In other news: Celebrating America. The battles to save Bruce and Thunder. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Indianapolis “shelter” that is supposed to protect dogs from neglect neglects and kills dog. K-9 officer who is supposed to care for dogs allegedly neglects and kills them instead. Sheriff: Animal control officer put live puppies in incinerator. What dogs need vs. what they get in animal “shelters.” Anti-Animals 24-7. Another week, another pet food recall. My apologies and a clarification.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Celebrating America

Despite its flaws, the United States remains a global beacon of hope due to its unique convergence of free-market capitalism, democracy, and Enlightenment values. America’s capitalistic framework drives both moral and technological progress by empowering entrepreneurs to innovate humane alternatives to products that harm animals, eventually rendering cruel traditional practices socially and economically obsolete. Ultimately, the modern animal advocacy movement is not a rejection of American ideals, but an enduring extension of the Declaration of Independence’s foundational promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

The battles to save Bruce and Thunder

It is not right to kill an animal who has an appropriate and safe environment for them and others. Bruce — described by the very agency seeking his destruction as a “model citizen” — and Thunder, who has developed a positive relationship with some of his kennel attendants, deserve an opportunity for life and happiness.

Do you have what it takes to save lives?

The following communities are looking for someone to run their animal shelters:

• Boone County, IN.

• Wake County, NC.

The successful candidates with a “can do” attitude, a passion for saving lives, and a commitment to getting results will have the community’s support.

Indianapolis “shelter” neglects and kills dog

Despite temperatures in the 90s and numerous warnings about a massive heat dome that would bake parts of the country, Indianapolis Animal Care & Control left Stitch, a dog, outside in direct sun, ignoring procedures allegedly put in place to minimize heat stress. Stitch is now dead. This is not only grossly irresponsible, it is illegal.

Read more

A Ventura County Superior Court judge has denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) from killing Bruce, a dog ordered destroyed after being declared “vicious” for “multiple alleged incidents of aggression.” Despite the denial, Bruce remains protected under a temporary preservation order issued by a U.S. District Court while attorneys continue pursuing legal avenues to prevent his death.

The latest request was filed by the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC), which argues that it retained contractual rights to Bruce under the adoption agreement executed when the dog was adopted in 2023. According to SPARC, ownership reverted to the rescue organization after Bruce’s adopters became homeless, Bruce began acting out aggressively, and they relinquished him to VCAS. SPARC contends it was never notified of the proceedings that resulted in the destruction order and was denied an opportunity to assert its contractual and property rights before the county ordered Bruce killed.

Although the state court declined to issue its own protective order, the decision does not authorize Bruce’s killing. The federal court order remains in effect while the court considers jurisdictional issues and other claims brought by SPARC.

The legal battle comes as records maintained by Ventura County Animal Services paint a markedly different picture of Bruce’s behavior while in custody. Although Bruce has been declared “vicious,” VCAS kennel staff consistently describe him as a “model citizen” during his months at the shelter. The kennel notes document overwhelmingly positive behavior, suggesting Bruce has adjusted and can do well in a controlled environment despite the incidents that led to the proceedings.

Despite this and court filings that reveal multiple alternatives to killing were presented, including permanent custody under strict conditions or a sanctuary option, these options were rejected.

Bruce’s battle is not unique.

As previously reported, the Denver pound is also intent on killing Thunder, a dog, despite a sanctuary alternative. Lightning, another dog who was with Thunder, is already dead. Indeed, “DAS killed Lightning as quickly as possible. So quickly that an appeal filed within hours was already too late.”

Prior to his execution, Denver Animal Shelter pound leadership sent a one word text after a judge ruled that Lightning could be killed: “Beautiful.”

Lightning’s killing follows his mauling of a cat and his biting of a person after he, and Thunder… escaped from their yard. The death of the cat, the biting of a person, his betrayal by an irresponsible “owner,” his betrayal by Denver pound staff, and even Lightning’s death are many things — tragic and heartbreaking, chief among them. But none are “beautiful.”

Despite a behaviorist evaluation that recommended Thunder… be spared because he exhibits “full bite inhibition” and a sanctuary offering to take him, ensuring he would neither be returned to the irresponsible “owner” nor ever put anyone else in harm’s way… [DAS is committed to killing him].

Despite their histories, Bruce and Thunder’s killing cannot be allowed to stand. Why?

Because we need to eliminate discretion which causes animals to die despite lifesaving alternatives.

Because if sanctuary is an option, it is a win-win: for the safety of the community and for the safety of the dog.

Courts have ruled that a family who does not believe in chemotherapy or blood transfusions cannot choose to allow their child to die if those things can save the child’s life. There are laws that say a family cannot cut down a tree on their own property because public policy is against cutting down trees. Just like kids and trees, shouldn’t a dog have an option despite the desires of the people at the pound who have control over him?

In fact, precedent for such a viewpoint already exists. Over 30 years ago, California courts invalidated a will provision that said a dog was to be killed upon her owner’s death. The court (and then legislature) found that it violated public policy to allow dogs who have a place to go to be killed just because a person with power over the dog demands it. A subsequent court ruled the same way about dogs in shelters, finding shelter staff are not legally competent to make a determination as to whether a dog is “adoptable.”

Although Bruce and Thunder have troubled histories, the principle here is similar: It is not right to kill an animal who has an appropriate and safe environment for them and others and can no longer pose a threat. Bruce — described by the very agency seeking his destruction as a “model citizen” — and Thunder, who has developed a positive relationship with some of his kennel attendants, deserve an opportunity for life and happiness.

For now, Bruce remains alive in VCAS custody while the federal litigation continues. In Denver, Thunder also remains in custody under a stay of execution, while his case works through the judicial process.

The 4th of July marks the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence — a once-in-a-generation milestone commemorating the nation’s founding in 1776. Despite all the cynicism, complaints, and oikophobia of many of my fellow citizens, and while America remains — and will admittedly always remain — a work in progress caught between promise and practice, it continues to be the beacon of hope that outshines all the rest. More than that, it remains the country most likely to lead the way in liberating animals from oppression. Why? Because no other nation comes close to hitting the Goldilocks zone of capitalism, democracy, limited government, innovation, free expression, and Enlightenment values.

Of all the world’s market economies, capitalism — with its relentless pursuit of innovation — promotes alternative technologies in ways that other economic and political systems like communism do not. And of all the market economies, America’s balance of regulation and market freedom keeps the nation at the forefront of technological innovation, and with it, moral advancement.

Capitalism is frequently criticized for driving mindless consumerism at the expense of deeper values. But such a view overlooks a more profound truth: capitalism often creates values by creating alternatives.

Every economic system depends on consumerism. That is how people in societies of 340 million (in the case of the U.S.) or 1.4 billion (in the case of China and India) acquire the resources needed to survive: food, clothes, housing, and transportation.

In a free-market democracy, an entrepreneur who creates a superior alternative to products or services that harm animals — whether a clay pigeon instead of live birds for shooting, a cable car instead of working horses, or a plant-based or cultivated replacement for an animal product — can fundamentally alter society’s moral calculus. As humane alternatives become cheaper, more effective, more widely available, and in the case of food, more delicious, practices once deemed inevitable become unnecessary, and eventually, indefensible. Innovation changes culture.

In a communist society, that may not be possible. For example, China’s animal “medicine” industry — factory farming animals so that their tissues, organs, and secretions can be used for Chinese “medicine” — is a close second to factory farming animals for food in terms of sheer brutality. This includes harvesting bear bile in some of the cruelest conditions imaginable, drinking goose and chicken blood from live animals, and skinning deer and donkeys alive (ostensibly to improve the medicinal quality). But unlike raising animals for food, it is brutality for brutality’s sake because the “medicines” don’t work and are not intended to.

They are a jobs program created and promoted as “miracle cures” under Chairman Mao Zedong to keep people in communist bondage. To this day, the industry provides jobs for unskilled laborers in so-called “prestige” careers in “medicine.”

Consequently, despite synthetic versions of bear bile, these are not being adopted because bear bile and other animal-based “medicines” are claimed to be “ancient wisdom” and “traditional” Chinese cultural practices rather than Western imports (though they are neither ancient nor Chinese, having been imported from the equally backward Soviet Union). Under communism, criticizing Chinese “medicine” is criticizing the authoritarian state itself.

Regardless of whether one is concerned with human rights, animal welfare, or both, communism’s historical record is one of repression and abject failure. The only people who still take it seriously are those who are anything but: naive young people ignorant of history, and academics more captivated by abstract theories than real-world atrocities or seeking to make a name for themselves at the expense of the truth.

In addition to capitalism and democracy, promoting human and animal flourishing requires the embrace of Enlightenment values, starting with the immortal phrase of the Declaration: that we are entitled to the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While the revolutionary war those words sparked may be over, the battles for liberation they inspired are not. The last two and a half centuries have witnessed one disenfranchised group after another build on their foundation to win equal rights and equal protection under the law.

By exposing the hypocrisy that one group’s rights were regarded as “self-evident,” while others were not acknowledged at all, abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights activists, and disabled rights advocates have all invoked the Declaration of Independence and the eternal principles it espouses in their own quest to realize its promises and help us to form a more perfect union.

And yet there are still billions of beings who do not yet have the rights we demand and accept as “unalienable” for ourselves. There are still billions of beings who — though they may differ from us in some ways — share the things which, as the Declaration proclaims, are the things that matter most: the desire to live, to be free, and to be happy. In these significant ways, humans and non-human animals are identical. Aren’t they entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Yes, they are.

Of course, no country has lived up perfectly to its ideals, and America certainly has not. But if there is any nation where the promise of freedom and happiness rings possible, it is the United States of America. Its core values continue to challenge each successive generation to expand the circle of moral and legal concern. The very tools used so successfully by prior movements — our free speech, our civil liberties, the equal application of justice and rule of law, and the very American belief that a better tomorrow is both desirable and possible — can be used for the benefit of animals. In short, the same principles that once fueled abolition, suffrage, and civil rights can — and will — fuel the next great movement to free animals from oppression.

