost its way under Ms. Rose’s guidance. Animals have become highly disposable: a widely supported community mission was discarded by politicians when inconvenient. The need for change starts with government culture: public service must replace collegiality. When government prizes protecting colleagues from their mistakes over accountability, democracy itself is subverted. Rationalization of failure replaces correction, motivated by a desire to keep the issue off the elected leaders’ desks. The only check on re-naming failure as success comes from George Orwell’s comment: “…It is possible to carry on this process [ ‘impudently twisting facts’] for an indefinite time: the only check on it is sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
Multnomah County politics must change, if there is to be any progress forward. Questions and concerns about local government should not be treated as adversarial attacks; they present serious issues that must be addressed and corrected. Problems kicked down the road worsen. Too much power regarding the appointment of the MCAS Director is concentrated in one person’s hands.
The appointment decision of the MCAS Animal Services Director is left entirely up to one person, the Director of Community Services, a person whose other responsibilities are Bridges and Transportation, a person with no knowledge about sheltering. He provides no oversight. The position of animal control director in Multnomah County is de facto independent. Citizen and staff concerns and complaints are ignored at both the MCAS and Department levels. Ask and there is no response.
Abuse of power commonly occurs when supervisors abdicate oversight. The citizens’ will to create a progressive sheltering mission beginning in 2000 has been easily tossed aside. Department Director Peoples has steadfastly ignored mounting evidence and complaints about the hostile environment created by Ms. Rose’s policies, practices, and behaviors affecting animals, the public and staff alike. He didn’t listen. Neither he nor the county commission responded to concerns. The findings of the MCAS audit reports were treated initially as an affront. Prior to the formal release of the audit, Kim Peoples and Jackie Rose, instead of first meeting with the Audit Department to advance corrections, met privately with each county commissioner to pre-empt its impact.
Jackie Rose has departed MCAS to Ventura, California. The effects of her massive overhaul of all MCAS policies, many hostile to this community, will continue in Oregon. It will be a long and rough road home. Ventura County will be her next victim.
Gail O’Connell-Babcock
2024 Multnomah County Animal Services Volunteer Handbook
It is not unusual for MCAS’ $25 adopted dogs to be recycled and end up in the same or worse circumstances than those that compelled their original impoundment at MCAS.
When Logan’s original owner, Charlotte, was hospitalized for a mental health crisis on March 13, 2025, the shelter asked her one day later on March 14 if she had anyone who could reclaim Logan on her behalf. She did not. The MCAS staff person then asked her if she would like to surrender Logan over the telephone and she did not. She was offered no resources. She was then advised of the hold date ending on March 19th. Fear of losing their pets often causes additional grief and distress to hospitalized owners.
March 14, 2025 the day after hospitalization:
“ …Charlotte then stated she didn’t want him adopted, I [MCAS staff] then advised she loses ownership of her dog after that time should she not come and reclaim. Charlotte understood.”
What Charlotte understood was that MCAS would not help her keep her companion dog. MCAS’ primary funded mission is pet redemption and retention, a mission they deliberately ended without county approval. Maybe they thought no one was looking. An abdication of Governmental oversight and accountability at MCAS has led to a culture of self determination and independence from government rule. They do what they want, not what the county mission instructs. As part of mission elimination, the management also eliminated Pets in Crisis, and Emergency Board, the support for pet retention, labeling them as ‘too cumbersome.’ These support programs were replaced with 6-day owner holds. There are more creative solutions to support owners in crisis, with some alternatives described in the attached files.
The elimination of pet retention programs
MCAS denied Charlotte an extension of the hold time. Denial is discretionary and dependent upon the good will of the operations manager. It can be arbitrary. On March 18, 2025, MCAS management “Called and spoke with the social worker Sarah and let her know that due to shelter capacity that we would not be extending the hold. She is aware and will let owner know.” But respite foster homes are unaffected by “shelter capacity.”
Logan was now “adoptable” from MCAS. He was adopted on March 23, 2025 for $25, quickly becoming ill. On March 28, 2025 his adopter called in concerned about kennel cough symptoms. Nine days after the adoption, on April 6, 2025 the adopter brought Logan back intending to return him. Logan was still ill with kennel cough. The adopter reported that he had never received the promised antibiotics. During admissions after speaking with animal health, the adopter reconsidered surrendering Logan; the necessary prescription was filled, the last contact with animal health.
