In other news: Public meeting following Bruce’s killing cancelled. The Lethal Consequences of Lazy Journalism. Red barns, White sheds, and Orange dots. New pound policy allows the killing of more dogs for treatable conditions. Another week, more pet product recalls. Federal government sues raw pet food company. A plant-based diet can reduce biological aging. Dogs and cats absorb key nutrients with plant-based diets. Federal government moves to hide abuse at factory farms. Whales rescued from abusive marine park. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. Smile and your dog smiles with you.

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

Public meeting following Bruce’s killing cancelled

Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) is facing fierce backlash after killing Bruce, just as his legal team filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite internal shelter records describing Bruce as a “model citizen” and the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC) offering to fully fund a transfer to a qualified sanctuary, VCAS rejected all non-lethal alternatives.

Compounding public outrage, the agency abruptly cancelled its subsequent Advisory Commission meeting over unverified “safety concerns,” leading advocates to accuse leadership of dodging public accountability. This was the first meeting after Bruce’s killing and Bruce’s killing was going to loom large with members of the public.

The Lethal Consequences of Lazy Journalism

At the Los Angeles City pound, cat killing is up 32% compared to last year, kitten killing has increased 43%, and even dog killing is up. Reporters at the Los Angeles Times blame a lack of spay/neuter. But it doesn’t matter if intakes go up or down at a mismanaged pound like Los Angeles Animal Services, killing will still go up.

• Dog intakes down? Killing goes up.

• Kitten intakes down? Killing goes up.

• Cat intakes up? Killing goes up.

Given that spay/neuter doesn’t account for why killing goes up even when intakes go down, what are the real reasons killing goes up even when intakes go down?

• Fewer adoption hours compared to years past.

• Neglectful staff, and managers who turn a blind eye.

• Elected officials and pound managers indifferent to what constituents want and animals need.

• Reporters who do not challenge official narratives.

Red barns, White sheds, and Orange dots

A San Francisco Chronicle investigation traces the rise and fall of Miranda’s Rescue, a Northern California nonprofit that for years marketed itself as a sanctuary where animals would receive lifelong care or be adopted into new homes. Instead, hundreds of dogs entrusted to the rescue are alleged to have been systematically killed while shelters, donors, and families who surrendered animals to the sanctuary believed — and, in some cases, were told — they had been saved.

The scandal is reminiscent of a similar one involving People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is also alleged to have lied about “saving” animals and instead killing them. Unfortunately, Miranda’s Rescue and PETA are not the only organizations that have been accused of purposely misleading the public. The move by public shelters to claim they are No Kill, but doing so by turning animals away, some of whom have later been found dead, injured, or severely emaciated is another, even more common, example of how agencies entrusted with the care of animals and enriched in the process betray them.

New pound policy allows the killing of more dogs for treatable conditions

Read more

As previously reported, on August 12, Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) ended Bruce’s life — just as his rescuers and legal team were actively seeking emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court. Only a day earlier, VCAS informed counsel of its intent to proceed with Bruce’s execution.

Bruce’s attorneys immediately responded that they filed an emergency application with Justice Elena Kagan, the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, and expressly told VCAS that they expected the agency to refrain from killing Bruce until Justice Kagan had an opportunity to rule. VCAS killed him anyway.

VCAS was sued to stop Bruce’s execution after he was declared “vicious.” The destruction order followed several serious bite incidents that occurred when Bruce began acting out after his family became homeless. The Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC), which originally placed Bruce with the family, filed suit arguing it retained contractual rights to the dog under their 2023 adoption agreement.

While VCAS relied on those bites to classify him as dangerous — arguing that “the physical and emotional impacts of those incidents” should not be “lost in the public discussion” — SPARC did not ask the government to ignore Bruce’s history. Instead, they offered a practical solution designed to address it: transferring Bruce to a sanctuary. VCAS, however, rejected it out of hand.

Adding insult to injury, a meeting of the VCAS Advisory Commission was abruptly cancelled with no reason given. Dan Bolton, Bruce’s lawyer, called the cancellation “unusual, given the importance of these meetings for accountability and transparency, and the June 17, 2025 Ventura County Grand Jury investigation recommendation of ‘re-engagement’ by Ventura County Animal Services with local rescue and foster groups.”

Moorpark Councilmember Renee Delgado later claimed “safety concerns” for the cancellation without offering any proof, further explanation, or why they could not switch to zoom or other protective measures short of cancellation. As such, it is not difficult to opine what might be the real reason it was called off.

This was the first meeting after Bruce’s killing and Bruce’s killing was going to loom large with members of the public. This included seeking answers to the following questions:

Why did VCAS director Esteban Rodriguez reject sending Bruce back to SPARC given that they have sent other dogs with troubled histories there, including dogs “exhibiting ‘severe aggression,’” who “could not be safely handled” and had “a poor prognosis” for successful rehabilitation?

Why did he reject sending Bruce to a qualified sanctuary which SPARC offered to pay for?

Why did he reject the other non-lethal options presented for Bruce that would have similarly protected public safety without needlessly ending his life?

Given that VCAS’s own records described Bruce as a “model citizen,” including bonding with kennel staff, adapting well to a stable environment, eating treats from handlers’ hands, and having “no documented bite, attempted bite, charge, lunge, snap, or aggressive handling incident,” why didn’t elected and appointed officials intercede on Bruce’s behalf?

In Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, Major Major Major is promoted to Major even though he is not qualified. Not surprisingly, Major Major Major Major is out of his depth.

To avoid being held accountable, Major Major institutes an “open door” policy that no one is permitted to see him in his office while he is in it. If he leaves his office, people are allowed to enter — but since he isn’t there, they still can’t see him.

Major Major is the ultimate caricature of the unaccountable leader — someone who holds power and collects a public paycheck, engages in doublespeak and obfuscation, and then cannot be found the second real-world conflict arrives. Ventura County officials seem to have adopted his playbook.

Rather than face the public to account for their decisions, Rodriguez and his enablers appear to be hiding behind closed doors and cancelled agendas.

There’s a word for that: cowardice.

Bruce is dead.

On August 12, Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) ended his life — just as his rescuers and legal team were actively seeking emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court. Only a day earlier, after a federal court lifted its protective order and the Ninth Circuit denied an appeal, VCAS informed counsel of its intent to proceed with Bruce’s execution.

Bruce’s attorneys immediately responded that they filed an emergency application with Justice Elena Kagan, the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, and expressly told VCAS that they expected the agency to refrain from killing Bruce until Justice Kagan had an opportunity to rule.

As previously reported, VCAS was sued to stop Bruce's execution after he was declared “vicious.” The destruction order followed several serious bite incidents that occurred when Bruce began acting out after his family became homeless. The Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC), which originally placed Bruce with the family, filed suit arguing it retained contractual rights to the dog under their 2023 adoption agreement.

While VCAS relied on those bites to classify him as dangerous — arguing that “the physical and emotional impacts of those incidents” should not be “lost in the public discussion” — SPARC did not ask the government to ignore Bruce’s history. Instead, they offered a practical solution designed to address it: transferring Bruce to a sanctuary. VCAS, however, rejected it out of hand.

In doing so, government officials appeared to lose sight of the critical distinction between public safety as the objective and killing as the means. In other words, public safety is not an excuse to reject less destructive ways of achieving it. A dog can have a dangerous past and still live safely within a facility built to manage that past. Acknowledging this doesn't require pretending Bruce was harmless. But VCAS officials cannot pretend that a secure sanctuary option didn't fundamentally alter the equation.

What also appeared lost in the rush to kill Bruce — before all appeals were exhausted and non-lethal alternatives were considered at the highest levels of government — was his behavior during his six months in custody. VCAS’s own records described Bruce as a “model citizen.” He bonded with kennel staff, adapted well to a stable environment, ate treats from handlers’ hands, and recorded “no documented bite, attempted bite, charge, lunge, snap, or aggressive handling incident.”

That evidence did not erase what had happened before. It did, however, provide information about what was possible under controlled conditions. The issue, therefore, is not merely that a dog with a troubled history died; tragic and heartbreaking though that is. It is that the government was handed a viable alternative that protected human safety while preserving Bruce’s life, and chose to ignore it.

Even though the protective order was lifted, Ventura County officials should not have killed Bruce while the case continued to move through the federal appellate process and toward the Supreme Court. VCAS had a moral duty to wait until all remedies were exhausted — including the mere hours it would have taken for the Circuit Justice to review the emergency filing. Those hours never came.

VCAS chose to kill Bruce before Justice Kagan had an opportunity to rule. The County may have possessed legal authority to do so, but legal authority is not the same as necessity. Short of what I previously proposed — making it illegal for courts and government officials to kill dogs when viable, non-lethal alternatives exist — that is the question Bruce leaves behind:

When government possesses the power to end an animal’s life, and a credible alternative exists that can achieve the government’s legitimate purpose — public safety — without doing so, should the exercise of that power be judged solely by what the government is legally permitted to do? Or should it also be measured by what justice actually requires?

