Tag Archives: The Oregonian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 7, 2026, Rounds Review:

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

It was a litany of uninspired excuses.

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

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

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

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

March 6, 2026, Priority Walk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 5, 2026, Rounds Review:

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

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

March 2, 2026, Behavior Notes:

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

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

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

March 4, 2026, Data Collection:

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

An empirical analysis of MCAS euthanasia dispositions

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Cola’s MCAS records, private information redacted

MCAS Records_386348 Cola Download

Jubilee’s MCAS records, private information redacted

MCAS Records_386349 Jubilee Download

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

Euthanasia Policy–Nov 2018 Download

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

MCAS Euthanasia Policy 2-Euthanizing for space Download

How to Train a Fearful Dog

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

The destruction of MCAS progressive sheltering: Dismantling all checks and balances

Leave a reply

A History

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.

Multnomah county animal shelter drops language stating animals won’t be euthanized for space.

Readers respond: don’t believe euthanasia assurances.

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.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

When MCAS forces animals to pay with their lives for their failures: Killing Leo, an 8 year old small Terrier mix

Leave a reply

Leo, ID# 365470

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’)

MCAS Records_365470 Leo-Updated November 3 2025 Download

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels by Dr. Hetts, CAAB, Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, March 2006

When it Comes to Behavior, Avoid Labels_Dr Hetts-CAAB_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_March 2006 Download

Dog-Dog Aggression by Pat Miller, CBCC-KA CPDT-KA, Whole Dog Journal, May 2024.

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

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite by Pat Miller, YOUR DOG, December 2008.

Forced to confront stressors, a dog will bite-YOUR DOG December 2008_Pat Miller Download

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.

Resource Guarding Articles Download

The Department of Community Services protects MCAS management mislabeling animals, including Ichabod, to kill them

Leave a reply

Ichabod, ID# 370606

The direction, record and intention was clear at the outset.

Escalating euthanasias: ‘What does that mean?’: Animal advocates decry Multnomah County’s euthanasia policy (KOIN 6)

The increasing excuses: Multnomah county animal shelter drops language stating animals won’t be euthanized for space (The Oregonian)

In February 2024, after being questioned about changes in the euthanasia disposition process that now permitted and expanded a wide range of excusable reasons for euthanasia including “lack of resources” Department of Community Services Director Margi Bradway approved and defended the new policy. The policy changes have led to more deaths of shelter animals, all labeled “unhealthy and untreatable” without evidence supporting the label. Instead of raising the bar they lowered it on helpless animals.

That effect can be seen in the September 2025 KOIN report about euthanasia concerns at MCAS. MCAS management refused to respond on camera. Instead they sent a baseless, glowing written report about their euthanasia disposition process. When asked a direct question their response is always to deflect with vapid propaganda, behaving more like a politician than a public service administrator.

Ichabod is one more fatality of MCAS’ failed mission.

Impounded on October 2, 2025, Ichabod’s Good Samaritan finder did not know it would end in the death of the dog he thought he had saved. Ichabod was killed by MCAS one week later mislabeled as “Unhealthy and Untreatable.” Ichabod was nothing of the sort. He was just afraid and avoidant in a frightening and unfriendly toxic environment.

The finder had kept him with his family for over 24 hours but less than 7 days and described Ichabod as ‘shy with strangers, and playful with children under 10 and with dogs.’ There were no negative descriptions, at all.

After a week at MCAS, Andrew Mathias, Operations Manager, and the Rounds Review ordered Ichabod killed on October 9, 2025. Nothing in the records supports their statement recommending euthanasia.

October 9, 2025

“Rounds discussed and will move towards humane euthanasia due to aggressive behaviors and inability to handle in shelter environment. Chill protocol today for chip scan.”

There were no aggressive behaviors, just fearful and avoidant behaviors founded in defensiveness. Staff are on their own in animal care. They are not trained how to manage animal stress, and instead often repeatedly advance upon fearful dogs in ways that escalate an animal’s fear. The MCAS management certainly does not help them. Except for Mr. Mathias, but his certification only assesses knowledge through a multiple choice exam, not practical application.

“Inability to handle in shelter environment” is a gross indictment of management incompetence and indifference. Competent honest managers when they don’t know what to do consult behavior experts who do. MCAS has excluded animal and behavior training experts.

“Safety concerns” is an alarmist phrase under which management hides. There are many behavior treatments and plans that effectively address safety concerns by reducing a dog’s fear. None were implemented except on October 4, for trazodone 150 mg with a 14-day FAS [Fear, anxiety and stress] re-check. It was not noted if this was once or twice daily.

October 4, 2025, Medical update

“ACR Notes: High FAS -safety concern
Assessment: Walked by kennel and dog was outside on the other side of the guillotine door. Immediately began growling, hackles up, tense body and growling. Maintained tense posture and barking as long as within line of sight.”

Growling and barking are positive signs because a dog is communicating his fear openly and conservatively. Once noticing fear, the plan should be how to help this dog become more comfortable, not inhumane “data collection,” repeating the same actions over and over again and observing a dog’s reaction, hoping for change.

October 3, 2025,

“Kenneling

‘ …I approached Intake Gate and observed a client holding a medium shepherd looking dog on a flexi-leash. The client began pulling the dog back before it noticed me, I opened the gate and allowed them to follow me in. I began offering cheese which the dog did not take. The dog then began lunging barking and lip lifting at the end of the leash. The client was visible [sic] struggling to hold dog away from me so I did not attempt to approach or handle. Had the client kennel the dog. I returned to kennel with toys, dog was sitting in back of kennel watching without moving.‘”

Holding a dog back on leash tightly conveys to a dog that the person holding the leash is anxious and needs protection. A dog responds accordingly. ( “Leash rage,” Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Your Dog, June 2019).

After 3 admissions attempts on consecutive days, October 3, 4, and 5 with no plan but treats and sweet talk while attempting to enter his kennel, and 2 data collections on October 7, and October 8, MCAS management ordered Ichabod killed. Their efforts were over.