Logan was next found on August 2, 2025 [Complaint 301537, August 2, 2025] after a citizen called MCAS to report that an individual seemed to be in a mental health crisis, reported to have been “untying his black dog to run loose in the streets.” An MCAS officer responded and the person identified by the complainant, described to the officer that while the dog was tied up he was around all of the time. There was no reference to letting the dog run loose.
The individual the officer had approached reported that “the dog was new to him.” When asked where he had gotten the dog, he responded “…that the animal was tied to his camp a few nights prior and he did not know where it came from.” After running a microchip scan, the MCAS officer discovered that Logan had been identified as adopted from MCAS by someone other than the homeless person who had just recently found him tied to his tent. The officer offered to take Logan to MCAS in order to contact the owner. He advised the homeless finder that he was more than able to come to MCAS to adopt Logan if his owner on record did not reclaim him.
The finder barely knew Logan. No, the homeless finder is not qualified to responsibly adopt Logan. He lives in a tent, where he noted he had to return rapidly out of fear of losing his possessions. He does not have a secure enclosure or the means to care for Logan.
What is anyone at MCAS thinking? The MCAS adopter, although immediately contacted when Logan was taken to MCAS on August 2, has not reclaimed Logan from MCAS. It appears that Logan may have been abandoned by his adopter. Instead of following up on those concerns, MCAS has moved on. Logan is now on “Pre-select” adoptions meaning he can be adopted as of August 9, when the legal stray time for owned animals ended, by anyone with $25 in their pockets.
How is this a “shelter” instead of a con? There were other options.
During Logan’s original impound on March 13, 2025 when his owner was hospitalized, a Portland Police Officer asked to be considered to foster and/or adopt Logan. That offer was ignored. The original owner lost Logan because MCAS would not extend a short hold time permitting a respite foster. In the end, Logan ended up on the streets at risk.
That does not represent responsible animal care and adoptions. What has occurred is the normalization of failure. MCAS is emboldened each time the managers get away with mission violations. That is how corruption starts: One unchecked failure at a time. The mission, caring for and protecting pets and people, disappeared like a magic trick. It flew off, gone into the universe of false promises.
Before I started this website, I would post about the same issues as I do here on a Change.org petition towards Multnomah County government. 8 years later, MCAS has only gotten worse in terms of animal and community welfare. The closest they got to an animal enrichment improvement was from a playgroup program inspired by Dogs Playing for Life, which has been corrupted into another ‘test’ to see if a dog should be killed due to ‘playgroup challenges’ (let alone the insanity of putting dogs in heat in playgroups). Every budgeted goal has failed; Every concern outlined and referenced in my 2018 update and in plenty of investigative media publications, even the county’s own audits, have been ignored.
Pet redemption and retention
Pet redemption and retention have dropped further to about 25% for FY 2025, even as the redemption rate at Washington County Bonnie Hayes Animal Shelter was reported as being between 72% and 75% as of Calendar year 2023 as following the creation of a program developed by previous director, Deborah Wood.
MCAS’ rates have fallen because they ended the Pets in Crisis and Emergency Board programs, while prioritizing pre-selection adoptions during stray and owner hold periods. When persons are struggling because of evictions or crises (e.g. hospitalizations, jail time, etc), who often don’t have friends or family upon whom they can rely, they impose strict deadlines (6 days for owned animals) instead of helping owners find solutions. This has caused some to leave hospitalization against medical advice to keep their animals.
While some owner surrenders are driven by crises, others are driven by owners not understanding animal behavior challenges leading to a belief that they have no choice but to surrender their animals. MCAS offers no owner surrender counseling or solutions to prevent future incidents, save for surrendering the animal.
A further detriment to redemption is the sheer distance to Troutdale from Portland, as over 80% of shelter animals are from Portland. Often, persons redeeming their pets must depend upon public transportation, one bus line and MAX transit, both of which are about a mile away from the shelter. There is no volunteer effort to transport animals to their owners when they are handicapped or otherwise unable to find transportation. The plan to create a new shelter in Troutdale, given the lack of transportation options and assistance, does nothing to address this issue.