Bruce can no longer benefit from the answer. But other animals can.

Video courtesy of Facebook.com/ADogNamedBruce.

The Los Angeles Times did a report on the harrowing spike in killing of animals at Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS). And it is harrowing: cat killing is up a staggering 32% year-to-date compared to last year, kitten killing has increased even more, and even dog killing is up. Unfortunately, the piece was written by two young reporters, both fresh from being interns, and it shows. Even though one of those interns describes herself as “passionate about uncovering hidden narratives in data sets,” she and her colleague utterly failed to find that narrative. Maybe that’s because it wasn’t hidden: it was in plain sight for all to see.

Interviewing the usual list of suspects — including PETA, an organization that has a long sordid history of lying and stealing animals to kill and has killed over 50,000 dogs and cats, including healthy puppies and kittens — they settled on the usual culprits: too many animals, not enough spay/neuter.

Of course, more sterilization is always better when pounds like the one in Los Angeles are staffed by people only there for a paycheck and committed to doing as little as possible. The lower the intake rate, the fewer the number of potential victims. But as the numbers clearly show, even a decline in intakes doesn’t necessarily equate with less killing.

Dog intakes have declined by 13% compared to pre-pandemic levels (2025 vs. 2018), but dog killing is up roughly 30% in that same period. Comparing year-to-date dog intakes and killings with the same period last year, dog intake declined 6%, but pound staff killed 2% more dogs. And it isn’t just dogs. Kitten intake actually went down by 14% compared to pre-pandemic levels, but killing increased 40%.

In short, it doesn’t matter if intakes go up or down at a regressive pound like LAAS, killing will still go up. That’s not really a hidden narrative. It’s math.

And even though adult cat intakes did increase, the numbers still do not add up: intake increased 17% compared to pre-pandemic levels, but killing did not proportionally increase — it skyrocketed by 43%. And while kitten intake did increase by 8% year-to-date compared to last year, the pound killed a whopping 43% more kittens in the same time period.

Why the disproportionate increase in killing? Let’s uncover the “hidden” narratives in the dataset that the cub reporters failed to.

Reduced opportunities for adoption

First, I would look at the choices made by city officials. I’d start with the fact that adoption hours have been cut back from pre-pandemic levels. The “shelters” are no longer open for adoption until 7 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays to make it easier for working families to adopt and foster.

Neglect, abuse, and corruption

Second, I’d also consider that LAAS has long been, and continues to be, an agency rife with neglect, abuse, and corruption. In addition to an increase in killings, dogs spend weeks or months inside their filthy kennels without a walk, often without clean water and soft beds to lie on. As a result, they experience increased stress, giving LAAS an excuse to kill the dogs as “unadoptable” even though they are healthy and of good temperament outside their kennels.

In addition, cat rooms are mostly empty and, in some cases, entirely empty, while staff at the pound either kill them or turn cats away, leading to mass abandonment. Across the street from one of the “shelters,” volunteers are forced to care for many of those abandoned cats.

Prior reports also uncovered rabbits with gouged eyes, guinea pigs without food, and hamsters in cages soaked in urine and feces. And when an employee admitted to striking dogs, the volunteer who exposed him was punished, not the abuser.

Elected officials indifferent to constituent concerns

Third, I would look at the Governor, state legislature, the mayor, and city council. This isn’t a partisan attack. It is an attack on one-party rule (i.e., supermajorities), regardless of whether they are on the Left or the Right. 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 occurring under their watch, 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.

A CalMatters Digital Democracy analysis of voting records found that, on average, legislators broke from their party position less than 1% of the time. In other words, 99% of the time, elected legislators voted in lock-step, doing what they were told by the party, even when a majority of constituents wanted otherwise. The only legislators willing to stray from the herd, buck their party, and do what their constituents wanted were those representing the few competitive swing districts left in California.

Before California became a supermajority state, bipartisan competition allowed passage of legislation making it illegal for pound staff to kill animals when rescue groups were willing to save them. Shelter reformers 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 millions of animals in the process. 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 supermajorities in both the Senate and the Assembly, and controlling the governorship, every statewide executive office, both U.S. Senate seats, a large majority of the state’s U.S. House delegation, and in Los Angeles, the mayor’s office and every elected office of note, such reform would have no chance of passage today. This isn’t speculation. The No Kill Advocacy Center has tried repeatedly.

Every legislative effort to reform pounds ends up getting killed by the Democratic establishment at the behest of pound managers. Had California successfully passed Bowie’s Law in 2023 requiring LAAS and other pounds to give rescuers 72 hours notice before killing animals, for example, the numbers in Los Angeles would look a lot different.

On this last score, I don’t expect change anytime soon because partisanship appears more important to primary voters than electing officials who will solve problems and ensure responsive government — including reforming dysfunctional, abusive, kill-oriented “shelters.” That means continued incompetence, apathy, corruption, and killing at LAAS. And that is as plain to see as the math.

Superficial reporting

Finally, I would look to the Fourth Estate. Instead of obfuscation on behalf of special interests by regurgitating PETA’s apologia about the need to kill without more spay/neuter, the Times should have reported the truth in order to hold city (and state officials), including pound managers, to account. Unfortunately, they are not alone in their dereliction of duty.

A reporter at the New York Times wrote a similar superficial piece last year about the rise in killing despite declines in intakes at the pound in that city. Regrettably, what I wrote about New York then applies to Los Angeles now: Aside from an epic failure of journalism to accurately report on this topic,1 the Times piece allows leadership and staff at the regressive and abusive pound to continue avoiding accountability for their own mismanagement. And that comes with a body count.

A San Francisco Chronicle investigation traces the rise and fall of Miranda’s Rescue, a Northern California nonprofit that for years marketed itself as a sanctuary where animals would receive lifelong care or be adopted into new homes. Instead, hundreds of dogs entrusted to the rescue are alleged to have been systematically killed while shelters, donors, and families who surrendered animals to the sanctuary believed they had been saved.

Public agencies across California paid Miranda’s Rescue to accept difficult-to-place animals. For example, Oakland Animal Services paid Miranda’s Rescue $376,000 to send 827 dogs since 2020. Yet investigators reported that after reviewing documents, they found only a single adoption record, raising immediate questions about what happened to the hundreds of other animals.

According to investigators, Shannon Miranda, the founder, orchestrated a scheme in which animals were accepted from shelters and owners in exchange for substantial fees, then those animals were killed rather than cared for or adopted out. The article reports that authorities believe the motive was financial: collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from public shelters and private owners while avoiding the expense and effort of housing the animals.

As investigators searched the property, they uncovered evidence that appeared to support those allegations, including blood spatter, spent .22-caliber shell casings, more than 600 dog collars, and burial sites containing large numbers of canine remains. Many of the recovered dogs were identified through implanted microchips that traced them back to shelters. In some cases, those shelters were told the dogs had been adopted.

The red barn

In interviews with law enforcement, Miranda acknowledged that he sometimes led dogs to a red barn on the property, placed wet canned food before them, and while they were eating, shot them between the eyes with a .22-caliber rifle. Investigators later described finding evidence consistent with those accounts inside the barn. Jesse Armstrong, a former employee, recalled disturbing experiences while working at the rescue as a teenager. He said Miranda instructed him and other boys to spread powdered limestone across a field behind the red barn, something Armstrong only later realized could help mask the odor of decomposing animals. Armstrong also described being shocked when he discovered decomposing dog bodies loaded into a tractor bucket, including a friendly dog he cared for only days earlier.

The investigation also examines Miranda’s background and the warning signs that, in hindsight, may have foreshadowed the alleged misconduct. Investigators cited a 1993 embezzlement conviction — later expunged — as part of what they described in a search warrant affidavit as a broader pattern in his business dealings. The investigation further questions Miranda’s repeated claims that many dogs were aggressive or gravely ill. Two women who had worked at a veterinary clinic where Miranda used to bring animals for “euthanasia” said many of the dogs were healthy, friendly and well behaved despite being labeled as dangerous or sick. One former kennel attendant recalled that dogs described as “aggressive” often showed no such behavior when handled by clinic staff, casting doubt on Miranda’s explanations for why they needed to be killed.

Complaints from neighbors, former employees and advocates accumulated over decades, but meaningful intervention came only after private citizens cut through the fence in the middle of the night, trespassed on the property, and dug up the bodies. To date, no criminal charges have been filed, while investigators continue sifting through financial records, digital evidence, and physical remains to uncover the full scope of the alleged scam.

In a statement released through his attorney, Miranda denied claims that he killed animals for profit or space, and called the Humboldt County Sheriff’s investigation politically motivated, accusing law enforcement of employing aggressive search tactics and selectively leaking information to distort the truth and fuel public hostility.

Miranda’s Rescue continues to operate.

The white shed

The scandal is reminiscent of a similar one involving People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which is also alleged to have lied about “saving” animals and instead killing them. Although in PETA’s case, no money was exchanged and therefore may not rise to the level of a criminal action, both cases exemplify deception where organizations leverage public trust and institutional legitimacy to mask practices that fundamentally contradict their stated missions.