On this 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, there is much worth celebrating — not only because of the great abundance and freedoms we enjoy in America, but because its founding tenets give us the tools to do even more, for more.

In other news: For the love of dog. No Kill Sheltering Summer 2026. Denver Animal Services says the killing of a dog is “beautiful.” Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. Remains of hundreds of dogs uncovered. Are ducks another casualty of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation? All of the spectacle, none of the harm.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Who are you going to call?

When you find an animal who needs help, such as a mangy, skin-and-bones squirrel like the one who showed up at our door this week, who are you going to call?

No one.

Certainly not the local animal shelter. Not the local wildlife rehabilitation clinic. Not the local veterinarian owned by private equity. All of these are money-grubbing, uncaring, and underperforming hacks, even in flush-with-cash Oakland and the larger San Francisco Bay Area where taxes remain the highest in the nation.

They get paid to do a job they don’t do well (i.e., choosing to kill), and often not at all (i.e., turning animals away). As for the private equity owned facilities, they don’t do the job unless you succumb to their demand for thousands of dollars in unnecessary diagnostics. It is truly an age of grifters.

So like the coyote before him, the prior mangy squirrel, or the many, many other animals who needed help, we’ll take care of him ourselves — which is probably what you’ll have to do, too.

For the love of dog

This week would have been the 27th birthday of Mr. Picklechips and Sir Topham Hat. Twenty-seven years ago, a litter of puppies was born unexpectedly at The San Francisco SPCA. Seven weeks later, I brought home two brothers — Pickles and Topham. Though they have been gone for many years now, I think of them often.

I wrote what living with and losing a dog means to me on Pickles’ 14th birthday, just a few months before we said goodbye. Reading it now reminds me that while grief changes with time, love does not.

No Kill Sheltering Summer 2026

The Summer 2026 issue of No Kill Sheltering is available for subscribers of The No Kill Advocacy Center. As a thank you, it is also available to patron-level donors of my Substack page.

The current issue covers:

• The real state of animal sheltering in the U.S.;

• Animals who are not counted still count;

• Animal “shelters” are killing animals for “mental suffering” they are causing;

• The toll of war on animals and rescuers;

• When animal “shelters” say no to helping cats and kittens;

• No Kill Companion 2026;

And more.

Denver Animal Services says the killing of a dog is “beautiful”

“Beautiful”’

That was the one-word answer Melanie Sobel, [director of Denver Animal Shelter], sent after getting a text from Officer Josh Rolfe that the judge had lifted the stay and Lightning could be killed. The text was revealed in Denver Post reporting today. They killed Lightning as quickly as possible. So quickly that an appeal filed within hours was already too late.

Lightning’s killing follows his mauling of a cat and his biting of a person after he, and Thunder, another dog, escaped from their yard. The death of the cat, the biting of a person, his betrayal by an irresponsible “owner,” his betrayal by Denver pound staff, and even Lightning’s death are many things — tragic and heartbreaking, chief among them. But none are “beautiful.”

Despite a behaviorist evaluation that recommended Thunder be spared because he exhibits “full bite inhibition” and a sanctuary offering to take him, ensuring he would neither be returned to the irresponsible “owner” nor ever put anyone else in harm’s way, Denver’s municipal pound is asking a court to allow them to kill Thunder, too. Why? Because killing dogs is what Denver’s pound does.

Do you have what it takes to save lives?

The following communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters:

Read more

Today would have been the 27th birthday of Mr. Picklechips and Sir Topham Hat.

Twenty-seven years ago today, a litter of puppies was born unexpectedly at The San Francisco SPCA. Seven weeks later, I brought home two brothers — Pickles and Topham. Though they have been gone for many years now, I still occasionally dream of them, and will tell my wife that I saw the boys.

I wrote this on Pickles’ 14th birthday, just a few months before we said goodbye. Reading it now reminds me that while grief changes with time, love does not. Happy birthday, boys.

Today is my dog’s 14th birthday. Pickles has been my constant companion for all but seven weeks of his life. I adopted him and his brother Topham together many years ago. They were the last two pups of a litter born at the San Francisco SPCA on July 1, 1999. Their mother was due to be spayed in the low-cost clinic, when she gave birth in the shelter the night before. My views were much less enlightened back then, or I would have lobbied for an end to spaying obviously pregnant animals. In the case of Pickles and his littermates, the veterinarian would have been required to remove each of the puppies, one by one, and inject them with a lethal dose of barbiturates. Killing is killing, even if the puppies are not “technically” born. But there they were, five beautiful little wiggly chunks, and seven weeks later, I decided to adopt one of them.

The shelter’s dog trainer was with me. Pickles and his brother, Topham, were the last two of the group. As I sat on the ground, his brother came running toward me, climbed on top of me, wiggling his whole body in delight. Pickles stayed back, eyeing me suspiciously. It took a lot of coaxing to get him to come to me. The trainer recommended I adopt Topham. “That one,” she said pointing to Pickles, “will give you trouble.” I didn’t need to hear any more. I was sold, but not in the way she intended. He needed me. So I adopted Pickles on the spot. I also adopted Topham. How could I leave him behind? And for 12 years, “Pick-Pick” and “Top-Top” were seldom apart, from each other and from me. When Top-Top died in 2010, Pickles took in pretty hard. More than that, it seemed to have aged him — a lot.

I doubt that is true. The fact of the matter is that I didn’t have Topham to compare him to and that showed me Pickles as he truly was. Because while Topham was old; Pickles appeared young by comparison. While Topham had been sick for a while; Pickles remained healthy. While Topham slowly climbed the stairs from the ground floor; Pickles bounded up them. When Topham needed to be carried up the stairs; Pickles continued up and down. When Topham couldn’t wait outside to go to the bathroom and started having accidents in the house; Pickles dutifully waited. When Topham slept by the bed because he could no longer get up and down it; Pickles could still leap in and out of the minivan. But when Topham died, Pickles seemed to grow old overnight.

At 14 years old, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. But I don’t need to look at a calendar. Aside from the daily regimen of pills I have to hide in his food, you can see it on his face: the gray muzzle, the cloudy eyes, the lines on his face, the heavy breathing. Last year, for the first time in the five years we’ve lived in our home, he couldn’t make the loop on our walk that had been our daily routine. Barely into it, before we hit the long hill going up, he stopped smelling things, he started panting, his face became focused, and he fell behind. I turned around and we went home. He slept all afternoon. Now, the walks are only a distant memory; his back legs are too stiff, arthritis having taken over. To go anywhere — from my office to the kitchen, from the living room to the bedroom — I have to hold him up with a sling. I carry him up the stairs and I help him go down them. When he goes to the bathroom, he sometimes falls, so I hold him up, too. Not a day goes by where he doesn’t have an accident in the house. And though Pickles is deeply loved by my wife and is around her and the kids 24/7 when I travel, he suffers when I am out of town, watching the door, hoping for my return. I wonder if he knows our remaining time together is not as long as it once was.

When he sleeps, his body is pressed against mine and I feel for him in the middle of the night, laying my hand on his chest to feel the rhythmic up and down that lets me know he’s still there. A couple of times, I found myself whispering in his ear, asking him to please not leave me. The thought of his death fills me with dread.

After Topham died, I still found myself looking for him, sometimes calling him from the dark when I woke up, quiet and careful not to wake my wife. “Come on Boys,” I’d say softly, but only Pickles would be there to heed the call. Soon, not even he will answer. How could that be?

I became a No Kill advocate because to me, death is the ultimate cruelty; a frightening emptiness that leaves nothing but pain for those of us left behind. How is it possible that someone you could love so deeply, someone who defines your place in this world — your wife, a parent, a child, your dog — can suddenly be gone; someone who you will never see again. A voice you will no longer hear. Forever. When I think of how callously lives are ended in what we euphemistically call “shelters,” how cavalierly they are killed, sometimes cruelly and without a moment’s hesitation; animals who were once as deeply loved as Pickles is or animals who were never even given a name, I feel grief. And anger. It’s unthinkable that we would allow this to continue, creating voids that can never be filled.

I suppose some think it macabre to entertain such thoughts, but I can’t help it. I live at home, I work from home, and he is there, every minute of every day, my shadow. And when I think about Pickles just a few years ago, how boundless his energy was, how many times he would chase and retrieve a ball, how far he could walk, yanking on the leash to get here and there, how he used to greet me by putting his front legs on my shoulders, standing tall on his two back legs, looking at me eye to eye, I am overcome with a sense of loss. He can’t do those things anymore. I can still see it in him, he wants to jump up to greet me, shoulder-to-shoulder, eye-to-eye, so he can lick my face, but his legs no longer leave the ground and he knows it is no use. He remains on the ground. So I bend down, getting to his level for our greeting, eye-to-eye just like always; to show him our embrace still works. But for how long?

When I let my mind think about losing Pickles, I literally become blind as my eyes fill up with tears. Even as I write this, I have to wipe them away. And so I am trying to train myself not to. Trying not to think about what once was or what might be, but about what we have today.

We draw our inspiration from wherever it comes; from philosophy. From a poem. A song. Even from a cartoon; from Oogway, the wise, old turtle in Kung Fu Panda. “You are too concerned about what was and what will be,” he tells Po. “There is a saying: yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the ‘present.’” And that is how I try to think about my remaining time with Pickles; a gift to cherish every single day. I sit at my desk and type, and he sits near me on his bed. Occasionally, we’ll take a break and get some fresh air. At night, I lift him onto the couch and then we sit together, his head on my lap, watching television. Or I’ll read or play with the kids, with Pickles right there with us. I suppose I am practicing a sort of doggy meditation, trying to stay in the present, relishing every day I have with him. Forcing my mind to stay focused, as I play a game I know I will lose; trying to stave off for as long as possible the finish line in order to protect the heart that knows someday, it will be ripped in half.