Spay/Neuter
As of July, 2025, animals no longer leave MCAS spayed and neutered. Allegedly, this is because of a claimed national veterinary shortage, despite MCAS having the same number of veterinarians on staff (2 veterinarians) and an equivalent or lower intake compared to data from MCAS animal trends from fiscal year 2017, noting that they’ve never had more than 2 veterinarians since 1995.
Peeling back the rings of government failure, what is left is a hollow space where government accountability has been eliminated.
Without oversight and a formal system of accountability, management has filled the leadership void left by the current Director Erin Grahek. Director Grahek was appointed without credentials or any relevant background in animal sheltering or animal behavior science, which she has acknowledged and dismissed with the ‘solution’ that she would delegate all necessary expertise to management. “‘I will bring on strong professionals who have the animal welfare background that I don’t, and marry that with my experience as a manager and a leader in Multnomah County,’ Grahek said.”
At MCAS, promotions are based upon relative ability not accomplishment; failure is excused, swept under the carpet. Philip Zimbardo, a nationally acclaimed social psychologist writing about the power of social pressures, concluded that it is the barrel that spoils the apples, (“Lucifer Effect,”, Philip Zimbardo, Random House Publishing Group, 2007). Once the culture takes root, substantive change requires an independent qualified leader focused upon compassion and results, not neo-liberal hand wringing.
The animals, workers, volunteers and staff pay the price for this government heist: The theft of public service.
Owner Redemption rate = ‘Returned to owner’ ÷ ‘Intake’ Counts are for Dogs, Puppies, Cats, and Kittens. ‘Intake’ is specific to ‘Stray or at large’ and ‘Owner Surrenders’ types.
Where, as in the movie Groundhog Day, people and animals are
“doomed to spend the rest of eternity in the same place, seeing the same people do the same thing EVERY day.”
On September 05, 2018, the director of Multnomah County Animal Services (MCAS), Jackie Rose, responded to the second poor audit report by announcing that MCAS was “working” to correct the severe problems identified by the audits and that the agency has been long aware of the work that must be done, claiming that the agency had met or was working on “79 percent of the auditor’s 2016 recommendations.”
Whatever Ms. Rose may claim about her awareness and continuing work, nothing has improved under her management. The public records and citizen reports confirm that “the same people do the same thing” every day. The absence of animal enrichment efforts continues. “Enrichment” can’t be provided with a Kong in every kennel and a scratching post for every cat. What is needed is a stress-free welcoming environment providing walks, pats, and a kind tone. That remains absent. No progress has been made. And the animals continue to suffer.
MCAS lacks empathy and has exhibited an absolute failure to understand and plan for the demographics it serves as the only public shelter in Multnomah County. Most of the unredeemed stray animals are impounded in the areas of deepest poverty. Most enforcement citations and penalties are issued to the poor. Unlike other progressive shelters, MCAS has no pet retention programs. These are some of the problems facing the agency.
Failure to meet the needs of its Demographics
Multnomah’s public shelter demographic is disproportionately represented by animals and persons in need, often in crisis, poor or homeless, presenting with problems that are magnified by notices of infraction and fines and redemption fees unaffordable to many. MCAS’ 51% owner redemption rate for dogs pales to insignificance when compared to other local agencies such as neighboring (and far less generously funded) Washington County Dog Services’ 67% rate. The evidence can be seen in the most recent records. Life is made difficult if you are poverty stricken and they come for your companion dog. What follows are case examples, few among the many. They are not “isolated” cases.
Failure to meet the needs of senior citizens on low incomes
Alfred, is a blind 14-year-old poodle mix impounded by MCAS on September 24, 2018 when the apartment manager failed to recognize him as a senior citizen tenant’s dog. Upon realizing that he had a dedicated owner, the manager called the county the same day and was told there would be an impound fee that the owner could not afford. Then the saga of trying to bring Clancy back home again began.
No offer to reach out to the owner was made. MCAS just moved on with its daily stray dog protocol pattern. Alfred was put through the behavior test on September 28, adopted September 29, and returned the following day on September 30, for “whining and barking when left alone.” He was placed back up in the adoption page. A good Samaritan, aware of his plight, called the apartment manager, located the name and address of his owner, and then contacted the county commissioner for the district, requesting that she facilitate a return of this old dog to his owner.
The first report back to the senior owner was that Alfred had died while at the agency. That was wrong but Alfred did have severe kennel cough. Wary of the commissioner’s involvement, MCAS returned the dog, claiming credit for all that the Samaritan had done. Alfred’s stay at MCAS caused him and his owner serious physical illness and emotional stress that could have been easily avoided just by caring about public service and the needs of fragile citizens.