According to Heather Harper-Troje, a former PETA employee,

“I know from first hand experience that the PETA leadership has no problem lying. 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. I was told regularly to say whatever I had to say in order to get people to surrender animals to me, lying was not only acceptable, it was encouraged… Contrary to what PETA maintains, the majority of animals it takes in are not beyond hope, in my experience many would be considered highly adoptable by a shelter, the ‘better off dead’ line is one that is dragged out in order to excuse what they do — and it’s a lie.”

She describes picking up a litter of healthy puppies from someone who thought that PETA was going to find them a home:

“What was referred to as the ‘shelter’ was a large, empty storage closet across from our office. The only other holding facility we had was in the warehouse, where the animals were euthanized. And when I did use the room across from my office as a holding area for animals, Ingrid would ask why I hadn’t already euthanized them: one time nailing me to the wall because the litter of puppies I’d placed in there for a night had pooped everywhere; I was told to euthanize the puppies immediately.”

But a May 2005 criminal investigation offers the most stark comparison, when the bodies of dead dogs and cats began turning up in the trash bin of a supermarket in North Carolina. Local police eventually arrested two PETA staff members.

According to a Roanoke News Herald investigation, Ahoskie Police Detective Sgt. Jeremy Roberts began investigating after a worker discovered a discarded trash bag containing a dead animal behind a local Piggly Wiggly supermarket. Arriving at the scene, Roberts noted a “strong odor coming from the dumpster” and recovered 21 dead dogs packed inside 20 heavy-duty trash bags. Similar dumping incidents recurred in the same dumpster over the following weeks, yielding 17 dead dogs and three cats on June 2, and an additional 18 bags containing 20 dead dogs on June 9.

The investigation led police to surveil PETA employees Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook as they traveled in a company van to collect animals from the Ahoskie Animal Hospital (AAH) and the Bertie County shelter. After Hinkle killed the collected animals inside the van, detectives shadowed the vehicle to the Piggly Wiggly dumpster. As Roberts and a fellow detective approached the parked van on foot, Roberts testified that he could hear the “‘thump, thump’ of heavy objects striking the bottom of the empty dumpster” before the van accelerated away. Officers executed a traffic stop in the parking lot and arrested both occupants.

A search of the dumpster yielded nine bags holding 16 dead dogs, while a subsequent inventory of the van revealed another 12 bags containing eight dead dogs and 14 dead cats. A search of the PETA van uncovered supplies including trash bags, animal food, leashes, PETA manuals, and a tackle box filled with syringes, needles, and liquid “euthanasia” drugs.

Testimony confirmed that several of the animals were healthy and adoptable, including a mother cat and two kittens handed over by AAH veterinarian Dr. Patrick Proctor. Dr. Proctor explained that PETA had explicitly promised to rehome the pets, stating, “They were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that…” After inspecting another dumped animal — a six-month-old lab mix with an injection mark in its leg — Dr. Proctor noted that “the animal that I found was a very healthy six-month puppy that had been killed that day,” concluding, “PETA will never pick up another animal from my practice.”

PETA has also been caught stealing and killing a family’s dog. On October 18, 2014, two PETA representatives backed their van up to a home in Parksley, VA, and threw biscuits to Maya, who was sitting on her porch. They hoped to coax her off her property and allow PETA to claim she was a stray dog “at large” whom they could legally impound.

Maya refused to stay off the property and, after grabbing the biscuit, ran back to the safety of her porch. One of the PETA representatives went onto the property and took Maya. Within hours, Maya was dead, illegally killed with a lethal dose of poison.

PETA initially denied taking the dog but surveillance film proved otherwise. After they were confronted with the film, a PETA spokesperson subsequently claimed Maya was killed by “mistake,” and, defying credulity, explained that the same PETA representative who had earlier sat on the porch with Maya’s family, talking to them about her care, and who was filmed taking Maya from that same porch, mistook her for a different dog.

The “apology” was not only a devastating admission of guilt but evidence that killing healthy animals was business as usual for PETA employees — so commonplace that the only excuse PETA could offer for Maya’s death was that in taking her life, a PETA representative had mistaken her for another healthy animal they had decided to kill.

Ultimately, PETA would pay a mere $500 fine to the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS) for the killing and settle the civil lawsuit from Maya’s family for $49,000, a small fraction of the $66 million they raised that year. Undeterred, PETA continues to kill animals to this day, over 90% of the animals they take in. In 2025, for example, they killed 1,718 animals — roughly five animals a day, every day — with hundreds more sent to local pounds. The total known death toll is now well over 50,000.

Orange dots

Unfortunately, Miranda’s Rescue and PETA are not the only organizations that have been accused of purposely misleading the public. The move by public shelters to claim they are No Kill, but doing so by turning animals away, some of whom have later been found dead, injured, or severely emaciated is another, even more common, example of how agencies entrusted with the care of animals and enriched in the process betray them.

The “orange dot” is the symbol used by Best Friends on its online dashboard to mark a community that they claim is “No Kill.” Aside from fudging the data to make the claim, as I have reported elsewhere, the orange dot ignores the fact that most at-risk animals are barred from entering the “shelter.”

These animals — often left on the street to fend for themselves — effectively become “ghosts.” They don’t simply disappear — indeed, they are still suffering, they are still dying, and they still matter. But because they are not counted in official shelter intakes, they vanish from the records, rendered invisible by bureaucratic indifference and obfuscation. Like Miranda’s claim they were adopted or PETA’s claim they were irremediably suffering, this allows organizations to maintain a facade of success, shielding the grim reality of their fates.

Collectively, three of the wealthiest U.S. organizations, including Best Friends, have $776 million in annual revenue and $1.2 billion in assets. The ASPCA takes in $390 million in revenue and has $575 million in assets, including $310 million in investments and $105 million in savings. The Humane Society of the United States receives $260 million in annual revenue and has $454 million in assets, including $370 million in investments and $31 million in savings. Best Friends Animal Society has $126 million in annual revenue and $153 million in assets. Given the sheer wealth at their disposal, why aren’t things better for animals than they are?

Because despite such wealth, the ASPCA spends only about 2% on animals in shelters. Most donations go to fundraising and salaries. The amount HSUS spends to help these animals is even less than that, about 1%. Similarly, Best Friends uses donor funds to purchase for-profit businesses such as a hotel and gym, and spends millions enriching the founders who own the logo and license it back to the organization.

But even the paltry amount they spend on shelter animal programs isn’t necessarily being used to help. These groups are lobbyists for “shelters” that kill animals, not the animals in those shelters. Among other things, for example, the ASPCA killed 20 dogs in transport, allowed dogs to starve, killed abused dogs despite rescue groups willing to save them, killed a young woman’s dog and tormented her, fought legislation to save lives, effectively putting hundreds of thousands of animals into an early grave, and covered up abuse by its employees.

Best Friends, the ASPCA, and HSUS remain rich and are getting richer.

* * *

In the final analysis, the tragedies at Miranda’s Rescue, PETA, Best Friends, the ASPCA, and others are not isolated failures. From public shelters that routinely kill animals or, conversely, claim success by refusing to admit the most vulnerable, to law enforcement agencies and oversight bodies that dismiss reports of cruelty as low-priority or ignore red flags until it is too late — Jesse Armstrong notified the police when he quit working at Miranda’s Rescue only to be ignored; VDACS levied a paltry fine against PETA for stealing and killing Maya — they are symptoms of a systemic devaluation of animal lives across the board. As I’ve previously written too many times to count, animals are being betrayed, neglected, abused, or killed by the very agencies tasked with protecting them. Without real accountability, it leaves the “ghosts” of their policies to suffer in the shadows, while allowing organizations to get away with (proverbial) murder.

In other news: No animal left behind. In the interest of justice. Happy 15th Gotcha Day to a little bird the “experts” wanted dead. Federal Government weakens Endangered Species Act again. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. New study answers the question: What is the most important thing we can do to save animals from pounds? Cheers, as we celebrate two birthdays!

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

No animal left behind

Shelters are stressful environments that negatively impact health, behavior, and adoption opportunities. Thankfully, newly updated research-backed policies and practices can improve the welfare of shelter animals, shorten length of stay, and increase placement rates for dogs, cats, rabbits, and other animals.

In the interest of justice

Instead of asking a state court for sanctions or a federal court to dismiss the case to save Bruce’s life on jurisdictional grounds, Ventura County’s pound director and county counsel should be considering whether there is a kind, common-sense alternative to killing Bruce that can achieve the stated ends — protecting public safety — while also giving him an opportunity for life and happiness. It turns out that there is: sending him to a sanctuary. So why is Ventura County rejecting it?