Data Collections

On October 7, it was clear the MCAS environment terrified Ichabod and also that his response and actions were avoidant, not aggressive pursuit.

“…I went to the outside run , crouched down , and tossed a trail of treats, but he remained inside. I then went back inside, but he had gone to the outside run, so I closed the dividing door and went back outside. When I came to the kennel he was sitting pressed up against the dividing door. I tossed some hot dogs, which he would eat if they landed close enough to him. The dogs around him were barking quite loudly and I could tell it was causing him stress, looking around and cowering low to the ground when several dogs were barking at once…”

MCAS did nothing to reduce the impact of toxic levels of noise that escalated Ichabod’s fear including adjusting his psychotropic medication.

After the data collection on October 8 2025, MCAS killed him for failing to cooperate.

October 8 2025,

“Data Collection

‘Dog was closed inside for poop scoop, standing near door on my approach. I slowly approached kennel, offering a treat. He shrank backward an inch, low growling, then gave a rapid four barks showing teeth. He then retreated with tail tucked, ears back. I tossed treats, and he hesitantly moved towards me to eat. Some lip quivering as he neared door. Would take treats from hand, then give small lip lifts and retreat . After treating for a minute I poked my leash thorough kennel front. He sniffed it for several seconds, and continued to take treats next to it. He retreated to back of kennel when I opened the door. Would move forward a foot or two for treats, but kept distance with door open, no vocalizing. Perked ears and tilted head when I used squeaker. Approached to sniff the squeaker through closed door . I tossed a toy in to him and he readily sniffed it with perked ears. I moved to outside of kennel, he would just past threshold for treats, but would not approach outside door.'”

In 2015, with only one manager and one lead worker, MCAS started a pilot program led by a Karen Pryor Academy trainer who created individual training programs for dogs with special needs. The programs were implemented by staff. The programs were promising. It wasn’t ‘don’t cooperate quickly with a time stamp or the dog will be killed.’

Now under the blind oversight of the Department of Community Services, homeless animals who are fearful or have any challenges at all and do not “adjust” quickly are mislabeled “Unhealthy and Untreatable ” in order to kill them. It avoids responsibility for their deaths.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Ichabod’s MCAS records, redacted

MCAS Records_370606 Ichabod-Redacted Download

Leash Rage from Tufts University, June 2019 Issue.

Leash Rage_Tufts University-June 2019 Issue Download

Beyond Food and Water by Kelly Gorman, CPDT. Whole Dog Journal, July 2004.

Behavior_Beyond Food and Water_Whole-dog-journal Download

Help for Noise-Sensitive Dogs by Dr. Jamela J. Perry, DVM. Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine, Dog Watch Newsletter, May 2024

Help for Noise-Sensitive Dogs-Dr Jamela J Perry-DVM_Cornell University Collage of Veterinary Medicine-Dog Watch Newsletter_May 2024 Download

Treat and Retreat for Uncomfortable Dogs by Doug Duncan, MA CTC CPDT-KA, CBCC-KA. Doggy Business Dog Training.

Treat and Retreat Download

The Art of the steal: How MCAS gets away with failure

Leave a reply

A magic program for creating the appearance of success when an agency is failing

The challenge is accounting for the health and well being of animals in their care. The task is how to kill shelter animals without being held to account. The method is to make animals responsible for their own deaths. This is the process:

1. Eliminate expertise and the community to expedite killing by dismantling every element of community and professional participation and involvement.

The Citizens Advisory Committee which is not comprised of stakeholders and is not transparent does not count. It is a distraction.

How did MCAS become an authoritarian regime?

2016 under then Director Jackie Rose training programs and professional experts with behavior and training backgrounds who once advised and participated in disposition decisions and training for animals were eliminated. So was the participation of volunteers, staff and any member of the public who once had permission to participate in disposition decisions. At the same time a policy was initiated eliminating a Shelter Review quorum in euthanasia decisions now permitting an animal to be euthanized at any time based upon any one or two managers’ decisions.

“Modified Shelter Review Process to be daily and/or as needed, as opposed to weekly with animals waiting up to six (6) days for decision making. (November 2015).” Part of the summary of accomplishments presented by Jackie Rose to Department of Community Services Director, upon her departure in April 2029.
2023 MCAS’ Policy of Euthanasia (effective as of 11/28/23), “consideration of placement for pets who may be eligible for placement is not a guarantee of placement, that “other considerations for euthanasia may include the available resources to manage or address the needs of the animal, as well as lack of available placement opportunities.” (https://www.multcopets.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/MCAS-PLC-001%20v1%20Euthanasia%20Policy.pdf)

MCAS managers have repeatedly declined to respond to the following questions stating “no responsive documents.”

The employment positions /professions of the Shelter Review Committee members (positions not names).

The animal behavior science and training credentials of the Shelter Review Committee members.
The outside consultants of the Shelter Review Committee: The public was supposed to be part of establishing euthanasia guidelines.
The minimum number of attendees when euthanasia decisions are made.

The transcript records of discussions for euthanasia decisions permitting transparency.

The decision making process for euthanasia dispositions.
The parties in charge of supervising the committee’s adherence to standards and holding the Shelter Review Committee accountable.

“It’s a mystery” as the Catholic Church would say about the unfathomable when unwilling to respond.

2. Label all dogs killed for behavior or medical reasons, “unhealthy and untreatable” despite objective evidence to the contrary in nearly every case. It relieves the responsibility of working.

3. Claim a “lack of resources” or “available placement options” to excuse a lack of effort, initiative, and their management failures: “We tried, then cried.”

4. Treat animals as criminals listing ‘crimes’ committed, then kill them for preventable incidents caused primarily by human error and ignorance including management’s shocking lack of skills and knowledge. Don’t create an intervention program.

5. Turn the shelter into a pet store and commodities market. Quote inapplicable research as justification: “Free or nearly free animals are just as loved.” No, they are not, flying back at warp speed as “adoption returns.” Selling animals at rock bottom prices, $25, to anyone, giving them a free “try out,” discourages commitment and encourages returns within 2 weeks for a complete refund if an animal does not work out; No owner education provided.