Making it hard on homeless and fragile persons in crisis when “Where is the money” is the first concern
Madeline, an emotional support Chihuahua, belongs to a psychologically fragile homeless person who in the past year has experienced several successive hospitalizations, most recently on September 13. When she came to reclaim her dog on September 19, she was turned away with the official statement that “Since Jammie had no money and has 2 [prior] payment plans, I requested she return with some money to reclaim Madeline, and I would waive 1-day board. Jammie said she would be back on Thursday 9/20 with $5.” Jammie scraped up the $5 ransom and returned. A poverty stricken psychologically frail homeless person was taught an “object” lesson.
But the lesson cost more than $5. Those without private transportation, most often poor, and/or disabled have proven difficulties getting to MCAS’s Troutdale location. The journey takes 2-3 hours each way on public transportation by MAX train or bus. The county’s only “public shelter” needs to be but is not where the people are. In 2008, it was noted that 84% of MCAS’s population came from Portland. The shelter plans to continue to be located far away from those it serves.
Boomer, a 2-year-old Golden Retriever was impounded on September 28, 2018 when his owner, a senior citizen, was hospitalized and then moved to assisted living. She would not be coming home again. On the same day, September 28, 2018, the owner’s sister called MCAS reporting that the owner was in care and unable to redeem Boomer herself, that she too was worried about costs but would see what she could arrange for her hospitalized sister. The only MCAS response was: “there could be the possibility of a fee reduction if she qualified.”
Unstated was the fact that the possibility of a fee reduction was small or non-existent. The standard MCAS policy is that no fee reduction is permitted to those who come as proxies. One day later, on September 29, the day after the telephone call from the sister seeking redemption help, MCAS records report that:
“09/29 Called [the home telephone number for the hospitalized owner who was clearly not “home”]. Left message with Animal ID, Hold time, Shelter Number and said to call us back with any questions or to reclaim come to the shelter with proof of ownership, Photo ID, and fees will apply.” (emphasis added).
Family circumstances and crises don’t interrupt the county’s singular, self-absorbed goal: the trains must run on time. Life and citizens’ needs cannot get in the way. The lack of empathy demonstrated in this response for a citizen in crisis and the refusal to take the time needed for humane problem solving characterize almost every new policy directive from the Director Rose. The vulnerable get left behind. Too bad for them.
MCAS has a social civic duty as a public county agency to refer owners in need to options for care for their dogs and themselves. Don’t just walk away after issuing a “no license” ticket. If someone is clearly struggling don’t just “educate them” about “minimum care requirements for Multnomah county” and depart. If they are not connected to social services and have a need, alert them to sources for help. That does not happen.
On June 18, 2018, a concerned citizen reported that “a beagle – mix dog is being kept inside alone for days at a time without anyone checking on it,” adding that the “home is not air conditioned and there is mold visible on the front door” and that “the owner has been gone since Saturday and just returned today (Monday) at noon.” Noting that food and fresh water were available and that “minimum care” standards had not been violated, the responding officer reported the need to purchase a license and “educated” the owner about the minimum standards of care for Multnomah county which she was already with great effort meeting. There was no “education” about services available to low income persons, no mention of the PAW Team for veterinary care, the Pongo Fund for dog food; or social services for help with the mold that might compromise her health. MCAS has wholly disconnected itself from other agencies and non-profit support groups that serve impoverished populations and are critical to a public shelter’s success.
Failure to seek and to utilize and professional expertise needed for a public shelter population cost compassion and lives
The population “served” by MCAS is most like that of an inner-city hospital. It is the place of last resort as an “open admissions” public shelter for the county and the city of Portland. MCAS can either honor its demographic requirements and rise to become a “premier agency” or continue to fail. Unlike animals accepted at private humane societies, animals from poor areas often arrive at MCAS emotionally traumatized and at times with serious physical injuries. These conditions require expertise. None exists at MCAS under Ms. Rose’s direction.
What MCAS lacks could be provided from outside the shelter’s walls. Unfortunately, no outside behavior expertise is sought. Improved care cannot occur without education and expert participation. Ignorance costs lives. Nothing new is ever gained by killing for want of knowledge.