Happy 15th Gotcha Day to a little bird the “experts” wanted dead

“In conversations with the doctor, her vet tech, and later, the emergency on-call ‘expert’ at another facility, we hit a wall. They all tried to talk us out of treatment and dismissed us like naive, ill-informed, and even selfish individuals for suggesting the pigeon wouldn’t be better off dead…

“That was 15 years ago today. We… took him in, and the (former) little flyer we named Commander Seymour Higgins lives with us to this day. He’s a talkative little fellow who loves millet, warm baths, and sitting in the sun.

“For 15 years, Commander has had these and more, including shelter, warmth, the company of other birds, and our companionship — things that those who should have been his biggest champion tried to talk us out of.”

Federal Government weakens Endangered Species Act again

Read more

As previously reported, Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) is being sued to prevent it from killing Bruce, a dog ordered destroyed after being declared “vicious.” The lawsuit 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.

The litigation also challenges the factual basis for killing Bruce. Although the County relied on prior incidents to classify him as dangerous, records from Bruce’s months in the shelter describe him as a “model citizen” who behaves well with kennel staff and adapts successfully to a stable, controlled environment.

As a compromise, SPARC has offered to send Bruce to a sanctuary, where he can live out his life without threatening the safety of the public. VCAS has rejected the offer.

When I was a criminal prosecutor — a “Deputy District Attorney” by title — I served the people of the state of California. I did not narrowly serve the elected District Attorney, police departments, their officers, or even crime victims. I served all of them and more. When I walked into court, I introduced myself as “Nathan Winograd, for the People.”

In evaluating cases, making charging decisions, offering plea bargains, taking a case to trial, or making sentencing requests, I never sought to “win” regardless of the consequences because my job was to consider all the interests at stake, including those of the perpetrator, whose constitutional rights I was also there to protect and serve. It was a responsibility I took seriously.

In one particular trial I was likely to win easily, I was bothered by one aspect of it. I sent an investigator to look at the crime scene, asked for a short delay, did additional research, concluded that the statute and the nature of the facts were capable of two interpretations, and ended up dismissing the case in the interest of justice. Winning for the sake of winning was a loss for my integrity, for the constitutional rights of the accused, and for the people.

This is not a divorced-from-reality defund the police/restorative justice fever dream. I believe in enforcement of the law. I handled three strikes cases, death penalty cases, animal cruelty cases, domestic violence cases, and child sexual assault cases. When a defendant poured gasoline and lit his neighbor’s cat on fire, in addition to charging him with cruelty, I charged him with arson of property under the three strikes laws. When a different perpetrator strangled his dog with guitar string, I added a use of deadly weapon enhancement that guaranteed prison time. But, as I said, I took my job and my role as a representative of the people and through them, the cause of justice, seriously.

Ventura County’s animal “shelter” director and the assistant county counsel handling Bruce’s case are not serious people.

VCAS director Esteban Rodriguez and Christine Renshaw, the Assistant County Counsel representing him, want to win at all costs, regardless of the irreversible, manifest injustice that would occur if they do. At least that is the way it looks from here. If they prevail, Bruce, a dog VCAS describes as a “model citizen” will be killed, even though he can safely spend the rest of his life in a controlled environment. Instead of accepting that outcome in the interest of justice, Rodriguez and Renshaw appear hellbent on turning Bruce into ash.

They are monomaniacally focusing on proving to a judge that the agency followed its own procedures and had the legal leeway to make that decision, viewing any outside challenge — even from a sanctuary willing to spare Bruce’s life — as an attempt to undermine their legitimate government authority. Indeed, they have threatened to ask for sanctions in the state court lawsuit on Bruce’s would-be rescuers for seeking their day in court. It smacks of retaliation, which Rodriguez has been accused of before and which, it appears at least in part, led to his departure from running the Seattle pound before he was hired by Ventura County. (In resigning, Rodriguez called the claims of retaliation a “complete fabrication.”)

In federal court, VCAS is seeking to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker-Feldman bars federal district courts from being used as appeal courts to overturn state court judgments. SPARC argues it doesn’t apply because they were never named, served, joined, or heard during the state court proceedings and an entity that was not a party to a state case cannot be barred from suing in federal court. Additionally, SPARC is not challenging the state court’s ruling. It is suing for a deprivation of property without due process of law, a federal civil rights action because VCAS took custody of Bruce, failed to notify them, and omitted them from court filings and proceedings.

If you did not quite grasp the last paragraph, that’s the point. Instead of asking whether Rooker-Feldman applies, Ventura County should be considering whether there is a kind, common-sense alternative that can achieve the stated ends — protecting public safety — while also giving Bruce an opportunity for life and happiness.

There is: sending him to a sanctuary.

As SPARC’s attorney writes in a letter to Crenshaw,

[M]ultiple efforts were made to resolve this case without killing Bruce. Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center was the first option presented and has remained available throughout. Mr. Rodriguez rejected it. Dogtown Ranch was discussed as another placement for Bruce. Mr. Rodriguez rejected it. West Coast Cane Corso was another option. Mr. Rodriguez rejected it. SPARC remains willing to fund Bruce’s placement with any qualified rescue sanctuary, but Mr. Rodriguez has rejected every lifesaving proposal.

This makes no sense. VCAS has sent other problematic dogs to SPARC without incident, including dogs “exhibiting ‘severe aggression,’” who “could not be safely handled” and had “a poor prognosis” for successful rehabilitation. According to VCAS, one of those dogs “growled, showed his teeth, repeatedly bit and chewed the slip lead, and required a catch pole.”

By contrast, Bruce can be hand-fed treats. He also “has a substantially better in-custody record, with no documented bite, attempted bite, charge, lunge, snap, or aggressive handling incident.” As Dan Bolton, SPARC’s attorney documents,

• On February 23, Bruce was easy to leash and walk to intake, permitted all handling and vaccinations without issue, and allowed staff to remove his leash and muzzle without issue.

• On March 4, VCAS called him “a model citizen in his kennel” and said he had shown no fear, anxiety, or stress [FAS].

• On March 5, VCAS again said that he had not shown signs of fear, anxiety, or stress that concerned the Animal Care team.

• From March 11 through April 15, VCAS repeatedly documented low FAS, quiet or resting behavior, no pacing, soft ears and lips, relaxation, treat-taking, tail wagging, and ordinary responses to staff.

• On March 22, a staff member sat near him and spoke gently, and Bruce did not react negatively.

• On March 28, Bruce lay on the floor and wagged his tail while staff spoke to and engaged him.

• On April 4, he approached the kennel gate with a wagging tail and lay down.

• On April 26, he was calm and lying down and then lay comfortably during a separate timed observation.

• On April 29, VCAS moved him from kennel 144 to kennel 122. No difficulty, resistance, handling concern, or behavioral incident was recorded…

• On July 1, he was chewing a treat in his kennel.

• On July 5, he was resting against the outer kennel grate, got up, moved into the shade, and lay back down.

• On July 13, he was resting when the veterinarian approached within approximately six inches. He rose and walked briefly in response to kissing noises and then lay back down.

• On July 16, he moved between kennel compartments during the examination and gave a nervous yawn, but then lay calmly with his head on his paws. No growling, snapping, lunging, or attempted bite was recorded.

• On July 20, he rose, stretched, walked briefly toward the veterinarian, and then went inside and settled with his head resting on his paw.

Contrary to Rodriguez and Crenshaw’s belief that sparing Bruce’s life would undermine the legitimate government authority of VCAS, it would solidify it. Because killing Bruce in the face of his “model citizen” behavior and a sanctuary option is not a show of “legitimate government authority.” It is an abuse of power.

This is an updated version of an article that was first published in 2022 and then republished with updated studies in 2024. The current article has several new studies, expanded discussion, and additional recommendations. New studies and updated discussions are clearly marked throughout.

In the dog room

Shelters are stressful places for dogs and can be stressful places for potential adopters. In most shelters, dogs can’t see people or other dogs in neighboring kennels. Where there is glass, it’s often opaque. Where there are fences or bars, they face a wall. When people visit, they are told not to touch the animals. These are mistakes that increase frustration for dogs.

When frustrated, dogs are stressed, bark excessively, and engage in antisocial behavior. The louder the barking, the less time people spend in the kennels looking for dogs to adopt. And the more dogs bark or act out, the longer it will take for them to be adopted.

Moreover, studies have found no compelling evidence that the vast majority of dogs are in shelters because there is something wrong with them. Instead, “surrenders often say more about the people doing the surrendering — about ‘owner-related factors, needs, and expectations’ — than the dogs being surrendered.” As such, shelters should stop thinking of dogs as having “behavior problems” and instead understand them as “behavior incompatibilities” with the person they were living with before being surrendered.

For example, like human children, dogs go through a rebellious adolescent phase. Despite that enrichment/reward-based training can modify these behaviors, research has found that “this corresponds with the peak age at which dogs are relinquished to shelters.” Not surprisingly, most shelter dogs are young. Without enrichment in the shelter, they may be falsely labeled “aggressive” or “unadoptable” and killed.