6. Take owner surrendered dogs for $50no questions asked, provide no owner surrender counseling to help owners understand reasons behind incidents, and how to prevent incidents and alternatives to surrender. Its the cheapest option in town to get rid of your now inconvenient companion animal.

7. Glorify dog bites as incredibly dangerous unpreventable threats to “public safety” that can only be resolved by killing. Most bite incidents can be prevented. Here is the answer.

“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 because often the bites that have broken the skin are not clearly visible without magnification and bites that are visible are magnified to enhance effect.

8. Create a management dynasty based upon internal loyalty to the throne, advancing others according to loyalty to management not ethics, public service or competence. The effect is harmful to public service. For example, the current director, Erin Grahek, has proven herself to be wholly unsuited to lead MCAS, appointed to MCAS as director after not advancing at the Department of Aging and Disabilities. I don’t know why failure at one agency leads to promotion at another in Troutdale. MCAS has become the consolation prize for failing elsewhere in government. Multnomah County government’s welfare program is “Leave no manager behind,” prioritizing management welfare over public service.

“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.” https://www.opb.org/article/2023/02/21/animal-care-concerns-multnomah-county-troutdale-shelter

By hiring an inexperienced person as MCAS director what was created instead of “strong leadership” was a power vacuum. Since human nature abhors a power vacuum, ambitious middle level managers filled it in, with the goal of creating an agency that works for them. It meant replacing caring for animals, pet redemption and public service with caring for themselves: Vacations, and 36/44 hour work weeks take precedence.

This is a short list from public records/citizens’ reports. Can this be corrected? The fish rots from the head. No, not unless honest government accountability replaces indifference and failure is not hidden by government propaganda behind which failure lies. That task belongs to the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners.

“‘I know the difference the shelter can make’ she [Jessica Vega Pederson] said Friday. ‘My family and I adopted our cat. Marie Curie, from the shelter and our team and I will be working so that the animals I visited today have the same opportunity to find a family.’” https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2023/01/former-multnomah-county-animal-services-staff-volunteers-say-deep-rooted-problems-have-led-to-years-of-animal-neglect.html

Over 2 years later nothing has changed but the cover: Animals are still suffering and are being killed indiscriminately or tossed out the door, unprepared and frightened to anyone.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Elektra: A fragile medically neglected French Bull dog lost at a park, neglected and killed by MCAS

Leave a reply

Where was Dolly’s Fund?

Dolly’ Fund donations intended by the public for the special medical needs of shelter animals is seldom accessed for animals. Despite audit concerns, and documented in 2024 of the diversion of the restricted funds elsewhere, Dolly’s Fund is still not reaching animals with medical needs a year later.

Multnomah County Auditor: Animal Shelter still misusing earmarked donations

The fund was named Dolly’s Fund in honor of Dolly, a medically fragile dachshund with a grave skin condition that MCAS veterinarians and animal care staff treated in 2010, restoring Dolly’s life. The fund was established as a restricted donation fund by the County Commissioners to be used to finance medical care for animal patients like Dolly, though, as reported in the Oregonian article, they have been using it outside that scope, including to pay for salaries.

Elektra, ID# 350281 and Reznor, ID# 350283

Dolly’s pictures, before and after care, are featured above alongside the pictures of Elektra and her partner Reznor. They were separated at MCAS; Elektra who came with a severe skin condition and evidence of other neglect, in addition to likely being bred for profit, was killed; Reznor went into foster care and a rapid $25 adoption.

Had Dolly been impounded today, the funds now donated in her name would have never reached her. Dogs with special medical needs are triaged and killed at MCAS unless other rescues, often with less funding but an investment in compassion will take them.

In 2025, MCAS no longer saves the lives of dogs like Dolly, despite having the means through Dolly’s Fund and the ability to support dogs with special medical needs through medical and hospice fosters. Once they did. It has become a cull and kill operation devoid of all compassion. If words could resurrect Elektra’s life to save her I would, but it’s too late. She was summarily killed on May 2, 2025, 9 days after being left at MCAS along with her partner, Reznor, from whom she was separated and saw briefly only once on April 24 as he walked by. From Reznor’s records, April 24, 2025: “…Dog followed me to play yard, tail low, and ears back. On the way he had a good sniff with Elektra (350281).”

During her brief impoundment, Elektra was frightened, anxious, and avoidant.

The last behavior note was on April 30, 2025 when Elektra developed bloody diarrhea, an event so commonplace that MCAS has created a diarrhea waiver to “indemnify” (from their wording) themselves against it.

April 30, 2025,

“Passing by kennel in AM I noticed a large amount of blood. Dog was running back and forth, slipping and sliding, ears back, eyes wide, barking with whining growls. I went to outside door, and she approached, continuing to bark. When I cracked door she attempted to move through it, then backed away. I was able to toss leash over her head. Once leashed she walked out of kennel, pacing back and forth near my side. JB had called Animal Health, and CP [an Animal Care Technician 2] came to observe. I put her back in kennel, so they could sedate for an exam. Returned with snake hook to removed [sic] leash. She mouthed towards it once, retreating. I held door slightly cracked, and she approached. I was able to hook and remove lead. She retreated inside.”

Later on the day of April 30, Elektra was examined by an on site veterinarian followed by an assessment and plan.

“Assessment
-Bloody stool 4/29 and blood from anus today- R/O acute hemorrhagic diarrhea syndrome, open
-Prolapsed gland of the third eye lid (cherry eye) OD (right eye)
-Bilateral otitis externa
-LH lameness- R/O OA (osteoarthritis)/ DJD (degenerative joint disease, hip dysplasia, soft tissue injury, open
-Dermatitis- likely secondary to allergies
– Bilateral otitis externa- – likely secondary to allergies
-Mild dental disease
High FaS [Fear, Anxiety, and Stress] prior to sedation
2 long scars on ventral abdomianal midline -R/O previous C-section, OVH (Ovariohysterectomy, laparotomy, open)”

The treatment plan included fluids, applicable medications, a bland diet for 7 days or longer if needed and treatment of her ears.