Who’s a good boy? Who? You are, my dear, Pickles. You. You. You. You. You.

The Summer 2026 issue of No Kill Sheltering is available for subscribers of The No Kill Advocacy Center. As a thank you, it is also available to patron-level donors of my Substack page.

The current issue covers:

• The real state of animal sheltering in the U.S.;

• Animals who are not counted still count;

• Animal “shelters” are killing animals for “mental sufferi…

Read more

In other news: FBI joins search for over 700 missing animals. Justice for Chai. Poor leadership is at the root of pound killing. All the dogs are free! Do you have what it takes to save lives? Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. Three studies find contaminants in pet food still being sold. City tightens the leash on neglectful people by loosening it for dogs. Federal government changes rules on emotional support animals. Will the death of a human finally end NYC carriage horse abuse? Hundreds of cats destined for dinner plates rescued by police.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

FBI joins search at Miranda’s Rescue as over 700 animals are unaccounted for

Investigators excavating a Northern California animal rescue found the remains of at least two animals Tuesday, including a horse and a smaller animal about the size of a dog, as authorities searched the property for evidence in a widening animal cruelty, fraud and theft investigation.

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal said at an afternoon news conference that 730 animals remain unaccounted for after Miranda’s Rescue received more than 900 animals from shelters between January 2025 and this spring.

The FBI, state agencies and forensic experts joined Humboldt County investigators in serving a second search warrant Tuesday morning at Miranda’s Rescue…

As previously reported, Miranda’s Rescue is under investigation by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office for “felony animal abuse, animal cruelty, fraud, and conspiracy.” According to reports, Miranda’s Rescue charged public shelters as much as $500 per dog, private shelters as much as $1,000, and dogs with bite histories as much as $3,500. The owner promised to either find them homes or allow them to live in the sanctuary for their entire lives.

Investigators found eight dead dogs buried on the property, some reportedly shot in the head. This includes animals that the owner falsely reported to shelters as being adopted, complete with photos of dogs walking on a leash.

San Francisco area shelters have severed their relationship with the group and some retrieved dogs previously sent there who were still alive. A shelter in Berkeley reported that returned dogs “came back thinner, with some bumps, bruises and in need of decompressing.”

No charges have been filed, but the case remains under investigation.

Justice for Chai

On June 4, 2024, Chai, a brown and white “pitty-mix,” was surrendered to Columbus Animal Care & Control Center in Georgia. The reason for surrender was listed as “no room.” After her family left, Chai watched the door, waiting for them to return. They didn’t.

Still, she was one to two years old and had her whole life ahead of her. And through the agency that is supposed to give dogs like Chai a second chance when things go wrong, she could find a worthy family — one that would give her the life she deserved. This was especially true for a dog like Chai, described on her paperwork as “affectionate” and “playful” and good with everyone: cats, dogs, men, women, kids, and strangers.

Unfortunately, that didn’t protect her from being killed by pound staff — and killed by heartstick, which is painful and illegal. Eight workers were arrested on 34 charges after investigators concluded that records were falsified to conceal the cruel killing that left Chai dying on the floor. But despite the dramatic arrests, two years after her abuse and killing at the hands of those tasked with protecting her, the criminal cases against the former animal control employees remain unresolved. No publicly reported trial or final disposition has followed. The defendants bonded out, the cases drifted through preliminary proceedings, and justice for Chai remains unfinished.

Poor leadership is at the root of pound killing

Capitol Weekly, which covers California government and state politics, published an OpEd which put the blame for killing squarely on the shoulders of those who run the pounds:

“California is a top state for the execution of shelter pets. Many falsely attribute this crisis to ‘overpopulation.’ This false narrative deflects from the real cause — public officials hire leaders that have an archaic kill-pound mentality...

“No leader would rather take than save a life, right? A small sample, from countless examples around the state, dispels that myth.”

All the dogs are free!

Read more

Two years ago today, a dog named Chai died painfully on the floor of a government pound, illegally killed by the very people charged with protecting her. As I wrote about it then:

On June 4, 2024, Chai, a brown and white “pitty-mix,” was surrendered to Columbus Animal Care & Control in Georgia. The reason for surrender was listed as “no room.”

After her family left, Chai watched the door, waiting for them to return. They didn’t. Still, she was one to two years old and had her whole life ahead of her. And through the agency that is supposed to give dogs like Chai a second chance when things go wrong, she could find a worthy family — one that would give her the life she deserved. This was especially true for a dog like Chai, described on her paperwork as “affectionate” and “playful,” and good with everyone: cats, dogs, men, women, kids, and strangers.

Of course, we now know that did not happen. Not only did they choose to kill her, they killed her in one of the cruelest ways possible:

As seen on video obtained under the Georgia Public Records Act, staff botched what appears to be six attempts to inject her with a lethal dose of barbiturates. After the first two failed, Columbus Animal Allies notes that “Chai gets up, almost knocks over a chair, walks at least 10 feet away from the original area, and continues to struggle while being held down by a CACC staff member.”

Staff would bungle several more attempts to kill her by intravenous injection (IV) before resorting to intracardiac injection — heartsticking her — a process that involves plunging a syringe through the chest wall and several layers of muscle into a dog’s heart. An animal killed by a heartstick feels extreme, severe pain (due to the amount of nerves) and then suffers a heart attack.

To get to the heart, the needle would have to penetrate the skin, body wall with costal musculature, costal pleura, pleural cavity, pericardial pleura, fibrous pericardium, serous pericardium, pericardial cavity, epicardium, myocardium, endocardium, ventricular chamber, and if the lung is penetrated, the needle must pass through the pulmonary pleura and lung tissue itself. It is so painful that Georgia law only allows it to be done when the dog is unconscious. (GA Code § 4-11-5.1(a)(3).)

After heartsticking her, the employees leave while Chai is still alive. That, too, is illegal under Georgia law: “No dog or cat may be left unattended between the time euthanasia procedures are first begun and the time death occurs.” (GA Code § 4-11-5.1(g).)

“Chai lies on the floor alone with the syringe sticking out of her side, the syringe visibly moving several times. Employees step over her carrying brooms and mops.” Later, “the syringe sticking out of her body begins moving frantically. In the following minutes, the syringe continues to move periodically as employees step over her.”

None of the employees show her any concern or regard while she lies on the floor. Moreover, “CACC employees walk multiple dogs on leashes past Chai while she lies dying on the floor, a cart full of dead dogs waiting a few yards away.”

It is also a violation of Georgia law for a dog to be “disposed of until death is confirmed by a qualified person.” (GA Code § 4-11-5.1(g).) That never happens. Instead, “an employee struggles to pull a heavy cart full of dead dogs closer to Chai. That employee and another staff member pick up Chai by the legs and throw her into the cart.” Later, “two employees remove another dead dog from a run, carry the dog past a row of runs as living dogs look on, and toss that dog’s body in the cart next to Chai’s.”

When I first wrote about Chai’s death, I noted that what happened to her was not merely an individual failure. It was the predictable outcome of a system that had become unaccountable, secretive, and indifferent to suffering. A “shelter” in name only, the Columbus pound was a dirty, vile facility run by the department that oversees trash collection. It was not surprising that they also treated animals like trash. Chai was literally tossed in a dumpster and discarded in a landfill.

After her killing and the subsequent public outcry, the pound veterinarian — the kind of man we are bound to consider unserious, uncaring, calcified, dishonest, and incompetent if natural conclusions are to flow from actions and events — defended the staff and blamed the victim, saying Chai was not a friendly dog. It was a lie.

Not only did he refer to Chai as “he” and “him” in testimony before the council, indicating he was unfamiliar with the dog because Chai was female, but her intake, custody, and disposition records did not indicate any adverse behavior. On the contrary, those records referred to her as “affectionate” and “playful,” and Chai could be seen wagging her tail even as she was being injected with the first syringe of what would be seven attempts to kill her.

The veterinarian also claimed that except for killing her in the kennel area (in front of other dogs), “no wrongdoing took place, and all processes and procedures were followed during the euthanasia [killing] process.” That, too, was a lie.

Indeed, under questioning by councilors, the veterinarian admitted that the staff only used two cc’s of general anesthetic. “It should have been three or four.”

He admitted that Chai “should be totally under a general anesthetic before any attempt at an intravenous injection is made.” She wasn’t.

He admitted that they are required to verify death, and “that did not happen.”

He further admitted, “A stethoscope in this case should have been used. I don’t know why it wasn’t.”

But there’s more. On the paperwork, CACC staff claimed that Chai was killed by intravenous injection, the standard method, instead of intracardiac heartstick. She wasn’t.

But despite his dissembling, public outrage over the video forced authorities to act. The Columbus Police Department and the DEA launched a criminal investigation, executed search warrants, and uncovered evidence that pound officials had falsified records to conceal what happened.

On October 1, 2024, eight shelter employees were arrested on 34 criminal charges. Those arrested included the shelter manager, a field supervisor, an administrative coordinator, and the veterinarian, who resigned before being charged with false statements and writing, concealment of facts, and forgery in the first degree. Charges for the others ranged from animal cruelty to concealment of facts, “euthanasia” by unauthorized personnel, disposal of deceased animals, violation of oath by public officer, theft by deception, leaving of animals unattended, forgery (second degree), and failure to scan for microchips. Yet two years later, justice remains elusive.

All of the defendants quickly bonded out of jail. Cases were opened. Hearings were scheduled. Paperwork accumulated. But the prosecution has moved at a glacial pace, leaving many advocates frustrated that those responsible for Chai’s suffering have largely avoided being held accountable and may never be. The gap between dramatic arrests and meaningful justice has become its own scandal.