Various studies conclude that “Even in well-managed and funded facilities, dogs are likely to encounter an array of stressors including noise, unpredictability, loss of control… disruption of routines…” and unfamiliar people and surroundings. Without rigorous efforts to remedy these issues, as many as eight out of 10 dogs fail their behavior evaluation. By contrast, these dogs will likely pass if provided enrichment, including those initially, though falsely, deemed “potentially quite dangerous” by shelter staff.

These enrichment activities include allowing dogs out of the cage/kennel for human interaction, dog-dog play, several daily walks, letting dogs see people and dogs in shelters by removing visual barriers that block such access, and group housing. Over one-third of dogs housed alone suffer behavior problems, and 10% engage in repetitive behavior (like endless barking). By contrast, dogs housed with other dogs have “a decrease of stress after long term stay in the shelter.” As such, dogs in shelters for more than two weeks should always be pair or group-housed if they get along with other dogs. Aggression and fighting are rare as long as the staff is thoughtful about pairing.

Moreover, soft music with human voices reduces stress in kenneled dogs. Of note, studies have found that dogs prefer, in order, soft rock, reggae, pop, and then classical. The soft human voice is the most important part of the musical experience for dogs. Dogs, however, get bored of the same playlist. By the end of the first day, the impact of stress reduction from playing the same songs was eliminated. By the end of the first week, the impact of the same type of music (e.g., classical or soft rock) was eliminated.

Finally, conventional wisdom says the longer dogs are in the shelter, the more likely they are to become “kennel crazy” and thus “less adoptable.” This is false as “dogs adapt to the kennel environment over time” and “environmental enrichment helps animals to cope with their environments.” In other words, newly admitted dogs tend to be stressed. Dogs who only get the basics — food, water, and shelter — are stressed. But socialized and exercised dogs are not stressed; the longer they are in the shelter, the less stressed they become.

Study: “Comparison of the Number of Dog Adoptions in a Pilot Program That Restored Limited Visitor Access to Kennels.”

Findings: Requiring an appointment to adopt animals leads to significantly fewer adoptions — and fewer adoptions lead to more killing.

Study: “What is the Evidence for Reliability and Validity of Behavior Evaluations for Shelter Dogs?”

Findings: There is “no evidence that any canine behavior evaluation has come close to meeting accepted standards for reliability and validity.” Some tests are wrong as much as 84% of the time (a combination of poor tests and poor testing practices by pound workers). While shocking, it should not be surprising since the tests rest on a “fatally flawed” premise: “that the provocations used at a single time during a dog’s stressful experience in a shelter will predict future behavior at a different time and place.”

Study: “The Relationship Between Aggression and Physical Disease in Dogs.”

Findings: Medical conditions “can trigger aggression in a nonaggressive dog.” This includes hyperthyroidism, neurologic issues, exposure to distemper, skin problems, and microbiome changes. Specifically, “aggression can be a defensive reaction to avoid a particular handling that the dog anticipates as potentially painful.” Moreover, “the stress response associated with pain reduces serotonin activity,” and a “reduction in serotonin activity in the [central nervous system] has been linked to aggressive behavior in dogs.” Animal shelters that claim a dog is “aggressive” must “include a thorough physical examination to rule out painful conditions, a neurologic examination, a complete blood count, and biochemistry.”

Study: “Relationships between demographic characteristics of shelter dogs and performance on tests of a behavioral evaluation and between performance and adoption success.”

Findings: Shelter staff cannot accurately predict dog behavior in a home based on dog behavior in a shelter: “displaying concerning or dangerous behavior was not significantly associated with return to the shelter, and positive predictive values were low, implying that many positive tests will be false positives.” Indeed, “dangerous behaviors” occurred in sheltered dogs significantly “less than 5%” of the time.

Study: “Enrichment centered on human interaction moderates fear-induced aggression and increases positive expectancy in fearful shelter dogs.”

Findings: Shelters are very stressful places for dogs, causing them to fail behavior evaluations. “Even in well-managed and funded facilities, dogs are likely to encounter an array of stressors including noise, unpredictability, loss of control… disruption of routines…” and unfamiliar people and surroundings. A small amount of enrichment — being spoken to softly, given treats, petted, and played with — can result in dogs passing temperament tests. After just five days of being treated kindly, “nearly all” fearful dogs passed the test. This is true even for dogs deemed “potentially quite dangerous” at the beginning of the study.

Study: “Characteristics and Adoption Success of Shelter Dogs Assessed as Resource Guarders.”

Findings: While 15% of kenneled dogs guard their food, many “do not guard food in their adoptive homes, and, even when dogs continue to display food guarding in the home, adopters do not consider it to be a major problem.” As such, shelters should opt for “adoption rather than euthanasia for most dogs identified as resource guarders during behavioral evaluations in shelters.” Dogs returned for food guarding should be readopted and can be adopted without incident.

Study: “Saving Normal: A new look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters.”

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

Study: “Teenage dogs? Evidence for adolescent-phase conflict behavior and an association between attachment to humans and pubertal timing in the domestic dog.”

Findings: “[T]he welfare consequences of adolescence-phase behavior could be lasting because this corresponds with the peak age at which dogs are relinquished to shelters.” In other words, like human children, dogs go through a rebellious adolescent phase, and reward-based training can modify these behaviors.

Study: “Impact of Visual Barrier Removal on the Behavior of Shelter-Housed Dogs.”

Findings: Letting dogs see people and dogs in shelters by removing visual barriers that block such access reduces stress in shelter dogs. Stressed dogs are likely to fail their behavior evaluations.

Study: “An Evaluation of Respondent Conditioning Procedures to Decrease Barking in an Animal Shelter.”

Findings: Poor behavior in shelter dogs is often a sign of frustration. Specifically, dogs can see people and other dogs but can’t interact with them. Over time, they associate people and other dogs with frustration. Dog treats counter-conditioned them. It doesn’t matter if dogs are given treats when they weren’t barking, were barking, or when conditioned to identify a sound — such as a door chime — all three improved dog behavior.

Study: “Evaluating pair- vs. solitary-housing in kenneled domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) using behavior and hair cortisol.”

Findings: Group housing dogs reduces frustration. Over one-third of dogs housed alone suffered behavior problems, and 10% engaged in repetitive behavior (like endless barking). As such, dogs in shelters should be pair or group-housed if they get along with other dogs. Fears about aggression and fighting in pair-housed kennels tend to be overblown, with fights being rare so long as the staff is thoughtful about pairing.

Study: “Effects of single- or pair-housing on the welfare of shelter dogs: Behavioral and physiological indicators.”

Findings: Dogs co-housed with other well-matched dogs are less stressed and adopted faster than those housed alone.

Study: “Identifying environmental and management factors that may be associated with the quality of life of kennelled dogs.”

Findings: Conventional wisdom says the longer dogs are in the shelter, the more likely they are to become “kennel crazy” and thus “less adoptable.” This is false as “dogs adapt to the kennel environment over time” and “environmental enrichment helps animals to cope with their environments.” In other words, newly admitted dogs tend to be stressed. Dogs who only get the basics — food, water, and shelter — are stressed. However, socialized and exercised dogs are not stressed; the longer they are in the shelter, the less stressed they become.

Study: “Welfare Assessment in Shelter Dogs by Using Physiological and Immunological Parameters.”

Findings: “During the initial physiological adaptive response, novel environment, manipulation, change in social structure, and different cages can represent sources of stress for dogs entering a shelter,” but for dogs housed with other dogs, the result is “a decrease of stress after long term stay in the shelter.” In other words, dogs should be able to see and interact with other dogs and people to “reduce frustrated attempts to see what is going on beyond their kennel.”

Study: “Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes.”

Findings: Breed tells us how dogs look, not how they behave. For “predicting some dog behaviors, breed is essentially useless, and for most, not very good.” For example, “the defining criteria of a golden retriever are its physical characteristics — the shape of its ears, the color and quality of its fur, its size — not whether it is friendly.” Likewise, the findings “cast doubt on breed stereotypes of aggressive dogs, like pit bulls.” The study adds to a growing scientific literature that demonstrates breed bans are useless for public safety and breed descriptions are useless for matching dogs who exhibit desired behaviors with prospective adopters.

Study: “For Pits’ Sake: Effect of Breed Labels on Perceptions of Shelter Dog Attractiveness.”

Findings: Shelter workers often misidentify breeds: 50% of dogs labeled “pit bulls” lacked DNA breed signatures of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls. Moreover, perception of breed negatively impacts length of stay and adoption rates. Consequently, removing these labels allows these dogs to be adopted and adopted more quickly. It also results in a better fit between the family lifestyle and the individual dog’s behavior.

Study: “A Review on the Influence of Noise on the Welfare of Dogs.”

Findings: Almost half of all dogs fear noise to varying degrees, including the sounds of an animal shelter, and for those “shelters” that rely on arcane “temperament tests,” dogs could be labeled “unadoptable” and killed as a result. All shelters must employ noise abatement strategies “because the welfare of animals may decline” if they do not. This includes “incorporating sound control in the design of… buildings” such as acoustic clouds, using “quieter cleaning tools,” “replacing noisy overhead fans,” and enrichment strategies, including music with soft, human voices. In cases of extreme fear, medication may also help.