Dr. Christopher Pachel, a diplomate in veterinary behavioral medicine, one of the few credentialed diplomates with an advanced veterinary behavior medicine degree in the country, once attended meetings twice monthly at MCAS and was available to staff for assistance, all for a very nominal retainer. That no longer occurs. The door to expertise has been closed. Instead, “canine specialists” with limited knowledge and backgrounds have replaced a critically needed asset. This change has nothing to do with costs. It results from management preferences for ignorance, a refusal to learn anything new, and acceptance of unnecessary killing.
Very few dogs are truly “unsafe.” That is a misnomer. Agency generated stress and careless or ignorant practices create safety issues. The label “unsafe” reflects the level of staff training and education and a refusal to accept outside professional input. It is not about the dog.
Dale, an injured pit bull about 8 years old, was taken to care at Dove Lewis Emergency Veterinary Hospital on September 13, 2018. He was seriously injured with his “ear ripped off, and head wounds,” After he was stabilized the next day, Dale was transferred to MCAS, where on further examination it was noted that, although able to eat and drink, his tongue had been severed. After the agency’s behavior assessment on September 19, a test he was required to “pass,” he went into foster care with a family that had 2 other dogs.
When a dog’s history is unknown and includes known serious physical abuse and significant emotional trauma, a graduated professional incremental program is critical to maximize success. The program can be carried out by a trained foster or experienced rescue and should be designed to set both dog and person up for success. But that did not happen. On the day following placement, the foster reported a scuffle between one of her dogs and Dale over a toy found in the yard. Dale was reinjured, his wounds to his face and ear were reopened and further emergency care at Dove Lewis was needed.
At that point in time any professional would have stepped back and created a new plan for Dale’s environment. MCAS did not. On September 29, the foster reported that while playing ball
“as I leaned down to pick up the ball, Dale jumped and mouthed my neck. It not hurt or break the skin. I really felt like he was just excited. We continued playing ball with no more incidents.”
The foster decided to put Dale into “sit-stay” training to teach Dale to wait before seeking the ball and avoid another jumping/mouthy incident. It worked. A solution had been found. Nevertheless, MCAS ordered Dale back to the shelter and immediately killed him despite the written reports from the family about his gentleness, and his grace in acceptance of being spoon fed. Dale was not at all food aggressive; he slept on their bed. The “sit/stay” plan had worked.
MCAS killed Dale for “height seeking behavior” when ball retrieving despite the foster’s clear report that she was bending down to get the ball when the incident happened.
There was no aggressive behavior. None of Dale’s other behaviors suggested dominance, only submission and docility. The one dog fight over a stuffed dog toy found in the yard lasted a minute. Only he was hurt. MCAS gave that dog fight as a second reason death and sacrificed his life out of catastrophic fantasies contradicted by the foster’s narrative itself. MCAS killed Dale out of entitled arrogance, reactivity, and unchecked ignorance, never once consulting available experts. The decision-making process for animal dispositions excludes all professionals and trainers in the community. To keep control, Jackie Rose has all life and death decisions made by in house management, primarily administrative and enforcement staff. Even animal care staff who work with and see animals daily are excluded from any participation. Other views that might challenge her control are “unsafe.”
Dale had the briefest moment to know love and kindness with his foster family. In the few days he lived with them, they were making all the thoughtful necessary adjustments before MCAS intervened. What Director Rose does best is to destroy compassion with an iron fist. Never are expert opinions sought. If she does not “feel good” about the dog, killing is the solution. The world runs according to her wishes, not this communities’ values and compassion.
The majority of animals at MCAS are afraid. Liability waivers designed to protect the agency are a required part of every finalized adoption. The newly adopted shelter dog a citizen is taking home leaves as a tiny four-legged felon. The waivers include warnings about perceived “handling sensitivities;” “Jumpy/mouthy/hyper;” and “fear.” The reality is that these are all temporary reactions to agency generated stress, including the manner in which frightened animals are tested over and over again with escalating intrusions intended to see what it takes to make a dog snap (one example: push head out of bowl while a dog is trying to eat). Puppies are tested. Ill dogs are tested; so too are the injured and physically handicapped despite the fact that these are all factors that compromise valid findings and can only be lessened by a humane environment that Director Rose refuses to create.