There is, however, one important development that would have seemed unlikely in the days immediately following Chai’s death: the system that killed her no longer exists in its former form. The arrests and suspensions crippled the city-run operation. Eventually, Columbus officials removed the facility from government management and transferred operations to PAWS Humane Society. The nonprofit now operates the facility under improved veterinary oversight, foster programs, and safeguards designed to ensure that no animal endures what Chai endured.

In 2023, the year before Chai was killed, killing was up 50% for dogs and 37% for cats. And those numbers did not include other negative outcomes, such as deaths in kennel and missing animals, which the agency did not publicly report on its website.

In 2025, the year after Chai was killed and PAWS had taken over, adoptions skyrocketed and the shelter finished the year with a 91% placement rate for dogs and 88% for cats. It is higher in 2026 year-to-date. Of course, there is still room for improvement, as the most successful shelters in the country are achieving placement rates of 98%-99%, but it is a far cry from the medieval dungeon that abused and killed Chai. And in addition to working harder to help animals in the shelter, they are working hard to help those outside of it: “The organization spayed and neutered over 2,000 community cats and provided 7,783 spay and neuter surgeries in total. They gave over 20,000 vaccines, implanted 2,815 microchips and administered 784 heartworm treatments.”

Yet no amount of progress can bring Chai back. It cannot erase the terror, her pain, or the betrayal she experienced at human hands. But it is a reminder that exposing cruelty matters. Accountability matters. Public outrage matters. Making people earn your vote matters.

Chai’s life was short. Her death was agonizing. But because the truth was not buried along with her, her suffering became the catalyst for change. Two years later, the criminal cases remain unresolved. The final chapter has not yet been written. But the shelter that killed Chai has undergone a transformation that stands as both an indictment of the past and a testament to the power of compassion.

In other news: Make a real impact for animals. City refuses to spare dogs who have done nothing wrong. Another city punishes dogs who have done nothing wrong. Dogs are friends, not food. Second hand smoke hurting pets. Another week, another pet food recall. Lawsuit: Orphaned puppies harmed by tainted formula. Over the counter treatment for screwworm in dogs and cats. Is your dog a southpaw?

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Do you have what it takes to save lives?

Multnomah County Animal Services near Portland, OR, is seeking a new Executive Director.

Like many pounds, MCAS has a history of neglecting animals, mistreating volunteers, and falsifying records to cover up corruption and incompetence. According to a former staff member, “How these dogs are being treated, it’s inhumane, it’s torture… The dogs aren’t getting their needs met, they aren’t in a healthy environment.” That includes dogs going weeks without walks, barren kennels without beds or toys, and filthy algae-covered water bowls.

As such, this is an opportunity to make a real impact for animals.

The successful candidate with a “can do” attitude, a passion for saving lives, and a commitment to getting results will have the community’s support.

Other opportunities:

• Arlington, VA.

• Cleveland, OH.

• Lihue, HI (Kauai).

City refuses to spare dogs who have done nothing wrong

The City Council in Council Bluffs, IA, voted to keep the ban on dogs identified as “pit bulls.” That means dogs who have done nothing wrong will continue to be killed because of the way they look.

Scientific research indicates that breed is a poor predictor of individual behavior, and “agonistic threshold” (aggression) correlates nearly zero with breed. Indeed,

• The breed of dogs tells how they look, not how they behave;

• 50% of dogs labeled as pit bulls lack the DNA of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls;

• Dogs targeted for breed discriminatory laws are not more likely to bite, do not bite harder, and such bans do not result in fewer dog bites or bite-related hospitalization rates; and,

• Enforcement is expensive and has no measurable impact on public safety.

Dog bites are rare events, and the vast majority of dogs labeled “pit bulls” will never bite. Likewise, the vast majority of people will never be bitten by a dog. Not surprisingly, breed-specific bans kill many non-aggressive dogs but fail to reduce dog bites or improve public safety.

Another city punishes dogs who have done nothing wrong

Read more

In other news: Killing dogs cruelly. Freedom for more beagles. Dogs and kids want to help. Cats do too, but with one condition. Dog bites continue to decline. $800,000 judgment after cat dies. Did an animal sanctuary that claimed dogs were adopted shoot and kill them instead? A call for No Kill Toolkit update recommendations.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Killing dogs cruelly

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services fined the Harnett County Animal Shelter nearly $20,000 after inspectors found that dozens of dogs were killed using intracardiac (IC) injections without complying with state requirements. Inspectors documented 42 dogs killed by this method between March 25 and April 29, 2026. State officials said the shelter failed to provide the required documentation and justification showing that the dogs met the conditions necessary for IC injections to be used legally and humanely.

IC injection, also known as heartsticking, involves plunging a syringe through the chest wall and several layers of muscle into a dog or cat’s heart. An animal killed by a heartstick feels extreme, severe pain (due to the amount of nerves) and then suffers a heart attack. To get to the heart, the needle would have to penetrate the skin, body wall with costal musculature, costal pleura, pleural cavity, pericardial pleura (part of the mediastinal pleura), fibrous pericardium, serous pericardium, pericardial cavity, epicardium, myocardium, endocardium, ventricular chamber, and if the lung is penetrated, the needle must pass through the pulmonary pleura and lung tissue itself. It is so painful that North Carolina does not permit “heartsticking” unless the animal is unconscious.

According to the state notice, inspectors reminded shelter veterinarians and management that IC injections are subject to strict restrictions and must be properly documented. The pound’s director feigned ignorance of state rules, claiming that heartsticking is easier for employees, and questioned whether staff could simply make a general note that dogs had low blood pressure rather than documenting each case individually. Inspectors responded that the dogs must be unconscious or under general anesthesia.

No employees have been terminated and the director remains at the helm. Instead, Harnett County stated county staff would be “retrained.” Given that they should have already been trained, the response rings hollow.

Freedom for more beagles

Read more

In other news: The death of Happy. Another week, two new pet food recalls. An ethical and safer pet food alternative. Lions, tigers, bears, and kangaroos, oh my! More dogs rescued from an abusive research facility. Gaps between claiming to love animals and acting that way. Anxious dogs. TNR trumps trap and kill.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Spinning in circles

I am hearing rescuers and advocates regurgitating excuses for killing we debunked in the 1990s and 2000s: pet overpopulation, irresponsible public, need for a “no birth” and not No Kill nation. Two recent posts elicited these kinds of responses.

The first was about the Lynchburg Humane Society, in Virginia, demanding answers from the Danville Humane Society, that killed a dog named Eve. Eve was originally adopted from the Lynchburg shelter, but her adoptive family surrendered her to the Danville pound. The leadership of Lynchburg said Eve’s microchip was registered to their organization, criticized Danville staff for failing to contact them before killing her, and stated they would have taken her back immediately.

That Danville killed Eve is not surprising, as it has historically had among the highest killing rates in the state. In 2024, staff there killed nearly 70% of all dogs and over 70% of all cats. Staff also killed 45% of other animals, like rabbits. Its longtime director is a darling of the PETA pro-killing mindset, yet people still offered a litany of excuses.

The second was a post from The No Kill Advocacy Center regarding our vision for the future.

When we call for a No Kill nation, we are specifically referring to the promise and success of open-admission No Kill Equation sheltering. We are referring to a shelter in the dictionary sense of the word: “an establishment providing food, protection from danger, and temporary housing for stray or unwanted animals.” The door is always open and animals find a new beginning, instead of the end of the line.

We are NOT referring to the fundraising scam where “managed intake,” “community sheltering,” and “Human Animal Support Services” are euphemisms for “no entry” and increases in placement rates are dependent on animals being turned away, abandoned, and left to suffer.

If the goal of a No Kill nation is to truly mean something, we must stay rooted in reality: a placement rate cannot be considered ethical if it comes at the cost of abandoning the very animals shelter staff are responsible for protecting. These animals do not cease to exist simply because municipal shelters fail to count them. They are still suffering, still dying, and their lives still matter.

Once again, some of the responses bordered on killing apologia. Why? People are seeing more stray animals and rescuers, trying to do the job shelters are refusing to do, are not only more overwhelmed than they have been in years, but many are on the verge of financial collapse.

And so they reason backward and blame the irresponsible public, too many animals, and lack of spay/neuter, rather than the real culprit: there are more stray animals today not because of a population surge, but because inept, uncaring pound directors and lazy and unaccountable staff are turning away many animals and telling people who find them to leave them or abandon them to the streets.

Meanwhile, national organizations, like Best Friends, Austin Pets Alive, and those associated with them — including many former No Kill advocates — prop them up, legitimize them, and provide them political cover with euphemisms like “managed care,” “community sheltering,” and “Human Animal Support Services.”

We need to stop offering excuses, as there is no “need” to kill animals. There are plenty of homes available, with demand for animals nationwide outstripping shelter “supply” more than ten-fold. Using the most successful adoption communities as a benchmark and adjusting for population, U.S. shelters combined should be adopting almost nine million animals a year. That is roughly nine times the number being killed for lack of a home. In fact, it is more than total impounds, and of those, almost half do not need a new home. And the 95% decline in pound killing, before the movement was derailed by Best Friends and Austin Pets Alive with their scam “community sheltering” initiative, proves it.

Learn more: Ghost Animals.

The death of Happy

Read more

There’s sterilization, comprehensive adoption programs, and the other services of the No Kill Equation. In an age of supermajorities, add one more: competitive election districts.

There was a time when I would have answered “high volume, low/no-cost sterilization” to the question of what is the most important thing we can do to end killing and abuse in U.S. pounds. Intakes were high, killing was entrenched, and while we worked to reform these slaughterhouses, reducing the supply of victims appeared to be crucial to ameliorating the crisis, especially for feral cats.

There was also a time when the No Kill movement was rising up to challenge the status quo that I would have answered “comprehensive adoption programs” to that question. Intakes had dropped, but killing had not and No Kill success in a handful of communities proved we could save all the lives at risk.