Study: “The effect of different genres of music on the stress level of kenneled dogs.”

Findings: Soft music with human voices reduces stress in kenneled dogs. Lowered cortisol levels, heart rate, and stereotypy behavior measured this. Dogs preferred, in order, soft rock, reggae, pop, and then classical. The soft human voice is the most essential part of the musical experience for dogs. However, dogs, like humans, get bored of the same playlist. By the end of the first day, the impact of stress reduction from playing the same songs was eliminated. By day seven, the effect of the same type of music (e.g., classical or soft rock) was eliminated.

Study: “Social determinants of health and disease in companion dogs: a cohort study from the Dog Aging Project.”

Findings: Dogs thrive around other animals: “like many social animals — including humans, having more social companions can be important for the dog’s health.” Isolating dogs leads to poor health outcomes.

Study: “The odour of an unfamiliar stressed or relaxed person affects dogs’ responses to a cognitive bias test.”

Findings: Dogs can smell when humans are stressed, which impacts their choices, resulting in dogs making more pessimistic judgments if exposed to a stressed person.

Note: In addition to these findings, numerous studies have found that the ability of people, including shelter workers, to identify canine behavior correctly is poor, despite most rating their understanding of dog behavior highly. For example, “Barking and growling are not isomorphic [synonymous] with ‘aggression.’” Neither are mouthiness and other behaviors typically labeled as “resource guarding” behavior, “jealousy,” or “aggression.” Often, the dog is just seeking information: “When dogs ask questions of and gain information… in active interactions, tactile exchanges are frequent and complex, often involving mouthing, an activity that humans both misunderstand and actively discourage.”

Not surprisingly, “over one-third (36.9%) of dogs originally brought in by their owners for euthanasia could, upon further evaluation by staff and discussion with owners, be made available for adoption” given that they “had medical or behavioral concerns that were amenable to resolution, as opposed to all having terminal health conditions or intractable behavior problems.”

NEW Study: “The value of sniffing: A scoping review of scent activities for canines.”

Findings: Scent-based activities — such as leash walks where staff and volunteers let the dog lead, wander, and sniff ambient environmental odors at the dog’s own pace, hiding treats for the dog to locate, and exposing dogs to ambient essential oils — “can lead to increased positive behaviors and a decrease in stress-related behaviors” in shelter dogs. These activities help reduce stress and anxiety caused by common shelter conditions such as noise, confinement, and unfamiliar surroundings. Dogs that participated in olfactory enrichment also exhibited fewer stress-related behaviors, including stereotypic actions like pacing and excessive barking. At the same time, they displayed more relaxed and exploratory behaviors, as sniffing tasks allowed them to engage in natural behaviors that support their mental well-being. The authors also noted that these behavioral improvements may lead to better adoption outcomes, as dogs who appear calmer and more confident are generally more attractive to potential adopters, helping increase the likelihood of faster adoption.

NEW Study: “Dog skull shape challenges assumptions of performance specialization from selective breeding.”

Findings: Specific dog breeds do not possess inherent physical traits that make them superior for tasks such as herding, retrieval, or guarding — or make them prone to aggression. Researchers examined breeds commonly used in law enforcement and military roles and found no significant differences between breeds trained for this kind of work and those that were not. They determined that breeds are influenced more by human aesthetic preferences than functional needs. For example, the study’s authors noted that, “Some people claim that [dogs identified as ‘pit bulls’] will bite harder than other dogs of the same size, or they have special features like ‘locking jaws’ that make them especially dangerous to people. Our study shows that this is simply not true.”

NEW Study: “The Effect of Kennel Viewing on the Adoption of Slow-Track Dogs.”

Findings: Allowing potential adopters to view dogs without requiring an appointment significantly increased adoptions of dogs who had been in the shelter for 10 or more days. After the study shelter introduced partial daily kennel viewings, adoption rates for these “slow-track” dogs increased by as much as 57%, reducing their average shelter stay by approximately 44 days. Because long-term dogs made up as much as 72% of the adoption population and were more likely to be larger and older, increasing their visibility created more opportunities for in-person interactions and emotional connections with potential adopters. As such, face-to-face engagement is a key factor in helping overlooked dogs find homes more quickly.

NEW Study: “Effects of two types of environmental enrichment on the behavior of dogs in shelters.”

Findings: Reaffirms the importance of enrichment for dog mental and physical health, but notably finds that even minimal enrichment benefits dogs. Dogs who were provided with small amounts and types of enrichment were significantly more likely to approach the front of the cage, sit, lie down, and remain quiet when approached, which might make them more appealing to potential adopters.

NEW Study: “The implications of weeklong fostering and co-housing on shelter dog welfare.”

Findings: Dogs who enter shelters and are placed in foster care for just one week before returning to the shelter experienced a significant decrease in stress, as measured by cortisol levels (a primary stress hormone). To prevent the dogs from being stressed again upon their return to the shelters, researchers housed them with familiar kennel mates. If they did this, the dogs “rested more and engaged in less high-intensity (potentially stress-related) activity than those housed alone or with a brand-new stranger dog.” Researchers urged shelter managers to expand foster programs, prioritize co-housing, and reduce noise and other environmental stressors.

NEW Study: “Dogs (Canis familiaris) distinguish conspecific emotional chemosignals.”

Findings: Dogs can detect emotional states in both humans and other dogs through scent, reliably distinguishing odors of stress, fear, and happiness. These smells alone trigger responses. In fact, in both human-dog and dog-to-dog contexts, stress-related odors appear to exert the strongest behavioral effects, without any other actions by the other dogs.

While odor allows dogs to navigate complex social environments in which emotional information is transmitted chemically, it also has profound implications for shelters. Shelters are inherently stressful environments for dogs — characterized by noise, confinement, and unpredictability. They also smell, not just because many of them are unclean, true as that is, but because of stressed dogs. As the smell of “stress” can spread chemically through the air, it leads to chronic tension across kennels. This is why scent-based enrichment is important. It is also why friendly, compassionate, unstressed staff who are not just there for a paycheck matters.

NEW Study: “Linking shelter conditions to health: A multisystem analysis of stress, metabolism, and fecal microbiota in dogs.”

Findings: Yet another in a long line of studies that finds that lack of enrichment in animal “shelters” directly degrades a dog’s mental and physical health. Notably, the study found that lack of enrichment also impacts a dog’s metabolic and gastrointestinal health. Conversely, by prioritizing regular enrichment programs, shelters can significantly mitigate chronic stress and cultivate sustainable, high-welfare environments for companion animals.

In the cat room and strategies for feral cats

Shelters are stressful places for cats. Shelters that do not have a “mental health” component (touch, talk, play) in concert with a “physical health” component (vaccination on intake, prompt and necessary veterinary care, cleaning/disinfection) undermine the well-being of cats and put them at risk of getting sick and being killed.

Moreover, many cats fear noise to varying degrees. This fear is often triggered in shelters by barking dogs and other loud noises. At shelters that have not embraced a culture of lifesaving, this can lead to cats inaccurately being labeled “fearful,” “fractious,” or “unadoptable” and killed.

All shelters must employ noise abatement strategies to avoid negatively impacting animal welfare. This includes sound control, such as acoustic clouds, quieter cleaning tools, and enrichment strategies. For example, unless they are housed in a large, free-roaming cat room, cats should be allowed out of the cage/kennel for human interaction, playing, and running at least twice daily. Moreover, cats should be gently petted and talked to daily. These practices result in a markedly lower chance of upper respiratory infection. Cats who are not stroked and talked to gently are over two times more likely to get sick (due to stress) than cats who are. Ironically, many shelters do not allow people to touch cats due to fear of disease, placing signs throughout the shelter to that effect.

Finally, while shelters label roughly two out of five cats “feral” or “aggressive” (and these cats are killed unless the shelter embraces a community cat program), studies have concluded that very few cats will respond fearfully after day six if gently petted and talked to throughout their stay in the shelter. This is also true of cats who cannot be touched when they arrive. As such, “a 3-4 day holding period“ is not “sufficient to differentiate non-feral from feral cats.”

Regardless, No Kill shelters do not kill cats for “behavior,” “aggression,” or being considered “feral.” Community cats who are not social with humans are returned to their habitats. Cats deemed “fearful” or “fractious” but otherwise social with humans are adopted out, despite those issues, because cats do not pose physical risks to public safety. The behavior also often resolves outside of a shelter.

Study: “Effect of gentle stroking and vocalization on behaviour, mucosal immunity and upper respiratory disease in anxious shelter cats.”

Findings: Cats gently petted and talked to have a markedly lower chance of getting an upper respiratory infection. Cats not stroked and talked to gently were over two times more likely to get sick (due to stress) than cats who were. Ironically, many shelters do not allow people to touch cats due to fear of disease, placing signs throughout the shelter to that effect, even though the absence of touching makes them 2.4 times more likely to get sick.