What MCAS causes cannot be “cured’ by a Kong in every kennel. While on Intake the dogs are isolated. There is no socialization. The noise level is considered so “unsafe” that visitors are offered ear plugs to abide by OSHA requirements. Lights blaze all night for security purposes lest someone try to break in and steal a stray dog. The conditions at MCAS can break the gentlest dog. A dog’s first experience with any human being after impound is in the BA room when they are “evaluated.” No wonder the animals are scared. The rule is “What does it take to make the dog crack? How far can we intrude? How can we indemnify ourselves against dog behavior?” MCAS does not ask how it can help set a dog up for success in a new home. The burden falls on the dog’s capacity to tolerate rude intrusions. MCAS creates the stress and then advances “cures” in the form of individual “behavior modification programs” limited to teaching volunteers, for example, how to leash and walk a scared dog by giving treats, normal activities that should be available to all dogs. The overall stress that leads to fear is not addressed.
Jenna, a small terrified rat terrier confiscated from an abandoned house was an emergency boarding with known owners. She was processed quickly after impoundment on September 14, 2018 and “tested” two days, long before the five day hold on September 16. with the following recorded entries:
“’Frozen in dog bed. Picked up and carried to BA room. Shaking, no interest shown throughout test.’ Move to adoptions. Adult only home; Dog allows handling/no signs of enjoyment/stiff/no eye contact. Unable to see true personality.’ Fear waiver.”
There was no regard for this small traumatized dog. She had to be processed because the goal is moving dogs out fast down the assembly line to a disposal set point.
Annabelle, is a middle-aged female pit bull dragged roughly into the agency on September 23, 2018 by owners tired of her. Tested on September 27th the notes read as follows:
“Easy to leash…then refused to walk. Fit with harness and tried to coax her, She would not budge and then layed [sic] down…Tried to gently push her back end and she head whipped…Found several broken and warn down teeth. [Shelter manager] took over so I could continue with BAs’.”
Delilah, a 5-year-old anxious Yorkshire/Terrier poodle given up by her owner on September 14, 2018, because she was moving and could not take Delilah with her. MCAS described Delilah’s fear upon entering the agency as “undersocialization.” She was just scared and far from home. She was “tested” on September 22, with the following note:
“Retreated for attempts to leash, snapping and trying to bite when wrapping in blanket. Calmed once in my arms. Stiff and shaking carried to BA room.”
No one can properly assess a terrified dog’s usual temperament but that is not MCAS’s goal. Running the dogs through the system, then getting them on the “floor” and aiming for a ‘high live release” is worth sacrificing the animal. It is perversely twisted around. The animals serve the agency, not the other way around.
MCAS could operate as a shelter without walls by rapidly moving animals to rescues with the time and experience to care. But that doesn’t happen. Since the new director Jackie Rose took charge, rescues must wait for “invitations” to rescue while all the time witnessing animals killed that they could have saved. Rescues are not part of reviews and decisions. Only Jackie Rose may decide. In 2014, 372 dogs went to rescues; in 2016 that figure was down to 135. The only explanation for this decline, for this failure to take advantage of local resources, is poor leadership.
Nothing has changed at MCAS since the 2016 audit or the 2018 audit and nothing will improve on the current course. The stress experienced by animals and staff alike are the result of all the new policies and practices touted as “progress.” MCAS operates in a culture of fear and suspicion where “outsiders” are unwelcome and stray dogs are viewed as potential dangers, hazards and liabilities. The existing culture pervades staff and volunteers. Every minor negative reaction a dog has while housed in a hostile environment is recorded as if it were a “misdemeanor” (lifted lip at me; snapped), stored, counted, and then used as justification for a death sentence. Only a small contingency of management staff is permitted to be part of the decision making and secretive Shelter Review disposition process. No notes are kept. Animals are on trial for their lives. The fact that these behaviors are correctable, often stress related, and directly attributable to failed animal welfare conditions MCAS itself generates is ignored. MCAS takes no responsibility for the culture it creates. The system is closed to input. You are either “in” or “out.” There is little real and genuine outreach into the community at large. MCAS does not serve.
What happened yesterday will continue to happen tomorrow. And it’s Groundhog Day, again.