There was a time when killing rates plummeted by 90% because the No Kill movement was in its ascendancy that I would have answered “change the climate of public opinion in which regressive pound directors have to operate” combined with “regime change.” There were hundreds of No Kill communities of every conceivable demographic: urban and rural, wealthy and impoverished, large and small, conservative and liberal, as well as Northern and Southern, yet regressive dinosaurs continued to kill in the face of cost-effective, readily-available, non-lethal alternatives they refused to implement.

And while we must still promote and demand all of those things, I would probably now answer: competitive election districts.

We must make our local and state representatives actually earn our votes. We must make it matter whether or not the public officials we elect are effective, rather than simply voting in a tribal fashion by looking for the large D or R next to their names on the ballot. And in a supermajority state, we must even hold our nose if need be and vote for the opposite party than the one in power. In short, we must all become swing voters. The lives of animals depend on it.

Let me explain.

Oakland, CA, my home town, was just named the second-most-dangerous city in the U.S. We don’t have enough firefighters and suffer rolling closures of fire stations. We don’t have enough police officers, and when you do call, they often don’t show up in a timely manner or conduct any meaningful follow-up or investigation. Our streets are filled with potholes, our parks are not maintained, and city department staff don’t return telephone calls. Our neighborhoods are littered with trash. It takes months of complaining to get street lights fixed. Of more immediate concern, our local animal “shelter” (it is, in truth, a pound) turns even orphaned neonatal kittens away. You would think that Oakland was an impoverished municipality. To the contrary, we are the city with the highest taxes, in the county with the highest taxes, in the state with the highest taxes. We pay the highest taxes in the nation and should therefore have enough money to address all these problems and more.

This year, the Oakland City Council is once again asking voters to approve another tax increase, but it will not result in any new services or even expansion or improvement of existing ones. Orphaned neonatal kittens will still be turned away from the pound. Staff will still not assist in saving kittens from engine blocks. They will not rescue stray dogs. They won’t take in animals who have nowhere else to go. And they will still kill. Instead, the money will go to pay salary increases, approved last year, for the same city workers who do not return phone calls or pave streets or maintain parks or provide shelter at the animal “shelter.”

The partisan ideologues we elect are not interested in governance, providing basic health and safety services, or saving animals. Instead, they continue to ask for parcel tax increases and, instead of fixing problems, give the money to underperforming staff and equally unaccountable community activist groups that line their own pockets at our expense. It doesn’t have to be like this.

Last week, I wrote how political extremes in both parties lead to animal suffering. By way of example, I wrote how the Los Angeles Democratic establishment has failed to intervene despite years of documented abuse on Skid Row involving dogs suffering from glued eyes and genitals, broken bones, mutilated paws, open wounds, and suspected drug overdoses. Pit bulls are trafficked in dogfighting operations and French bulldogs and pugs are bred for profit in the pet trade and used in narcotics transactions in lieu of cash.

The news resulted in Florida Governor Ron DeSantis urging Angelenos to reject L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ reelection bid:

“You see the homeless, you see the drug use, and you see some of the worst animal abuse of any place in the United States of America. And the question is, are these people going to keep voting for the same stuff? Because if they keep electing the same people, they’re going to get very similar results going forward.”

Regardless of your views on his politics, Mr. DeSantis is absolutely right on this issue. Since local and state government officials are refusing to act, voters should absolutely reject the partisanship that allows this kind of abuse to fester unchecked. But that doesn’t mean the party of Governor DeSantis is any better.

In many ways, Bartow County, GA, is the mirror opposite of Los Angeles: heavily white, older, evangelical Christian, and culturally conservative. But it has one thing in common: Bartow County runs an abusive pound run by incompetent, uncaring, corrupt individuals. In Bartow County, just like in Los Angeles, animals under the pound’s “care” are suffering and, according to rescuers, dying. Several rescue organizations have also been banned from rescuing animals off Bartow County’s kill list after they spoke with reporters.

This is not only evil, given that animals who have an immediate place to go will be killed instead, but it is also illegal: a violation of Federal law and infringement on First Amendment rights. And yet, elected and appointed county officials refuse to do anything about it. Like Oakland or Los Angeles, they don’t have to because voters will sweep them back into office regardless of their performance as public stewards.

Similarly, Sylacauga, AL, is a municipality in Talladega County, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 2000. Most elected local and county officials are Republicans and like Bartow, Conservative evangelical Christianity is culturally and politically influential. The City recently proposed hiring a landscaping company — the people who mow lawns and plant flowers — to catch dogs in leghold traps, a cruel method banned in 101 countries and 10 states. While endorsing what they called “the hunt,” supporters were not concerned about causing excruciating pain, breaking legs, or dogs chewing their own legs off to escape the traps. Instead, they were concerned with the optics; or, in their words, that trapping these dogs “can be hazardous to public image if canines are spotted in traps before collection effort is made.” And by collection, they meant shooting dogs in the head with a .22 caliber rifle.

According to Aubrie Kavanaugh, who founded No Kill Huntsville, “Every Alabama county is required to have a ‘pound.’ Of 67 counties, 37 have a pound and animal control, 13 have a pound but no animal control, 1 has animal control and no pound and 16 have no services at all.” Roughly half are not meeting even minimal obligations. Of those counties that have a pound, the vast majority engage in population control killing. The ones that don’t, like Pickens County, just shoot them in the street.

Alabama is one of the most reliably Republican states in the country. Republicans hold 27 of 35 state Senate seats, and 77 of 105 seats in the House. Republicans also hold the governorship, all statewide executive offices, both U.S. Senate seats, and a majority of the state’s U.S. House delegation. But a new report that compared all 50 states across categories including animal protection laws and overall animal wellness, ranked Alabama No. 50 overall — dead last.

While I labeled the political administrations in all these examples as “extreme,” an astute reader correctly challenged me:

Unsure how these entirely mainstream political organizations qualify as “extremes.” The mayor of Sylacauga was elected in 2025 under the slogan “faith, family and fellowship” after serving for years as a teacher, coach and school administrator. Florida and California represent the centerlines of the two major parties. This is the political establishment, not the fringe.

The point is well-taken.

But if this represents the new “centerlines” of the two major political parties, what happened? How did the extremes become the norm given that studies and surveys consistently show that most Americans haven’t shifted their views this much? And more importantly, what can we do about it?

The short answer: As most Americans no longer live in contested districts, elections matter less and, in thoroughly single-party districts, almost not at all. As such, there is no incentive for elected officials to solve problems or challenge a dysfunctional status quo, and no ability for constituents to force them to do so. Instead, ideology and tribal affiliation rule the day, making it challenging to hold any agency — let alone one that deals with “lowly” animals — accountable. And given that the only threat comes from within the elected official’s own party — being primaried by someone on the Left if a Democrat or on the Right if a Republican — going along with the ideological program protects them.

Show me a state (or municipality) with a supermajority (where one party has control of government without the need to compromise with the other party) — regardless of whether they are on the Left or the Right — and I will show you a state with elected officials indifferent to sound policies, good governance and policy goals that would actually increase the quality of life for the people and animals they serve.

Take California, where I live. At one time, we were able to pass legislation making it illegal for pound staff to kill animals when rescue groups were willing to save them. We were able to significantly increase holding periods, add a holding period for owner-surrendered animals, and require prompt and necessary veterinary care despite the opposition of every “shelter” in the state, saving over 2,000,000 animals in the process.

It was 1998, Democrats had simple majorities in the state legislature, the Governor was a Republican, and even our federal delegation in the U.S. House was evenly split. We were able to do it because legislators were sensitive to constituent concerns and therefore focused on enacting good policy, regardless of ideology, to avoid being voted out.

With Democrats now holding veto-proof super majorities in both the Senate and the Assembly, and controlling the governorship, every statewide executive office, both U.S. Senate seats, and a large majority of the state’s U.S. House delegation, such a bill would have no chance of passage today. I know, we have tried repeatedly. Every legislative effort to reform pounds ends up getting killed by the Democratic establishment (gutted in the policy committee and tabled in the fiscal committee) at the behest of those pound managers and beholden to their union-protected incompetent staff indifferent to the fate of the animals under their “care.”

So if we want to get shelters back on the No Kill track,* we have to abandon our partisanship because who we elect has consequences not only for us but also for the animals living in our communities. And when Democrats or Republicans sweep, the animals lose.

That means those of us in solid Republican districts need to stop voting as partisan Republicans. Those of us in solid Democratic districts need to stop voting as partisan Democrats. If we really care about animals, we need to vote for candidates who will solve problems and ensure responsive government — including reforming dysfunctional, abusive, kill-oriented “shelters” or investigating and rescuing animals from abusive situations. And if they fail, we have to vote them out. It also means opposing candidates engaged in rank gerrymandering and reforming the primary process, which tends towards extremist choices. To paraphrase Governor DeSantis, “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you’ve ever got.” And that is equally true when applied to supermajorities or captured districts of his own party.

* I am not referring to the scam perpetrated by Best Friends, Austin Pets Alive, and Kristen Hassen, where increases in placement rates are dependent on animals being dumped and left to suffer on the street. I am referring explicitly to the promise and success of open-admission No Kill Equation sheltering.

In other news: Local pound continues to kill with impunity. Mowing your lawn by day, shooting your dog by night. Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. Another week, another pet food recall. The best and worst states for animal protection.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Danville, VA, pound continues to kill with impunity

The Lynchburg Humane Society is demanding answers from another Virginia pound, the Danville Area Humane Society, after a senior dog named Eve was killed in Danville. Eve was originally adopted from Lynchburg, but her adopted family surrendered her to Danville. Lynchburg Humane Society’s leadership said the dog’s microchip was registered to their organization, criticized Danville officials for failing to contact them before killing Eve, and said they would have taken her back immediately.

The story has generated widespread outrage from animal advocates and reignited criticism of the Danville pound’s rates of killing, which are among the highest in the state. In 2024, Danville killed nearly 70% of all dogs and over 70% of all cats. It also killed 45% of other animals, like rabbits. Its longtime director is a darling of the PETA pro-kill mindset.