In addition, cats who are labeled “feral,” “unsocial,” “fractious,” or “aggressive” are virtually all killed unless the shelter embraces a community cat sterilization program. While 18% of the cats tested would have been deemed “feral” due to “aggression” (and thus killed), none of the cats responded that way after day six. This is also true of cats who could not be touched when they arrived and were stroked “mechanically” with a fake hand. As such, “a 3-4 day holding period” is not “sufficient to differentiate non-feral from feral cats.”

Study: “The Impact of Lethal, Enforcement-Centred Cat Management on Human Wellbeing.”

Findings: Besides harm to cats, killing “feral”/community cats results in profound human suffering. Cat caregivers are motivated by “considerable concern regarding the health and safety of the cats,” “feel responsible for improving their health and welfare,” and “commit substantial time and finances to their needs, despite existing legal and financial difficulties.” As such, the bond between caregivers and cats was “as strong as the bonds with their own pets,” and “the cats looked to them (the caregivers) to keep them safe and fed.” So, it is not surprising that caregivers suffer when officials kill cats. That suffering was “significant,” leading to grief, trauma, poor physical health, and long-term psychological distress, including profound guilt, loss, and inability to eat. Given this and other evidence, shelters must abandon lethal methods and instead “identify and assist caregivers to implement neutering and, if possible, adoption. This would improve cat welfare, minimize public complaints, and reduce psychological hazards to caregivers.”

Note: Killing a cat for “behavior,” “aggression,” or being considered “feral” should never occur. There isn’t even a need to delay finding homes for these cats. They can be sterilized and returned to their habitats if they are not social with humans and are used to living outdoors, or they can be adopted out immediately if they are. Simply put, people will adopt cats with “cattitude.”

This is not to say that cats who experience behavior issues in the shelter do not warrant changes in shelter housing, shelter treatment, and behavior intervention to address those needs. They do. However, they can be adopted despite those issues because resolving behavior challenges is almost always done by getting them out of the shelter. Moreover, for those who do need further treatment, treatment in the home will be more effective and focused, as it is for many dogs.

As the director of an open-admission animal control shelter, I eliminated any “behavior category” for cats and thus any killing of cats for “behavior,” “aggression,” or being “feral.”

Protecting Community Cats

A community cat program reduces intake and killing of community cats, illness in the shelter, complaint calls to animal control, spending (and waste of taxpayer money), and increases opportunities to expand lifesaving of other animals, such as dogs.

NEW Study: “Navigating the controversy: Public perspectives on free-roaming cat populations and control strategies in Israel.”

Findings: While most people want to see the community cat population reduced, 90% oppose killing them. The study also found that, “Public attitudes toward stray cats in Israel closely mirror trends observed in the United States and parts of Europe, where compassion for free-roaming cats coexists with concern about their growing numbers.”

NEW Study: “Comparative effectiveness of culling and birth control in free-roaming animal management: A systematic review.”

Findings: Researchers reviewed 91 empirical studies and 18 modeling studies evaluating killing vs. sterilization interventions across multiple outcomes, including population control, zoonotic disease prevention, public safety, animal welfare, ecological impacts, and cost-effectiveness. Their findings showed that birth control strategies were significantly more effective.

The review found that long-term, integrated birth control programs consistently produced better outcomes across nearly every category studied. Programs that achieved high sterilization coverage over multiple years were more likely to reduce animal populations, lower rabies incidence, decrease “shelter” intake and kill rates, and improve public attitudes toward free-roaming animals. By contrast, killing often failed because populations quickly rebounded through abandonment, migration of new animals into cleared areas, and continued uncontrolled breeding.

NEW Study: “Bella and Charlie Are Not the Problem—It’s Us: The Real Causes of Wildlife Rescue in NSW.”

Findings: Cats are not responsible for the wildlife harm they are being falsely blamed for. Researchers analyzed 11 years (2013–2024) of wildlife rehabilitation records in Australia, covering 52,475 individual animals from 158 threatened species. Human and human activities were responsible for most known wildlife harm, followed by extreme weather events (which might also be human-related). Notably, other animals represented just 4.4% of all wildlife injuries, with cats representing a minority of those (0.6%). That is 311 of the 52,475 injuries, and does not account for the fact that cats are scavengers and may have come across wild animals already injured for other reasons (e.g., human caused harm).

While public debate has disproportionately emphasized cats as a “conservation threat,” that debate is misinformed. In addition to falsely blaming cats, it overlooks more common and potentially preventable human causes of wildlife injury. The analysis finds that most harm is associated with human-modified environments, including hazardous infrastructure, roads, entangling materials, and habitat fragmentation.

The study’s main implication is that wildlife protection efforts would achieve greater benefits by prioritizing prevention of the most common rescue causes rather than focusing on cat management and killing.

In the rooms with rabbits and other animals

Although rabbits make up the third most common animal in shelters, they — and other non-dog and cat species — are often treated like second-class residents. While all U.S. states have holding periods for stray dogs and cats, they may have none for bunnies, allowing shelters to kill them immediately with no attempt to rehome them.

Moreover, while shelters might have rules prohibiting the adoption of dogs who will not be allowed in the house because lack of socialization and affection are traumatic for dogs, they have no such rules for rabbits who suffer similar harm and likewise belong in homes, not backyard cages. Finally, many shelters do not vaccinate or sterilize rabbits despite doing so for dogs and cats.

The No Kill movement has also primarily ignored bunnies, rodents, “exotic” pets, birds, wildlife, and farmed animals. The need to save rabbits is conspicuously absent on the platforms of many organizations. They have resisted calls to add them to statistics when calculating overall community placement rates. Many shelters placing over 95% of dogs and cats either have no safety net for rabbits and other animals — turning them away — or they kill them in large numbers but still call themselves No Kill.

Even some rabbit advocates do them a disservice by choosing death at the pound rather than have them adopted out to homes with children (buying into the same misanthropy that dog and cat rescuers rejected a decade ago). Adding insult to injury, rabbits are legally considered “food” and abused to test cosmetics.

It is well past time for change.

NEW: Helping families overcome the challenges that cause them to surrender animals

NEW Study: “Support-seeking and rehoming pathways differ by surrender circumstances among pet owners.”

Findings: 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.

That assistance needs to be targeted to actually solve the problem in the particular case, not generic advice based on long-standing dogma (such as why dogs bark or cats pee outside litterboxes).

The study examined why people give up their pets and what happens before that decision is made. Surveying hundreds of dog and cat owners who had rehomed or surrendered a pet, researchers found that these situations fall into three main categories:

• Owner hardship, such as financial strain, housing issues, or health problems;

• New acquisition mismatch, when a recently adopted pet turns out to be a poor fit; and,

• Behavioral incompatibility.

Across all groups, the types of support people wanted were practical rather than abstract: affordable veterinary care, access to training or behavior advice, and temporary care options during periods of instability. Most critically, intervention needs to happen as early as possible — before people reach the proverbial breaking point.

A large share of animals surrendered involved re-surrender; new pets that didn’t work out. When I ran shelters, we contacted new adopters one week after adoption, two weeks later, and then six months later to see how things were working out and to resolve any issues before they became entrenched. That prevented many returns, which for us was less than 2%. Without proactive efforts to reach these individuals and, when needed, provide them with concrete, situation-specific support, efforts to reduce pet surrender rates will not reach their full potential. And in some pounds, that amounts to a death sentence.

NEW: Many “shelters” will not voluntarily implement these findings

In virtually every study noted above, researchers urged “shelter” leaders to adopt science-based management strategies. But that is not likely to happen as other research, “Perceived importance of specific kennel management practices for the provision of canine welfare,” finds that pound employees do not view health, hygiene, and enrichment as important. Indeed, it found that the very people tasked with caring for the neediest dogs, and by implication cats and other animals, in our society are the least concerned about their welfare. And that has enormous implications for the health, well-being, and lives of these animals.

Specifically, the study examined whether existing research into what animals need for good welfare while housed in kennels changes how these facilities house and care for dogs. The answer is “No.” And given inconsistent, unenforced, and in many cases, non-existent regulations that mandate a commitment to dog welfare, what dogs, cats, and other animals need is not “successfully translating into evidence-based changes in industry practice.”

Given this disconnect between what animals need and how many animal “shelters” are run, we need to stop pretending that managers and staff at poorly performing shelters are there because they love animals and are passionate about doing what is best for them. Instead, staff and managers appear ignorant of basic animal welfare, are not keeping up with the latest research, and are not implementing the findings. That suggests that staff at poorly performing shelters are not motivated by genuine concern for the welfare of animals, but doing as little as possible at their expense.

This isn’t mere speculation. The study found that kennel attendants with more enlightened views “are prevented from engaging in practices they believe to be of high value to the welfare of dogs” by senior employees and managers, leading them to “experience compassion fatigue, burnout, and moral distress.” Not surprisingly, this hostile work environment can lead such employees to resign their positions, leaving shelter animals in the custody of those who do not have their best interests at heart.