It’s easier to kill an animal by through false justifications than it is to create humane solutions that respect animals’ lives, and if an agency is killing for miscellaneous reasons it’s easier to call the animal “unsafe” and “unhealthy and untreatable” to expedite a goal: Getting rid of the animals. Owner surrendered dogs are almost always killed if there is any historical incident of any sort. The surrendering fee for the owner is $50, the cheapest price in town for a bundled sale for board and kill.
The reasons for killing are always grab bag lists that make no sense because they are often vague, non specific and non-descriptive. They are conclusions that skip over evidence, investigation and interventions that correct behavior challenges and instead charge animals with “crimes” that can only be dealt with, in their view, by killing. They mask “convenience euthanasia.”
Killing is simply preferred although even for bite incidents, seldom required to “protect public safety.”
“I have long suspected that many people perceive injuries from dog bites through a different lens (possibly a magnifying glass) than the one they use for injuries from other ordinary causes. In fact the data on ER and hospital treatment for dog bites bear out this suspicion. As a class of injury receiving medical treatment, dog bites, on average, are less severe (according to the accepted measurement, called an injury severity scale) than any other class of common injury. The average treated dog bite is rated as minor, at the lowest level, 1 out of 6. (a Level 1 injury is one from which the person recovers quickly with no lasting impairment, a level 6 is one likely to be fatal. Only one percent of all treated bites rate as more severe than Level 1.)”
— (“Dogs bite but balloons and slippers are more dangerous” Janis Bradley, James and Kenneth Publishers 2005, page 47)
Ironically MCAS does magnify all bite pictures as often enough to show that the bites that broke the skin are not clearly visible. In Petey’s case there are no bite pictures to magnify. None are provided as evidence in Petey’s public records. His two officially reported bite records, the first was left detailed injury, and the other amounted to a bit of bruising under a thumb nail.
Client mentioned getting dog from Oregon Dog Rescue since April 2024. She said dog bite [at] shelter when having collar placed.
Dog bit [owner] today when cleaning rear after stress defecating. Bite was to nail of thumb causing bruising beneath the nail.
The companion dogs described below were owner surrendered and subsequently killed. Petey’s is the first on this list. In every case there was no dedicated investigation, no questions asked or effort to validate owner claims. The owner’s word is taken on faith. Alternatives are not explored. There is also no owner surrender counseling to seek potential non-lethal humane solutions based upon training and education to prevent future incidents. Appropriate re-homing is not considered. The dog did the “crime” and the uniform penalty is death.
MCAS managers hark back to an ancient era when dogs were viewed as pests, nuisances and liabilities. Despite progressive animal behavior science evidence based solutions accompanied by the 2022 Oregon Values and Beliefs Center survey that “Nearly all Oregonians consider their pets part of their family (93%), MCAS managers defy their funded humane animal shelter mission.
Petey 357581, a 7-year-old, 19-pound, male Chihuahua Spitz mix:
-Impounded at MCAS on January 07, 2024, -Transferred to Oregon Dog Rescue on January 22, 2024, -Owner surrendered to MCAS on June 16, 2025, -Awaiting euthanasia three days later on June 19, 2025 -Promptly killed the following day on June 20,2025.
MCAS specializes in speed of entry and exit, a singular efficiency. Their only method of addressing fearful dogs, commonplace among the MCAS demographic. is administering escalating doses of psychotropics followed by disowning all responsibility for a plan to help fearful dogs become less fearful. Adding waivers for handling and medical sensitivity is an escape hatch. The waivers are added to instruct the public how to manage and rehabilitate fearful dogs, while they ignore the written instructions advising others.
Petey was killed on June 20, 2025, designated “Unhealthy and Untreatable” with the following vague thoughtless remark:
June 19, 2025
“Rounds met and will move forward with euthanasia due to bite history and aggression.”
That is not a risk assessment. That is a meaningless pointless generalization. The history of bite incidents are not outlined. Aggression is multifactorial determined by many causes with many solutions once stressors are identified that serve to prevent recurrence.
Risk assessments are not a jumbled list of excuses. Risk assessments outline incidents, factors leading to incidents, and identify prevention interventions. They are not “My dog ate my assessment homework.”
Petey was first impounded at MCAS on January 7, 2024 after his owner died, then officially surrendered to the agency two days later on January 9, 2024, as the owner’s wife was blind and stated she was unable to care for Petey. On January 22, 2024, he was transferred back to Oregon Dog Rescue, the original adoption agency. Oregon Dog Rescue adopted him out again sometime in April 2024.