Mowing your lawn by day, shooting your dog by night

Read more

In other news: Mission: Accomplished. Lies, Damn Lies & Best Friends Animal Society. Ghost Animals. Another state bans the sale of milled pets. Animals are suffering, too. A “white cane” for blind dogs. Wildlife “management” is a euphemism for arbitrary killing. Misleading claims by companies that kill animals.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Mission: Accomplished

As previously reported, more “shelters” are closing their doors to animals in need. Under a program called Human Animal Support Services, staff are instead telling people who find animals to handle them themselves, turn them loose, or leave them on the sidewalk.

For Good Samaritans who found that a feral mama gave birth in their yard, they had nowhere to turn. So The No Kill Advocacy Center, my organization, stepped up. With the last of the six kittens off to new homes and lives, the mama was spayed and released back to her yard. The Good Samaritans will provide food, water, and shelter.

Once again, these kittens and their mama are a living reminder of the vast disconnect between what Americans want and expect from animal “shelters” and what they too often receive: dereliction of duty at best and, at worst, deadly malfeasance.

Lies, Damn Lies & Best Friends Animal Society

Best Friends says that the number of dogs and cats killed in U.S. pounds dropped by 34,000 in 2025 compared to 2024. They also say that the number of dogs killed in shelters decreased by almost 10% and a record-high 83% of cats were saved. It isn’t true. The data is not reliable and, more importantly, ignores the increasing number of municipal “shelters” and those with municipal contracts turning their backs on animals by restricting admission, even for strays.

Ghost Animals

If achieving a No Kill nation is to have meaning, we must remain grounded in the truth: a placement rate is dishonest if it is achieved through abandonment of the very animals “shelter” staff have a duty to protect. These animals don’t disappear just because Best Friends, Kristen Hassen, and their acolytes running municipal pounds are not counting them. They are still suffering. They are still dying. And they still matter.

Another state bans the sale of milled pets

Read more

Shelter (ˈshel-tər): an establishment providing food, protection from danger, and temporary housing for stray or unwanted animals.

In my recent article, “Lies, Damn Lies & Best Friends Animal Society,” I made the case that shelter policies and statistics touted by Best Friends about the number of No Kill communities and the 2025 decline in national rates of killing are dishonest. Specifically, I argued that the data was not reliable and, more importantly, ignores the increasing number of municipal “shelters” and those with municipal contracts turning their backs on animals by restricting admission, even for strays.

I received a number of responses from rescuers, advocates, and shelter directors about their own experiences scrambling to help animals and to counter the false narrative of success after local municipal pounds closed their doors to animals in need. These pandemic-era closures continue in many communities at the urging, or with the blessing, of groups like Best Friends and others, including consultant and pound apologist Kristen Hassen who helped create the policy: Human Animal Support Services (HASS).

Under HASS — euphemistically referred to as “community sheltering” or “managed intake” — municipal pounds stop taking in strays (and often owner surrenders), telling people to handle the animals themselves, turn them loose, or leave them on the sidewalk. This puts the onus on residents to do the job they already pay shelters to do through their tax dollars. It also puts animals in harm’s way and ignores their right to rescue.

As Austin Pets Alive (APA), one of the primary architects of the policy, initially stated: “Intake of healthy strays and owner surrenders doesn’t exist anymore,” and there is “No kennel space for rehoming, stray hold or intake.” APA urged communities to permanently implement this before the pandemic ended and the public demanded a resumption of services.

But the backlash was more significant than proponents anticipated and they changed the strategy to sell it. They began claiming that “managed intake” is simply the how and when of admissions, focusing on scheduling non-urgent cases to better allocate resources, and creating “pet help services” to keep animals in homes. In practice, however, nothing changed. “Community sheltering” still too often means “no entry.”

In some communities, staff tell people who find strays that they have to make an appointment — which can be months out. In the more regressive communities, staff tell Good Samaritans to let the animals go where they found them. This is not just abandonment of the core mission, it is animal abandonment.

A false choice

As I explained in the article, “the silver lining here, to the extent there is one, is that if ‘shelters’ aren’t taking them in, they aren’t killing them. But turning them away or taking them in and putting them to death are not the only two options.” The No Kill Equation’s success at ending the killing of healthy and treatable animals in open admission shelters eliminates the false choice.

Open admission No Kill Equation communities are achieving 98%-99% placement rates. By contrast, annual intake dropped in the HASS communities by leaving animals on the street — in some cases by as much as 50%. But those animals don’t disappear. They are just rendered invisible. This includes malnourished and injured animals eating trash to survive. It includes those who have died from hypothermia, starvation, or being hit by a car.

And it is not just animals who suffer. Stray dogs are much more common and people are trying to catch them without any support. Not surprisingly, bite numbers have increased. It is only a matter of time before more people get hurt, there is a backlash, and reactionary voices begin calling for draconian measures against scared and traumatized dogs.

A dishonest rationale

The justification for turning away animals is a 2019 survey at Dallas Animal Services. The survey of healthy strays who were subsequently reclaimed by their families determined that 70% of the dogs were within one mile of their home. Although more than half the stray dogs were not reclaimed, and therefore the proximity to their homes (or if they even had homes) remained unknown, “shelters” are using the survey to justify leaving all animals on the street.

The No Kill Advocacy Center subsequently did its own analysis, using multiple communities. That analysis showed that dogs were found, on average, two miles (1.96 miles) from home, with one shelter’s average being 3.2 miles. And while many dogs were within one mile of their home, the Dallas survey only showed where the dogs were found. It did not show where they were going.

By contrast, The No Kill Advocacy Center data demonstrated that the longer dogs are missing, the farther away from their homes they tend to be found, upwards of 4 to 5 miles. Moreover, one mile is still very far and very foreign for a dog. That is 10-14 blocks away from home depending on the neighborhood. And some blocks are more dangerous than others, such as traffic risk. Yet, under HASS, “shelters” treat all these dogs the same.

Regardless of how far from their homes they are, proponents do not know if the dogs will find their way back without intervention. In fact, Ellen Jefferson of Austin Pets Alive, who helped craft HASS, admitted that “There is just an unknown number of animals that are falling through the cracks out there in the community and we just don’t have a really good understanding of how many that is…” That hasn’t stopped her from promoting the policy anyway.

It also has not stopped her from ignoring that good outcomes for lost dogs are not achieved by doing nothing, but by more robust and targeted intervention: having animal control officers knock on doors in the neighborhood, scanning for microchips in the field, and returning them home when they discover where home is, rather than impounding them into the shelter.

The Dallas survey also ignores the animals who do not have homes, have no family looking for them, and may stay homeless without a shelter to rehome them. For them, and many of the others, the results can be devastating. But once again, animals are not the only victims. Although the local municipal pound still gets funded for a job they refuse to do, individuals and rescue groups are struggling to help at their own expense. While these volunteers are burning out and going broke, national groups are declaring “victory” because the “save rate” looks higher on paper.

A corrupt benchmark

The “orange dot” is the symbol used by Best Friends on its online dashboard to mark a community that they claim has reached a 90% placement rate. As I have reported elsewhere, while Best Friends continues to make the claim that “shelters” can kill up to 10% and still be considered No Kill, that argument does not withstand scrutiny. The guideline that about 10% of animals are irremediably suffering was promulgated in 2008 with a minimal data set — less than a handful of communities with placement rates between 92% and 95% — and when many illnesses, like parvovirus, had a poor to grave prognosis for recovery. Even then, placement rates exceeded 90%.

Today, these once-fatal diseases have a good to excellent prognosis. Additionally, understanding of and the ability of shelters to rehabilitate dogs once considered “aggressive” has vastly improved. As a result, communities across the country are successfully placing 98%-99% of animals. By current veterinary standards, roughly 1% of animals entering shelters are dangerous dogs and irremediably suffering animals.

That issue notwithstanding and setting aside the fact that many of these communities also manipulate data — by excluding “owner requested killing” and “deaths in kennel” and providing a combined rate to hide mass killing of cats — the orange dot ignores the fact that most at-risk animals are barred from entering the “shelter.” As such, it erases the thousands of ghost dogs and ghost cats left on the streets.

If achieving a No Kill nation is to have meaning, we must remain grounded in the truth: a placement rate is dishonest if it is achieved through abandonment of the very animals “shelter” staff have a duty to protect. These animals don’t disappear just because Best Friends, Kristen Hassen, and their acolytes running municipal pounds are not counting them.

They are still suffering. They are still dying. And they still matter.

There are those who never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Then there is Best Friends Animal Society. Best Friends never lets the facts get in the way of fundraising. No false claim is too big or too small if it means more money in their already bloated coffers.

The latest? Best Friends says that the number of dogs and cats killed in U.S. pounds dropped by 34,000 in 2025 compared to 2024. They also say that the number of dogs killed in shelters decreased by almost 10% and a record-high 83% of cats were saved.

Of course, “saved” is quite the wrong word. If an animal has been hit by a car or is suffering from a serious disease and given veterinary assistance that prevents death, that animal has been saved by a shelter. Likewise, when a rescue organization takes an animal from death row at a pound, that animal has been saved because the rescuer intervened to prevent the animal from being killed by someone else. But when the term “saved” is used to describe a pound choosing to adopt out instead of killing that animal, killing is implied to be a natural outcome of animal homelessness that must be overcome, which it is not.

Homelessness is not a fatal condition — or at least it shouldn’t be. Moreover, most animals who enter pounds are healthy and treatable and not in danger of dying, but for the threat the pound poses. Pound employees cannot accurately be described as having “saved” an animal when the only threat the animal faced was the one that they themselves presented. In short, if someone was threatening to kill you and chose to let you live instead, would you describe that person’s actions as having “saved” you?