But Elekra was allowed no time to recover and heal. Instead Elektra was ordered killed the following day on May 1, as “unhealthy and untreatable,” a diagnosis unsupported by veterinary assessment and in direct contrast to the available behavior reports.

May 1, 2025,

“Rounds discussed and will move to humane euthanasia due to compounding behavior and medical concerns.”

Elektra’s death was not “humane,” as MCAS managers/leaders described. It was opportunistic and borne out of indifference.

The majority of the medical concerns were linked to allergies, none of which were remotely“unhealthy and untreatable.” The medical treatment program was interrupted and disrupted one day after it was prescribed. And Elektra’s fears and anxiety were more than likely linked to the distress caused by her severe skin condition which had not been treated.

Elektra’s medical and behavior concerns were compounded, only in the sense that her anxious and fearful behavioral distress were linked to and exacerbated/caused by her painful medical conditions. Research, as well as common sense, support that pain from medical skin conditions can cause diarrhea, while also creating anxiety/fear and aggression. Relieving pain and suffering from Elektra’s medical condition would have resolved stacked stressors causing behavioral fear and irritability

American Veterinary Medical Association Jul 11, 2022 — Pruritic, atopic dogs showed significant increases in fear- and anxiety-related behaviors as well as aggression compared with a large control)

It is clear that all of her behaviors described in the records were fearful and avoidant; and not aggressive at all.

April 25, 2025,

“Data Collection

Elektra was avoidant in kennel. Barking and huffing, stiff, ears back, eyes wide. Would retreat to far side. When I entered kennel she began small hops with her barks, and some whining growls. Glancing around kennel. I moved to inside door, and opened it, holding her leash and collar inside, she approached to sniff it, and I swung slip lead over her head. She barked at hopped, then followed me out of kennel. In play yard she began high pitched whining.

Followed me through yards for a few laps, then down to agility trail. On trail she began to paint [sic] tongue lolling out, walking at my heel. I crouched down, and she whined and moved away. I sat still for a moment, and she moved near my side for a brief sniff of my treat pouch. Startled and jerked back when I reached for it to offer treat, No interest in treats outside of kennel.

Any movement towards he [sic] would cause her to move away, flinch or whine. Returned towards outside of kennel, and she pulled towards the inside. I began to maneuver slip lead, attempting to open loop. She returned to her barking with small hops, ears back, eyes wide. Some whining growls, then retreating towards inside, tightening loop back up.

I had brought her leash and collar from kennel front, and was able to drop it through slip lead loop, using it to pull the leash over her head. She air snapped at it once when it was near her face. Once leash was off she ran to outside door, seeking exit. I was able to use leashed [sic] and door to block her, and exit kennel. No reaction towards leashes, just avoided them.”

There was only one previous behavior data collection on April 24, and described similar fearful avoidant behaviors, not aggression. Elektra’s behavior harmed no one. It may be that MCAS managers don’t know how to manage an animal’s fear, the majority caused by MCAS environment and policies. But mislabeling dogs to kill them is a deliberate evasion of responsibility and victimizes the animals they have targeted. They designate animals what they have proven themselves to be: “unhealthy and untreatable,” and it is another form of government created animal abuse.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS records for Elektra, redacted

MCAS Records_350281 Elektra-Redacted Download

MCAS records for Reznor, redacted

MCAS Records_350283 Reznor-Redacted Download

Study links skin allergies in dogs to problem behaviors, American Veterinary Medical Association, November 2019

Study links skin allergies in dogs to problem behaviors_American Veterinary Medical Association-November 2019 Download

Associations Between Atopic Dermatitis and Anxiety, Aggression, and Fear-Based Behaviors in Dogs, Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, July 2022

McAuliffeetal-2022-dermatitisandbehavior Download

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

Leave a reply

Millie, ID# 335233

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

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

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

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

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

March 12, 2025 Walk notes

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

March 12, 2025 Playgroup

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

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

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

March 14, 2025

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

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

Millie’s First adoption

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

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

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

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

Millie’s Foster care

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

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

Millie’s Second Adoption

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

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

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

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

Options

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Redacted records for Millie, 335233

MCAS Records_335233 Millie-Redacted Download

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

Leave a reply

In response to the article from The Oregonian:

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

To whom it may concern:

The commissioners believe a visit to the shelter prepped by errant managers tells them all they need to know about operations deserving a new building. One is needed. The public and animals do. The managers don’t deserve one. They need a new attitude. There is no “creative use of space.” And one guided visit to impress commissioners does not create “expertise.”

How shocking that the county hears none of citizens stories affected by MCAS, don’t pay attention to data, citizens reports, and public records, do not pay attention to long term volunteer concerns, and don’t realize that funding has been redirected from pet retention and redemption to sales of unneutered and unspayed animals for $25 dollars to anyone and the kill rate is escalating. All of that will be transferred to a new building when what is needed first is new management.

I have never read a more shallow opinion about MCAS’ “creative” use of limited space made by the respondents who believe a one time guided visit creates expertise. It’s like saying “I went to a seminar once about doctors so now I’m a doctor!” MCAS has no creative use of space except killing when under past administrations they did have multiple outreaches and made a greater effort to care for and place animals they now kill as “unhealthy and untreatable” to get rid of them when by any objective standard they are not. It is called lying. This article about the managers “suffering” in an old building would be best titled “The art of the con.”

Over 80% of the MCAS demographic, over represented by low income working people, homeless and minorities live in Portland. Transportation by MAX and bus ends several miles away and MCAS has unfriendly policies and working hours to the public making redemption difficult. So why would you build a palace in Troutdale instead of purchasing a building in Portland?

Once again the County Board of Commissioners have made clear they don’t care about their constituents at all. They are there to parrot and protect managers only. They don’t hear nor do they solicit the public voices of those whose animals end up at MCAS. The tune out workers. Interview those who have left traumatized by working in an inhumane authoritarian environment.