Petey was surrendered to MCAS again on June 16, 2025, after he was alleged to have bitten the owner while she was “trying to clean poopy butt at Paws and Claws [a veterinary hospital].” However no evidence is provided indicating a bite: No picture, no ER medical report.
If the alleged bite broke the skin then, by state law, that would require a 10-day quarantine. Petey was killed on the 4th day of impound. We are left to guess the significance of the bite, if there was one, and whether or not it broke the skin. It is left to one’s imagination. A veterinary technician from Paws and Claws Pet Medical Center stated:
“…stated [about the bite incident that occurred while the owner was trying to clean Petey’s bottom], that dog was extremely high FAS [fear, anxiety, stress] when seen. It was their second attempt trying to look at him but they couldn’t touch him and that he spread poop everywhere. He also bites the owner, including in her sleep.”
The way to prevent biting the owner in her sleep, if an accurate statement, is to have Petey sleep in a separate area.
At veterinary clinics, the first rule of fear free visits is to not force handling when a dog is afraid or tense. It is unclear if any psychotropics, which help lower fear in stressful settings, were prescribed prior to this veterinary visit. This was not a ‘fear free’ visit.
The “bite” reported above after the owner tried to clean Petey’s bottom occurred because stressors were stacked, as a result of mismanagement.
On June 18, 2025, after Petey’s surrender by his owner for allegedly biting her during the veterinary visit, Oregon Dog Rescue declined to take Petey back except to euthanize him.
June 18, 2025, E-mail received from Oregon Dog Rescue
“Hi there,
We will sadly have to euthanize if he has a bite history. That is really sad as he was a staff favorite when we picked him up from you last time. He spent most of his time being carried around.
That woman harrassed us for over a month to let her adopt him and we didn’t want her to because he disliked her immediately when they met.
Our vet is out on medical leave until next week: can we pick him up next Monday?”
It is unclear what Oregon Dog Rescue considered a “bite history.” There are no quarantine or incident reports on record, and that is required if an alleged “bite” broke the skin.
It is from their own remarks that Oregon Dog Rescue knowingly adopted Petey to an inappropriate applicant.
MCAS’ single offer of help and intervention was we can do the euthanasia here.
June 18, 2025
“Sent another e-mail to Oregon Dog Rescue for clarification on if they plan on humane euthanasia for sure, as it would be more stressful to move him again when we can just do it here, pending we come to that conclusion for his pathway. At this time, I haven’t received a response back.”
It isn’t “humane” to call killing a small fearful dog “here” or “there” at a different location. That was the only point of interest between Oregon Dog Rescue and MCAS management. Not once was an intervention plan put in place to address Petey’s stress, escalated by owner and MCAS mismanagement. There are many examples.
Even MCAS’ attempt to scan Petey for a microchip on June 18, 2025, (Many dogs are fearful of wands going over their heads), was clumsy and misguided, putting a checklist ahead of a dog’s comfort.
June 18, 2025, Admissions Exam #2:
“Microchip Scan (Positive/Negative/Unable) Unable
Weight (lbs) 19#
Observations During Interaction: Approached kennel front, Petey was already tense on our approach with hard stare, ears flattened back, trembling and lip licking while sitting behind his kuranda bed near his water dish. JG had wand scanner and went into kennel, keeping his bed between them for safety. She took about 1-2 steps into kennel and Petey began growling, snarling with a very tight lip while baring all front teeth and continuing lip lick and did lunge forward multiple times towards JG id she reached towards him with the wand scanner. Due to his high FAS and clear safety concern, chose to end interaction.”
A normal agency would not put identifying whether or not there was a microchip ahead of a terrified little dog’s fear. A checklist took precedence over creating comfort. Nor would a normal agency escalate a little dog’s fear by their own provocative behavior. MCAS workers, who are not trained in dealing with animals in their care, improvise and force engagement. They created a “safety risk” through their insensitive forward advances then blamed Petey for the conditions they created.
MCAS has an “unhealthy and untreatable” culture where nearly every animal becomes afraid, and are then killed as a result of agency cruelty.
Petey was put to death 4 days after entering a monstrous shelter, where the only relief from suffering caused by MCAS management was to kill him.
Why is this called “humane?” Why do the County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of County Commissioners fund and support government sponsored animal cruelty?
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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?
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).
“…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.”
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