Semantics aside, no one wants the decline in killing to be true more than me. I’ve worked the bulk of my adult life on this. But it isn’t true. Best Friends is making claims about national kill rates based on fewer than 20% of reporting “shelters.” As previously reported, they used only 688 of the approximately 4,915 brick-and-mortar U.S. shelters (14%) in 2024 to project nationwide killing rates and numbers. The worse the pound, the less likely they are to report. Consequently, the nationwide numbers will be much worse.

Some of these facilities turn away orphaned neonatal kittens. They don’t answer the telephone, rarely return calls, and will not send staff to assist rescuers and animals. They make it difficult to adopt, often requiring appointments, even though appointments markedly reduce the number of animals who find homes. They no longer publish statistics or only provide opaque “save rates” that ignore animals they turn away, remove whole categories of animals who lose their lives (like “owner requested killing” or “deaths in kennel”), combine species to hide mass killing of cats, and use a 90% metric that still allows healthy and treatable animals to be killed. Best Friends pretends some of these facilities — neglectful, abusive, murderous — are No Kill. Case in point: “shelters” that Best Friends deemed “No Kill” killed roughly half a million animals in 2024, according to their own data.

As such, the real cost in animal lives in both these pounds and the 86% that didn’t report statistics is substantially higher. Indeed, more robust data sets paint a more sobering picture. Despite a decline in intakes, “shelters” did not capitalize on the opportunity.

For dogs, shelters failed to increase adoptions, while return-to-owner rates declined. Although the number of dogs killed remained roughly the same, the number they allowed to die in their kennels increased by a shocking 11%. Because many shelters exclude these animals from statistics to conceal poor performance, there is a cruel and perverse incentive to allow them to die.

Cats fared poorly, too. Cat killing increased by 2.5%, despite no increase in intakes, and the number dying in their kennels also substantially increased by 8%. Deaths in kennel should never top 1% of all intakes.

And that doesn’t include animals, like those in Pickens County, AL, where there is no “shelter” and residents and even police simply shoot the dogs. According to Aubrie Kavanaugh, who founded No Kill Huntsville, “Every Alabama county is required to have a ‘pound.’ Of 67 counties, 37 have a pound and animal control, 13 have a pound but no animal control, 1 has animal control and no pound and 16 have no services at all.” Roughly half are not meeting even minimal obligations. Of those counties that have a pound, the vast majority engage in population control killing.

Even university professors that do research in this area called on groups, like Best Friends, to stop misleading people with animal welfare metrics that hide what they called “rural disparities.” But they are wrong in one crucial aspect: it is not merely an issue of rural disparities.

Just this month, a shy, little stray and her six kittens were turned away from every San Francisco Bay Area pound save one, which offered death. This is not an aberration, as even motherless neonates are turned away from local municipal “shelters.” Nextdoor posts are filled with cats and kittens who have no tax- or philanthropic-funded “shelter” to go to. This isn’t a rural area in some impoverished Southern state. It is a very cosmopolitan urban area; some would say the most “progressive” and “cosmopolitan” urban area in the U.S., certainly one of the country’s wealthiest communities, the center of the nation’s tech economy, where the median home price is over $2 million, and where per capita funding rates for animal services rank at the top of the pack and private SPCAs take in $50 million per year and have over $130 million in the bank.

Of course, the silver lining here, to the extent there is one, is that if “shelters” aren’t taking them in, they aren’t killing them. But turning them away or taking them in and putting them to death are not the only two options.

None of this is meant to suggest that we haven’t made some progress. Compared to a decade ago, killing is significantly lower. But we have lost ground since the pandemic gave “shelters” the excuse to curtail services, which they have not fully brought back. Against this complacency and abdication of duty, there are dedicated shelter directors who redoubled their commitment to the principles that made the No Kill movement meaningful in the first place. These facilities remain open-admission and fully embrace the programs and services of the No Kill Equation. As a result, they continue to report placement rates of 98% to 99%.

Their work proves what has long been true but too often ignored by bureaucrats, legislators, pound managers, and self-serving organizations like Best Friends: many of the obstacles to creating a truly humane society are not a question of numbers, space, or resources — they are political, institutional, and ideological. The decision to kill in the face of alternatives, the consistent refusal by many shelters to reopen adoption floors fully, and to continue turning animals away, is not a reflection of need but a choice. And Best Friends knows this, as they have encouraged these pounds to make those poor choices.

With the backing of Best Friends, some shelters have turned temporary pandemic restrictions into permanent policy, closing their doors to the public and allowing access only by appointment. This means that volunteers, rescuers, families searching for lost pets, and potential adopters are no longer free to walk in. Yet for the animals inside, those everyday visitors are not just foot traffic — they are a lifeline. Visitors bring stimulation, exercise, companionship, and, most importantly, the chance to be seen and adopted into a home. Studies prove that requiring appointments decreases the number of animals who find homes by a whopping 82%. For many animals, the decline in adoptions amounts to a death sentence.

At the same time, reduced access limits the number of volunteers available to provide enrichment and socialization. Without regular human interaction, time outside their kennels, and mental and physical stimulation, animals can become increasingly stressed. That stress can manifest as illness or behaviors that may be labeled as “aggressive” or “kennel crazy,” putting them at even greater risk of being killed.

These policies also threaten to undo years of progress made by the No Kill movement, which emphasized transparency, public access, and expanded adoption and reclaim hours as essential tools for accountability. Public presence inside shelters acts as a safeguard — rescuers, volunteers, and community members serve as the eyes and ears that help prevent neglect and abuse. When access is restricted and visits must be scheduled in advance, that layer of oversight disappears, leaving animals with fewer advocates and less visibility, and increasing the risk that their suffering goes unnoticed.

Although Best Friends fundraises off of the No Kill success of others and still uses No Kill catchphrases like “save them all,” it increasingly takes regressive positions that undermine No Kill efforts and legitimize killing as it has grown into an organization with $126 million in annual revenue and $153 million in assets. For example, Best Friends opposed legislation to make it illegal for municipal pounds to kill animals who non-profit rescue organizations are willing to save and opposed pre-killing notification to encourage adopters and rescuers to come forward, consigning thousands of animals to death. And this may be the least shocking thing about the organization.

According to a recent investigative report, what is now Best Friends Animal Society began — according to survivors interviewed in that report — as a cult known initially as The Process Church of the Final Judgement. Children born into the group recount how they were separated from parents and raised in communal “Faith School” settings. Entire families were broken up; children often had no stable relationships with their biological parents.

The cult allegedly combined religious ritual — mixing Christian and Satanic worship, Earth-mother ideas, Asian spiritual elements, candle rituals, and a vague belief system — with a nomadic lifestyle. The group travelled with dogs, frequently moved between city chapters, and lived under a rigid hierarchy in which obedience to leaders was emphasized above all else.

In the late 1980s, as the cult shifted toward animal work, a ranch in Southern Utah, near Kanab, was chosen as the headquarters. About 15 children were sent every summer from their Dallas branch to build the infrastructure that would become the sanctuary. The work included digging trenches, plumbing, pipelaying, dog-waste cleanup, and other labor-intensive tasks. The kids worked 10–12-hour days for weeks without pay.

In 1991, the organization rebranded as Best Friends Animal Sanctuary and obtained nonprofit, tax‐exempt status. Over the following decades, it grew into one of America’s largest charities.

The timeline on Best Friends’ website refers to its founding in 1984 as the moment when “a scrappy group of friends” came together to start the organization. But according to survivors, that narrative omits two preceding decades: years spent inside a cult, family separation, communal control, and child labor.

Critics argue this omission ignores generations of children who contributed unpaid labor under coercive, potentially abusive conditions. Former members describe not only forced labor but also emotional neglect, instability, and at times, physical abuse. One of the survivors recounts being hit on the head, shouted at, or emotionally manipulated by adults in positions of authority. The environment lacked stable parental affection, consistency, or emotionally safe relationships. Some children fared worse than others; a few were systematically targeted for abuse.

When approached for comment, Best Friends’ public relations declined to address questions about what they called “ancient history.” Yet, some of these founders are still associated the organization, and Best Friends continues to take regressive positions that enforce cult-like rigidity and undermine transparency. This includes advising municipal shelters to forbid volunteers from exposing killing and inhumane conditions, by enacting what amounts to an illegal code of conduct policy that explicitly states that, “Any negative posts on social media will not be tolerated.”

In the end, the question about national rates of pound killing should not come down to branding, rhetoric, fundraising, or well spun statistics. The central question is whether animals live or die, and whether the public is told the truth about why. Inflated claims and selective data may generate donations, but they do nothing to protect the animals turned away at locked doors, the ones who die unseen in kennels, or those never counted at all. Real progress requires honesty, transparency, and the courage to confront challenges, not obscure it. Until that happens, the gap between what is promised and what is practiced will continue to cost animals their lives, no matter how often Best Friends insists otherwise.

In other news: Opening the door to kittens in need. A pending hippo massacre. Animals are tortured in the name of “gender dysphoria.” Safe!

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Opening the door to kittens in need

The San Francisco Bay Area used to be the beacon of lifesaving in the animal movement. It no longer is. As “shelter” after “shelter” embraces Human Animal Support Services (HASS), their doors are increasingly being closed.

Under HASS, euphemistically referred to as “community sheltering,” shelters stop taking in strays, including kittens, telling people to handle them themselves, turn them loose, or leave them on the sidewalk. This puts the onus on residents to do the job they already pay shelters to do through their tax dollars. It also puts animals in harm’s way and ignores their right to rescue.

For a Good Samaritan who found that a feral mama gave birth in his yard, he had nowhere to turn. Most local “shelters” would not take them in, and the only one that would offered a death sentence.

So The No Kill Advocacy Center, my organization, did.

These kittens (and their mama) are a living reminder of the vast disconnect between what Americans want and expect from animal “shelters” and what they too often receive: dereliction of duty at best and, at worst, deadly malfeasance.