A new easily accessed building for the public is needed. But most of all what is needed is a county commission that cares and a working shelter. We order and read about 2000 pages of MCAS public records weekly. I have personally read these records for 25 years. What is happening internally now is shocking. The county commissioners should read them too instead of abandoning those most affected by MCAS while protecting their own. Grahek herself fails to reach standards set by national animal shelter guidelines. She had no experience whatsoever in animal sheltering before assuming the directorship after failing to advance at the Department of Aging and Disabilities. She was nominated anyway. That is the definition of the art of the con.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock, PhDCitizens for Humane Animal Legislation/Watchdog

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

Leave a reply

Kismet, ID# 331471

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

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

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

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

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

December 5, 2024,

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

The behavior in question at MCAS is theirs.

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

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

No or irregular training causes skill disparities in staff

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

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

MCAS Audit, 2016, Page 5
Animal Services Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 2, the data collection notes read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Kismet’s records, redacted

MCAS Records_331471 Kismet-Redacted Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2016

Animal Services Audit Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2018

Animal Services_ Important issues still need to be resolved Download

Multnomah County Animal Services Audit, 2024

Recommendation Status Evaluation – Animal Services_ Several recommendations implemented, some still in process Download

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

Guidelines_Summaries_w-TOC Download

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical follow up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Field Services Supervisor continued,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS’ policy on Necropsy, continuing from 2017

MCAS Necropsy Policy–Feb 2017 (Unchanged as of December 2024)Download

Buffy 329918, redacted records

MCAS Records_329918 Buffy-Redacted Download

Walker 329916, redacted records

MCAS Records_329916 Walker-Redacted Download

Puppy 330764, redacted records

MCAS Records_330764 Buffy’s Unnamed Puppy-Redacted Download

Puppy 330766, redacted records

MCAS Records_330766 Buffy’s Unnamed Puppy-Redacted Download

Bear 297341, redacted records

MCAS Records_297341 Bear-Redacted Download

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

Leave a reply

Winnie, ID# 300464

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

November 12, 2024,

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 6, 2024, Health Exam; Veterinary recommendation:

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

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

October 23, 2024, Data Collection:

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

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

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

Veterinarians and others serve the managers, not the mission.

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Winnie’s MCAS Records, Redacted.

MCAS Records_300464 Winnie-Redacted Download

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

MCAS Shelter Review Guidelines-2014-Working Draft Download

MCAS Rounds Review Policies, 2016; under Former Jackie Rose

MCAS Shelter Review Guidelines-2016 Download

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

MCAS Euthanasia Policy-2024 Download

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community

1 Reply

Jasmin, ID# 292723

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

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

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

Adoptions: How adoptions go wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“‘I will bring on strong professionals who have the animal welfare background that I don’t, and marry that with my experience as a manager and a leader in Multnomah County,’ Erin Grahek said.”

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Jason Renaud’s Respite Program proposal from September 2022

Jason Renaud_Dog Respite Proposal Download

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

Shelters Move Toward Alternatives_Cornell University Download

Jasmin’s [292723] records, redacted

MCAS Records_292723 Jasmin-Redacted Download

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

1 Reply

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

Sheba (Sundown), ID# 315270

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“PLAYGROUP

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

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

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

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

“PLAYGROUP

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

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

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

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

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

“PLAYGROUP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 10, 2024, adoption return intake notes

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

Placing on rounds for review.”

All behavior notes before and after her return were positive.

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

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

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

September 11, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘But the trains have to run on time.’

September 15, 2024,

“Emailed breed specific rescues.”

September 18, 2024

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

September 19, 2024

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

September 22, 2024

“Emailed senior dog rescues.”

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

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

MCAS Records_315270 Sheba (Sundown)-Redacted Download

MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

1 Reply

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

Malaki, MCAS ID# 324511

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

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

September 30, 2024

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

September 29, 2024 Rounds Review.

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

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

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

Animal Care Review (ACR):

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

Musculoskeletal:

-Ambulatory x4 with hind end stiffness

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

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

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

P [Plan]
-Decrease carprofen to 200 mg PO SID and continue indefinitely

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

Medically clear: yes with indemnity for suspected OA/DJD”

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

Why save Dolly’s Fund and not the dog?

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

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

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

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

September 29, 2024

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

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

MCAS Records_324511 Malaki-Redacted Download

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

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

MCAS Records_283892 Trooper-Updated September 4 2024-Redacted Download

MCAS Records_273529 Shadow-Redacted Download

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

MCAS In Care Inventory September 30 2024 Download

MCAS In Care Inventory September 25 2023 Download

Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba

1 Reply

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

Sheba, ID# 315270

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

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

Awaiting euthanasia

How did Sheba go from the adoption floor to death?

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

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

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

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

Sheba’s plight

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

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

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

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

September 11 2024,

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

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

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

May 8, 2024

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

September 20, 2024

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

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

September 10, 2024

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

September 18 2024, Walk notes

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

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

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

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

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS leaders sponsor animal abuse and neglect

1 Reply

Trooper, ID# 283892

Trooper, a victim of circumstances

MCAS runs an unhealthy and untreatable agency, marked by a hostile environment that profoundly affects the mental health and physical well being of animals unfortunate enough to be incarcerated here. Inevitably, the reasons given by managers for killing them describe the effects of what the agency has done to them. MCAS then kills its victims labeling them as “unhealthy and untreatable” through convenience euthanasia.

On March 10, 2023 Trooper was taken to MCAS after his owner was arrested for animal abuse. The owner’s sister had called the agency on March 13 to inquire about Trooper what she could do to help, including a request to contact her if he were scheduled to be killed. They did not.

The Animal Control Summary for that date described how Trooper was inside a carrier when the police blew off the door to the apartment where his owner lived. Although reported to be shaken and growling at the police officers walking by, the animal control officer described that he easily took him out of the crate on a lead. When out of the kennel he was described as “wagging his tail and friendly with the officers,” “knows sit,” and “he even liked pets.”

On intake that same day at MCAS, the intake exam behavior observations read:

“Was shaking a little, slow, to approach but loved pets once he did. Seemed to like women a little more than men. Knows sit. Was a very sweet dog until I looked in his mouth at his teeth and he snapped at me for this. Therefore I did not put him, in adoption kennels for this.”

When a dog snaps at someone for looking into his mouth after surviving an acutely traumatizing incident the same day, the reserved nature of that reaction is amazing. It’s not, under any reasonable circumstance, a disqualification for adoptions. Peering into a dog’s mouth better describes the handler as insensitive. It is intrusive stressful behavior.

Trooper was killed at MCAS with the following astonishing statement:

April 17, 2023

“Moved to ER for continued over arousal in shelter combined with inability to handle safely.”

He was incarcerated and deprived of exercise and human contact for 5 weeks, from March 10 to April 18, 2024, surrounded by a toxic atmosphere. He only got out of his kennel twice: Once on March 30, 2023 and again on April 12, 2024.

April 12, 2024, Behavior notes:

“…Trooper was very worked up and jumpy inside the kennel…Using a tennis ball to hold focus I easily leashed, then tossed him the ball to carry. He pulled very hard, but carried the ball to the play yard, played fetch for 5-10 minutes, then used the same tactics to bring him back to his kennel, tossing a ball to exit without issue.”

Why was Trooper denied proper care then killed as “Unhealthy and Untreatable” the effects of MCAS management’s incompetence? It is easy to reverse stress but not cold calculated cruelty.

MCAS harms animals then covers their mistakes up by victimizing animals in their care, day after day after day. Multnomah County, a self-proclaimed “liberal” and “humane” county, looks away. That is animal abuse. Multiple records confirm this cruelty and are available upon request.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS’ Brutal indifference to handicapped animals

2 Replies

Jackson, ID# 322762

Jackson, awaiting euthanasia on September 04, 2024

On September 4, Jackson, a very friendly valiant young dog who had learned to navigate and compensate for hemiparesis and blindness, was scheduled to be killed because MCAS managers claimed to have exhausted all options for his care

They had not. They simply prefer the expediency of killing the helpless.

These were the options

On September 02, 2024, The Humane Society of SW Washington had accepted Jackson for medical care but were over capacity and asked to be contacted in a few days. On September 03, they declined due to their current population.

MCAS could have placed Jackson in foster care until space opened up at the Humane Society of SW Washignton or another option was found elsewhere. MCAS once had medical fosters but the current management claims to have eliminated the program, despite it still being part of the Dog Foster Handbook (FAQ, “What are the common reasons that dogs need fostering?”, page 29).

Jackson just needed a foster, it didn’t have to be a medical foster. Jackson’s medical condition was stable and his case could be managed even without an extensive neurolgical consultation. One can manage a case clinically without diagnostics. There was no consultation to even determine if extensive diagnostics are needed. Partial paralysis and blindness can be managed even if they can’t be cured.

MCAS could have accessed Dolly’s Fund, a restricted donation driven fund established by a County Resolution in 2009 and further specified in 2015 as part of another resolution, for the special medical needs of shelter animals. Instead they have continued to illegally divert it to fund spay neuter vouchers, despite both the county auditor and the Oregonian reporting on its misuse.

A consultation with a veterinary rehabilitation specialist could have been arranged about rehabilitation for dogs with semi paralysis. It is affordable. Back on Track Veterinary Rehab once collaborated over MCAS dogs in past times. And after reading about his case online, the veterinarian and founder of Back on Track on September 02, 2024, inquired on how to contact MCAS about fostering or adopting Jackson.

The timeline to his planned death on September 04, was close to the date of inquiry. Regardless, there were no lack of options, only a lack of caring and initiative.

The following statement by the Rounds Committee recommending euthanasia is inexcusable in its sophistry and jaded inhumanity. After all, MCAS believed that his life was worthy but was asking others with less funding to conduct a neurological consultation when in fact management might have been all that was needed and in any event they could well afford any associated costs from Dolly’s fund intended for that purpose.

September 4, 2024

“Rounds met and we have exhausted options and will proceed with DVM recommendations of humane euthanasia given that extensive work up would be needed to reach a diagnosis.”

Since Rounds is so easily exhausted, they should be placed on bed rest, while competent professionals are sought to enable a humane shelter.

Veterinarians at MCAS once recommended legitimate expenditures of Dolly’s Fund through consultations under leadership of former Director Michael Oswald until his retirement on April 30, 2015 (Public records examples available upon request). Michael Oswald was the only long-term Director at MCAS, as since his retirement the position has been a revolving door where people come and go every 1 to 3 years.

The current MCAS managers since 2016 have routinely rejected access to those funds when veterinarians have requested them. The effect has been that veterinarians no longer ask for referrals. The instruction is to off load medical concerns onto another organization.

A forlorn hope exists that Jackson made it through the Committee and was allowed to live, but what I know of the current management at MCAS is that they are dedicated to population control with brutal efficiency.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

MCAS covers up failed animal care

Leave a reply

Budget’s death in a triple occupancy kennel

EDIT: Updated the dogs’ return to the shelter due to the owner’s ongoing medical emergency.

“In response to Monday’s audit, Vega Pederson said she was pleased with the amount of progress that’s taken place at the shelter since she took office. ‘This timely assessment provides us an opportunity to see how far (Multnomah County Animal Services) has come in a short amount of time,’ she wrote.”

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/multnomah-countys-long-troubled-animal-shelter-improved-pet-care-record-keeping-but-still-has-more-work-to-do-auditors-say.html

Background

Budget, ID# 320453; Gizmo, ID# 320452; Phoenix, ID# 320454

On August 08, three dogs were taken into MCAS custody when their owner was hospitalized: Gizmo, MCAS 320452, a Labrador Retriever mix; Phoenix, MCAS 320454, a Labrador/Rottweiler mix; Budget, MCAS 320453, a dachshund.