A pending hippo massacre

Read more

In other news: PETA, an organization that harms dogs, loses a lawsuit against another organization that harms dogs. Reaching full potential with pet retention programs. Good for people, good for animals, good for the planet. Ukrainian soldiers rescue animals from the front lines. Sophomoric mediocrity compromises a dog’s life.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

PETA, an organization that harms dogs, loses a lawsuit against the AKC, another organization that harms dogs

As previously reported, PETA filed a lawsuit “to force the American Kennel Club to abandon the standards it backs for hyper-popular French bulldogs and some other breeds, contending that the influential club is promoting unhealthy physical features.”

According to PETA, an organization that routinely kills dogs and itself defends neglectful and abusive pounds that harm dogs, “The AKC’s official breed standards for the bulldog, French bulldog, pug, dachshund and Chinese shar-pei provide blueprints for the breeding of deformed, unhealthy dogs.”

In 2025, 1,718 animals — roughly five animals a day, every day — were killed by PETA, with hundreds more sent to local pounds. PETA’s known death toll of animals, including dogs and cats, tops 52,000, including young, healthy, and highly adoptable animals.

The AKC, too, harms dogs. Its “breeders of merit” program appears to be a sham, and some of the breeders have been charged with animal cruelty. It fights efforts to protect dogs in court. And even if one accepts the claim that there is a difference between “puppy mills” and “responsible commercial breeders,” as the AKC contends, dogs and puppies are not commodities — at the very least, they shouldn’t be. Not only because the forced impregnation and trade in sentient beings is inherently unethical, but because even if some breeders are not overtly abusive, there’s a further supply chain that almost always is. When there is a profit to be made on the backs of dogs, those backs are strained and often broken.

So, as even the proverbial broken clock is right twice a day, PETA is right in this case. A 2017 study based on American pet insurance claims found that dogs with flat faces “were less healthy than other dogs. They were more prone, for instance, to suffer from heart disease, pneumonia and gastrointestinal problems.”

And even those who are not against breeding admit that,

Some problems are written into breed standards — muzzles too short for effective thermoregulation, skin folds that promote infection, short backs that result in deformed vertebrae and herniated disks, etc. Others… reflect exceptional risks for health issues, often for a specific breed — death from DCM, various cancers, seizures, allergies, hip dysplasia, degenerative neurological diseases, and others.

Despite monomania about “breed standards” held by some, what a dog looks like and whether they fit some standard that someone historically and arbitrarily created — a process that involved drowning puppy after puppy who did not fit the standard until the desired look was achieved — shouldn’t matter. Ethically, it certainly doesn’t.

That said, I reported previously that “PETA’s lawsuit may be more about publicity than substantive results” and that it was going to be dismissed. This week, it was. A judge tossed out the lawsuit because PETA did not cite any substantive law that could be legally applied.

Reaching full potential with pet retention programs

One of the core programs of the No Kill Equation — the programs and services responsible for a 95% decline in national pound killing rates – is pet retention. While some surrenders of animals to shelters are unavoidable, others can be prevented — but only if shelters work with people to help them solve their problems. Keeping animals out of shelters responsibly requires innovative strategies for keeping people and their companion animals together.

Read more

In other news: No Kill Sheltering Spring 2026. PETA: Community cats are better dead than fed. A failure of decency. No Kill Companion giveaway. The federal government loses a lawsuit over animal protections. Killing fewer animals.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

No Kill Sheltering Spring 2026

The Spring 2026 issue of No Kill Sheltering is available for subscribers of The No Kill Advocacy Center. As a thank you, it is also available to patron-level donors of my Substack page.

The current issue covers:

• When it comes to rescued animals, little things mean a lot;

• A victory for animals on death row;

• A once-deadly feline disease has a cure;

• Protecting pets from tainted products;

• How technology is helping find lost pets;

• Misrepresenting bite data puts lives at risk;

• No Kill Companion 2026;

• No Kill is about programs, not geography;

And more.

PETA: Community cats are better dead than fed

As it has so many times before, PETA is once again fighting efforts to keep cats out of pounds where they face death. It is asking its members and supporters to email Maryland legislators and urge them to vote no on HB0912, a community cat bill that encourages sterilization as an alternative to impounding and killing and gives ear-tipped/sterilized cats a free ticket out of the pound and back to their habitats.

In the past, PETA was not shy about encouraging the killing of these cats, but since that argument earned it rebuke, it now couches its opposition to community cat programs as an effort to protect cats and “native wildlife.” The outcome is the same. None of this should be surprising.

In 2025, PETA reported killing 938 cats. Another 179 were transferred, primarily to pounds that also kill animals. Historically, many of the kittens and cats PETA has taken to those pounds have been killed, often within minutes, even if young (as young as six weeks old) and healthy. And despite millions of “animal-loving” supporters, a staff of hundreds, and annual revenues of over $85 million, PETA also admitted that they found homes for only 14 — an adoption rate of less than 1%.

To date, PETA has killed 52,694 animals that we know of. The number may be many times higher. According to a former employee whose job it was to acquire animals to kill,

I was told regularly to not enter animals into the log, or to euthanize off-site in order to prevent animals from even entering the building. I was told regularly to greatly overestimate the weight of animals whose euthanasia we recorded, in order to account for what would have otherwise been missing ‘blue juice’ (the chemical used to euthanize); because that allowed us to euthanize animals off the books.

Not only does PETA run the functional equivalent of a slaughterhouse, but they also demonize community cats to get counties to round up and kill them, too. Per PETA, cats smell, are a nuisance, make too much noise, are a public health and rabies threat, transmit diseases and parasites, including “roundworms, hookworms, and even plague,” and “terrorize and kill” 15 billion other animals a year. This type of hyperbole hardly represents the sentiments of animal lovers. And it begs the question: Why should anyone listen to PETA?

Thankfully, Maryland legislators are not listening: HB0912 passed the House unanimously. It is now before the Senate.

Note: If you want to learn more, Why PETA Kills, my book, is based on interviews with PETA employees, documents from civil and criminal court cases against PETA, photos of animals killed by PETA, state inspection reports, as well as admissions of killing and support for killing by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk.

West Virginia again fails to outlaw bestiality

As occurs every year, a bill to outlaw bestiality was introduced in West Virginia. West Virginia is the only state that does not explicitly criminalize the sexual abuse of animals.

The law failed to pass in past years, often failing to get a hearing, because opponents claimed it was already illegal under the more general animal cruelty statute. But this may not be accurate. And given that explicitly banning it would resolve any ambiguity, its failure to pass remained inexplicable. This year appeared to be different because it passed the House by a vote of 93-1. Unfortunately, in a profound failure of decency, it died in a Senate committee, and the West Virginia legislature adjourned for the year.

No Kill Companion giveaway

The 2026 edition of The No Kill Companion is now available.

Read more

As occurs every year, a bill to outlaw bestiality was introduced in West Virginia. West Virginia is the only state that does not explicitly criminalize the sexual abuse of animals.

The law failed to pass in past years, often failing to get a hearing, because opponents claimed it was already illegal under the more general animal cruelty statute. But that may not be entirely accurate. According to the legislative sponsor,

“I’ve been putting this bill forward, and now this amendment forward, for several years. I get a call from Charleston Police probably once every couple of months about prosecutors that drop these cases. Recently I saw a policeman and he stopped me and begged me to introduce the bill again. So I saw an opportunity to do it in this bill, and yes, we would be the 50th state that would ban this explicitly in code.”

Given that explicitly banning it would resolve any ambiguity, its failure to pass remained inexplicable. This year appeared to be different because it passed the House by a vote of 93-1. Unfortunately, in a profound failure of decency, it died in a Senate committee, and the West Virginia legislature adjourned for the year.

The bill was especially important as a growing number of academics are promoting the sexual abuse of animals. For example, Peter Singer, the Princeton professor, world-renowned philosopher, and author of the book “Animal Liberation,” promoted an article that claims it is “morally permissible” to rape animals. Of course, Singer doesn’t call it rape, and he doesn’t believe it is rape. But in “Zoophilia is Morally Permissible,” an article he edited and published in his Journal of Controversial Ideas, the article’s author, who uses a pseudonym to hide his identity, laments that:

Zoophilia is one of the few sexual orientations (along with e.g. necrophilia or pedophilia) that remain off­limits and have been left aside from the sexual liberation movement in the past fifty years. I would like to argue that this is a mistake. There is in fact nothing wrong with having sex with animals.

Singer is not the first professor to make these arguments. Others have made similar claims, including a Duke University professor, a North Dakota State professor, and a Kansas State University professor. They are wrong, revoltingly so.

And just this week, KQED, a local PBS station, lauded a new play “about bestiality, and a human finding carnal connection with an animal that, while displaying human characteristics, has no capacity for greater yearning. But that’s not all the play is trying to convey. Ultimately, The Goat is about societal taboos, many of them centered on human sexuality — but who determines those, where is the line, and who has the right to draw that line?”

We do.

We draw it at consent (which children and animals cannot do). We draw it at the age of human adulthood. We draw it to prevent rape. We elect legislators to pass laws to punish those who violate these (which West Virginia senators grotesquely failed to do).

Billions of people around the world — the vast majority of our planet — do not sexually assault animals. They do not ever contemplate rape or sexual battery because it would never occur to them to do so. According to Singer, upwards of 98% of people do not suffer from this pathology (I suspect it is higher). The extreme minority that does is neither entitled to its normalization nor to exploit vulnerable populations to express it. What these people need is medical and psychological intervention and, when they break laws by engaging in it, incarceration to protect further victims.

In short, humans having sex with animals — like sexual assault of children — is rape. Like children, they suffer trauma, with chickens and other small animals often killed in the process. But even without physical trauma, it is a line that should never be crossed and never be treated as anything other than what it already is in 49 states: a crime.

Shame on West Virginia.