At first, the 2 large dogs were housed together apart from the small dachshund. The MCAS contract worker who picked up all three dogs from a temporary caretaker, providing care for them while the owner was hospitalized had run out of resources. The worker housed the 2 larger dogs together in one kennel, placing the dachshund in a separate kennel after describing him as very fearful.

July 16, 2024:

“I loaded up the three dogs and transported them to the shelter two of the dogs were friendly and easy to handle and I cannot them together in a large kennel. Their belongings are in a labeled bag behind the adoption desk. The third dog was fearful on arrival at the shelter and I had to use a control pole. That dog is kenneled separate in intake 14.”

At some point during their stay at MCAS, management decided to house all 3 dogs together.

August 8, 2024:

“Arrived MCAS 22:51m placed all 3 dogs into intake kennel #16 (double kennel), they are very much bonded to each otherwise”

On August 12, Budget, the small fearful dachshund was found fatally injured, deceased in the shared kennel. No one noticed any commotion until then.

August 12, 2024

“Phoenix 320454 and Gizmo 320452 were housed in a double kennel with Budget 320453. All three dogs had come in together. Budget was found deceased in the kennel today; he had bite wounds on his ventral neck and blood coming from his mouth. He had most likely been killed by either Phoenix or Gizmo. Phoenix and Gizmo were placed in separate kennels and added to Rounds Review to determine pathway.”

The fact that all 3 came in together doesn’t justify kenneling all 3 together when grouping in small kennels is generally unsafe. Especially when the small dog was kenneled separately on that July 16 intake.

A day later on August 13, the contact person for the owner called and MCAS reported that the Budget had been attacked and killed by one or both of the 2 other dogs in the shared kennel. The contact person responded that the owner:

“would occasionally mention that Phoenix would pick on Budget and that she was not entirely surprised that Gizmo jumped in with her sister. I let her know that we planned to proceed with Euthanasia in the morning of 8/15, and gave her a telephone number telling her to contact prior to 5:30 PM 8/14 if they had heard from the owner.”

Earlier on August 13,“Rounds met and due to kennel incident that resulted in death of 3^rd dog, electing euthanasia at end of hold time unless reclaimed. [Follow up on] 8/14.”

Phoenix was redeemed by the owner on August 14, 2024.

These are nice dogs. MCAS created the circumstances that led to Budget’s death. They took no responsibility whatsoever. Instead, they planned to kill both of the dogs after they failed to protect all 3 dogs. That was their misconduct. They had no plans to review their culpability or hold themselves accountable. The only plan was to conceal misconduct and destroy the evidence.

According to the records, they had planned to kill the other two dogs immediately at the end of the legal hold time of 6 days, on the morning of August 15. They planned this despite knowing that the owner was placed on mental health hold at the hospital. They knew the struggle she was going through, and cruelly decided that killing her dogs while she couldn’t possibly respond to their calls was an acceptable decision. The owner reclaimed her dogs before the deadline on August 14, but was unfortunately hospitalized again on August 22. Her dogs are back at the shelter, and likely to be scheduled for euthanasia on August 29.

That is what they do day after day. If careless adopters harm animals then return the dogs, MCAS managers don’t review what went wrong with their adoption. They just destroy the victims and move on. Nothing changes.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

The Oregonian: Multnomah County Auditor, Animal Shelter still misusing earmarked donations

1 Reply

A Response

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/multnomah-county-animal-shelter-still-misusing-earmarked-donations-one-year-after-scathing-report-auditor-says.html?gift=020c5bc3-de4c-4b79-a183-7262723a6401

Once again, Multnomah County Animal Services denied the auditor’s conclusions. And once again, the County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson and the Board of Commissioners attempted to push aside the reported misuse of funds, and announced no need for investigation, despite the fact that the shelter failed to implement more than 50 previous recommendations needed to improve conditions for shelter cats and dogs up to national standards.

The county’s response to the Auditor’s report over the misuse of funds brings George Orwell to mind:

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.”
George Orwell (1946)

The County Chair and Board of Commissioners have also abandoned MCAS’ lofty funded mission announced first in for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget then repeated for the FY 2025 budget, a nod to aspirational goals that never do come true:

“Historically, the primary role of MCAS has been animal control enforcement and stray animal sheltering. In harmony with County equity goals and the MCAS North Star of providing quality care for animals and equitable services for the community, MCAS is shifting resources toward supporting pet owners to care for and retain their animals. The aim is to prevent animals from needing shelter due to surrender or abandonment, and to intervene prior to the need for enforcement activity.”
— Community Services FY 2024, 2025 Adopted Budget,

The problem is Multnomah County government’s willingness to squirm around facts to protect its fading image and lost goals: Will this lipstick on a pig (apologies to the pigs) do or should I pick another shade? After tampering with the facts, nothing changes and there is more and more to hide.

The Spay/Neuter Fund

The spay/neuter monies donated by the public intended to help low income families pay for spay/neuter surgeries have been diverted to general adoptions instead of their intended purpose. That is cheating. MCAS had community service clinics where low cost surgeries were performed as the fund was intended. They also had a mobile spay/neuter van donated by Petco, that never left MCAS.

The intention of the donated public funds was public service to help low income populations. The only argument that can be given is that their policy for Spay/neuter donations state that the funds “may” be used as the program describes. This has little meaning, as the policy for Dolly’s Fund states how it “will” be used, but they misuse it all the same. The agency has historically reached into donors’ pockets without their knowledge, using the funds for expediency.

The power of double speak.

The glib way the county explained the diversion of spay neuter funds for low income families to support their general adoptions voucher system is embarrassing. They can’t help themselves.

“This program makes vouchers available for all adopters who need financial support, which especially helps low-income families in need, Serena Cruz, the county’s chief operating officer, wrote in a memo.”

Serena Cruz’s response is misleading. The vouchers aren’t going to low income families. They are going to everyone who adopts a $25 dog, the cost for dogs on an endless ‘special sale.’ It is also a disclaimer of the county government’s responsibility to spay and neuter all animals before they leave MCAS. They can. MCAS once spayed and neutered all animals—cats and dogs—before they left the agency when they had a lower budget, fewer managers, and a significantly higher intake. This shift in policy began as a temporary measure that then turned into the permanent practice we see today.

MCAS also did not honor Oregonlive Reporter Austin De Dios request for figures on voucher redemption despite the fact that these figures are readily available. Why withhold this?

The real reason MCAS wants animals out as quickly as possible is their rejection of their funded service mission replacing the public’s mission with a pet store model: ‘Four on the floor; out the door.’ To expedite a speedy exit, animals go out cheaply and unaltered (“Adopters Welcome!”) and are often just as quickly returned, un-altered and harmed by the experience of thoughtless adoptions. Some are killed as a result of MCAS negligent adoption practices. There is no net gain, just a revolving door, when adopted animals are returned after their adoptions have been driven by speed and low/no standards. Speedy isn’t the answer when they are returned unaltered, after a soiree into the community.

The ‘get them out of here fast anyway you can’ plan isn’t working because its not thoughtful, service oriented, and doesn’t lower intake when so many are returned, often in worse shape than when they left, or dead.

“Staffing shortages,” “budget constraints,” and “increasing veterinary costs,” the factors MCAS lists as responsible for the necessity of adoption of the voucher system have nothing to do with why MCAS has adopted a voucher system. That is just another sorry excuse and lying by misdirection: ‘Look here, not there.’ MCAS is fully staffed and has been for awhile; has more managers than ever and every year is granted a larger and larger budget despite taking in fewer animals; cats are left out in the cold.

They changed the mission to what is easiest for them: Cheap sales. The short wait for an animal to be spayed or neutered before leaving is an obstacle to rapid fire adoptions, so they abandoned the funded mission that includes reducing overpopulation by constraining breeding, and replaced it with what works for them: Sales and give aways that can serve as opportunities for breeders. There are off record reports of exactly that happening.

There are no budget constraints. The budget is unconstrained and increasing year after year without any improvement in performance. MCAS budget for the fiscal year 2025 is $15.684,365. MCAS continues to fund failure year after year at a higher and higher cost to the public.

The diversion of Adoption Outreach monies to fund salaries

It is just a continuation of pick pocketing and dishonoring government obligations. Outreach at diverse physical locations has been proven critical to increasing adoptions. Most adoptions once took place at outreach events. There are almost no outreach events now. But outreach works. MCAS Operations manager Marian Cannell has sponsored only two events—one at the Oregon Rail Heritage Center on August 19, 2023 and another at Theresa’s County Feed and Pet Store on June 15, 2024—during her several years of tenure. She did this while calling out ‘Red Alert’ alarms to the media and the public to adopt because MCAS is “at capacity,” implying more animals will be killed due to a lack of space.

The outreach events fund is flush with donations and not being actively used, so why not borrow it for another purpose, distinct from its intended use? This seems to be Serena Cruz’s rationalization. However, robbing one account,a restricted account of earmarked funds,to pay for the salary of the program communications coordinator is dishonest theft. The assertion that the program coordinator is critical in “managing outreach efforts,” when there have been only two outreach events in two years, is a bridge too far.

The county did it because it was easy. They’ve never faced consequences for taking from restricted funds. Outreach events are what lead to increased adoptions. The coordinator’s salary siphons from the money intended to subsidize these events. When animals get out of the dismal surroundings of the agency they are adopted.

Dolly’s Fund for the special medical needs of indigent shelter animals

Very little of Dolly’s Fund donations are being spent to cover the medical needs of vulnerable animals at MCAS, the explicit, legally binding, designation for how those funds are to be used. Instead of medical care and medical fosters to care for vulnerable animals, most are expediently killed, especially if a less well funded rescue won’t take them off MCAS’ roster.

These abuses are well documented in MCAS public records animal status reports. Under former Director Michael Oswald, Dolly’s Fund did go to the care of individual animals, instead of being misused as it is now. Animals are now killed with the disclaimer: “We don’t have the resources,” when they do have the resources but lack the will and initiative.

MCAS managers have rejected all of the programs that work to reduce shelter crowding and shelter over population: Outreach events, pet redemption and retention efforts, compassionate emergency board for persons in crisis, and owner surrender counseling. Why try when failure is successfully excused and any excuse will do? Multnomah government’s culture is ‘this work does not matter.” The work incentives are pay, benefits and vacations, not service.

County citizens and the county’s homeless animals deserve better. They deserve a government that works. The role of county government should be to protect public services not public servants and failure. Failure will continue to predictably cascade until the culture of this government changes. It is not just about financial malfeasance. It is about professional malfeasance as well. Homeless animals are marked “Unhealthy and Untreatable” when they are not, as an act of convenience to justify killing them while taking no responsibility. Change and recovery can only begin by removing the current indifferent and opportunistic management at MCAS, a society where a culture of cruelty prevails.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Public Records: Jamie Waltz to County Chair Deborah Kafoury and Serena Cruz
“Temporary” suspension of spaying/neutering animals before adoption

MCAS Shelter Shock

Facts that the public doesn't know about Multnomah County Animal Services, Oregon

Tag Archives: The Oregonian

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

The destruction of MCAS progressive sheltering: Dismantling all checks and balances

When MCAS forces animals to pay with their lives for their failures: Killing Leo, an 8 year old small Terrier mix

The Department of Community Services protects MCAS management mislabeling animals, including Ichabod, to kill them

The direction, record and intention was clear at the outset.

The Art of the steal: How MCAS gets away with failure

A magic program for creating the appearance of success when an agency is failing

Elektra: A fragile medically neglected French Bull dog lost at a park, neglected and killed by MCAS

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

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

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

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

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

How Multnomah County Animal Services fails the community

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

MCAS convenience euthanasia: Killing Malaki the senior Malamute

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

Losing the lottery, The inexcusable killing of Sheba

MCAS leaders sponsor animal abuse and neglect

MCAS’ Brutal indifference to handicapped animals

MCAS covers up failed animal care

The Oregonian: Multnomah County Auditor, Animal Shelter still misusing earmarked donations