That is why we must force them to do so.

The No Kill Advocacy Center’s model shelter reform legislation, The Companion Animal Protection Act, gives animals the protections and enrichment they need, including effective holding periods, prompt and necessary veterinary care, and the right of rescue.

UPDATED: Running a humane shelter

The No Kill Companion

A reference manual for running a humane animal shelter. Updated for 2026, The No Kill Companion covers:

• The definition of No Kill;

• Costs and benefits of No Kill animal control;

• A 2025 snapshot of the No Kill movement;

• Sample assessment tools and protocols for running a municipal No Kill shelter;

• Animal protection legislation;

• Primer on various shelter issues, including temperament testing, community cats, dog behavior, and more.

No Dog Left Behind

Based on studies, the pioneering work of behaviorists, and the results of some of the most successful agencies in the country, shelters can place 99% of dogs.

Animal Evaluation Matrix: Policies & Procedures That Protect the Lives of Shelter Animals

The Matrix includes medical and behavior protocols, diagnostic tools, and end-of-life protocols, with forms and checklists to increase accountability and improve performance. The No Kill Advocacy Center developed these protocols in collaboration with some of the most successful shelter directors in the country (directors running municipal and animal control-contracted shelters with placement rates of 99%).

UPDATED: Thanks to advancements in veterinary medicine, The No Kill Companion has an updated list of treatable behavioral and medical conditions.

What Shelters Owe Traumatized Animals

Traumatized dogs deserve safe harbor and time — time to abandon fear, forget a haunted past, and, most important of all, learn to trust. With the right amount of love, kindness, compassion, positive conditioning, and, when necessary, veterinary intervention, psychologically wounded animals, like humans, have a remarkable capacity for resilience.

NEW Study: The finding has been confirmed in “The successful use of medications and behavior modification in the treatment of a dog rescued from an animal hoarding situation: A case report,” which evaluates the rehabilitation of a dog born and raised in an animal hoarding environment. It shows how a combination of medication and behavioral training can successfully resolve severe fear and social anxiety.

The dog (an approximately two-year-old mix) was one of 77 dogs removed from a hoarding situation. Because the dog spent his early developmental period in extreme neglect — poor nutrition, little human interaction, overcrowding, and chronic stress — he developed profound behavioral problems, including fear of humans, pacing, leash-escape behavior, and anxiety around social interactions.

A veterinary behaviorist diagnosed a fear-related behavioral disorder and social anxiety. Treatment combined three medications — paroxetine (SSRI), gabapentin, and alprazolam — with structured behavior modification and environmental management. The behavioral plan emphasized predictable routines, avoidance of stress triggers, positive reinforcement, counterconditioning, and enrichment activities.

Over several months, the dog improved substantially. He became affectionate toward his owners, tolerated guests, and could go on normal walks, though he remained somewhat anxious in certain situations, such as veterinary visits.

The case study demonstrates that even severely traumatized animals can recover with long-term behavioral therapy and medication. It also provides an important takeaway for shelters, veterinarians, and policymakers: animals with severe trauma should not be considered “unadoptable” or to be irremediably suffering psychologically. Despite severe early deprivation, the dog eventually became affectionate and functioned normally in many daily activities.

The No Kill Advocacy Center offers over 30 free step-by-step guides for building a humane animal services program.

NEW: Is running a science-backed humane shelter more expensive?

Dollars & Sense: The Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control

Whenever I update the studies on the science behind running a humane shelter, I inevitably get questions about the cost of implementing those findings. In addition to my achieving a No Kill community running animal control despite a per capita intake rate twice the national average and per capita taxpayer funding that was a fraction of what others spent, running a humane science-based shelter is cost-effective.

For an expanded discussion, including the findings of several studies on increased placement rates as a function of costs and revenues, click here.

On July 21, 2011, we found a little pigeon huddled behind the back wheel of a large, parked truck, a wing hanging low and limp by his side. It turned out he had a fractured humerus — equivalent to the bone that runs from the shoulder to the elbow in our arms.

The veterinarian at the wildlife rehabilitation center we took him to explained that he would need surgery if he were ever to fly again, and given that he was “just a pigeon,” making that sort of investment wouldn’t make sense. She told us that they were going to kill him. We asked to have the bird back, telling her that we would take the bird to a private veterinarian, pay to have the wing repaired, and, if he could still not fly afterward, he could live with us.

We hit a proverbial brick wall.

In conversations with the doctor, her vet tech, and later, the emergency on-call “expert” at another facility, we hit a wall. They all tried to talk us out of treatment and dismissed us like naive, ill-informed, and even selfish individuals for suggesting the pigeon wouldn’t be better off dead.

One staff member told us that while our desire to save him was admirable, we needed to consider the bird’s “best interest” — which, in her estimation, was annihilation. Another reminded us that he was not “native” and therefore of little value.

We disagreed: Commander was not suffering from a mortal injury, and it didn’t matter where or when his species evolved. We demanded the bird back.

That was 15 years ago today. We did opt for the surgery at our own expense, but it didn’t work. Since he could no longer fly, we took him in, and the (former) little flyer we named Commander Seymour Higgins lives with us to this day. He’s a talkative little fellow who loves millet, warm baths, and sitting in the sun.

For 15 years, Commander has had these and more, including shelter, warmth, the company of other birds, and our companionship — things that those who should have been his biggest champion tried to talk us out of.

Happy Gotcha Day, Commander!

In other news: The battle to save Bruce continues. City rejects killing dogs based on how they look. Another community ends its breed discriminatory laws. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Federal Government weakens Endangered Species Act. As a heatwave puts dogs in cars at risk, another state says enough is enough.

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

Cats exonerated for wildlife harm

While Australian officials continue their campaign to eradicate millions of cats, a new study exonerates them for the wildlife harm they are being falsely blamed for.

Researchers analyzed 11 years (2013–2024) of wildlife rehabilitation records in Australia, covering 52,475 individual animals from 158 threatened species. Human and human activities were responsible for most known wildlife harm, followed by extreme weather events (which might also be human-related). Notably, other animals represented just 4.4% of all wildlife injuries, with cats representing a minority of those (0.6%). That is 311 of the 52,475 injuries, and does not account for the fact that cats are scavengers and may have come across wild animals already injured for other reasons (e.g., human caused harm).

The study concluded that while public debate has disproportionately emphasized cats as a “conservation threat,” that debate is misinformed. In addition to falsely blaming cats, it overlooks more common and potentially preventable human causes of wildlife injury. The analysis finds that most harm is associated with human-modified environments, including hazardous infrastructure, roads, entangling materials, and habitat fragmentation.

The study’s main implication is that wildlife protection efforts would achieve greater benefits by prioritizing prevention of the most common rescue causes rather than focusing on cat management and killing. Unfortunately, study findings that practical interventions such as wildlife-safe netting, reducing road hazards, and improving habitat connectivity would direct resources toward interventions with the greatest impact, are likely to fall on deaf, defiant ears.

The Australian nativist preoccupation with killing cats has nothing to do with wildlife protection. The modern environmental movement’s monomaniacal focus on controlling animals they deem “non-native” is driven more by ideology, rather than sound science or consistent ethics. It is unscientific because ecosystems and species distributions have always changed through evolution, migration, climate shifts, and geological processes, making the distinction between “native” and “non-native” an arbitrary snapshot in time rather than a fundamental biological principle.

It also leads to sadistic, hypocritical, and unworkable policies.

Sadistic, because the methods they employ are ruthless: blunt-force trauma, hunting with bows, hanging and disemboweling, cutting off heads while the animals are alive, suffocation, and poisoning that causes diarrhea, lethargy, and massive internal bleeding, leading to a slow, painful death over several days.

Hypocritical, because they force standards on animals that “conservationists” refuse to follow even though human animals are also “non-native,” belong to a species that is the most “invasive” the planet has ever experienced, and cause most environmental destruction, including the decimation of wildlife populations.

Unworkable, because they can never achieve the ultimate goal of eradication. As such, it is a slaughter with no end and no potential benefit: the scientific evidence is clear that removing one species to help another does not work.

In addition to ongoing violence towards animals, these actions also harm people, and children. Lethal intervention results in cat caregiver suffering. That suffering is significant, leading to grief, trauma, poor physical health, and long-term psychological distress, including profound guilt, loss, and inability to eat. And given that the link between animal violence and human violence is well-known and well-established, killing animals in the name of “nativism” imprints children for using violence to solve perceived problems.

Tragically, it isn’t just Australian nativists targeting cats. Nativists in U.S. states are killing cats, too, such as on Hawaii.

The battle to save Bruce continues

A lawsuit challenging Ventura County Animal Services’ decision to kill Bruce, despite a non-lethal, humane alternative that protects public safety, continues despite some setbacks. To prevent Bruce the opportunity for life and happiness, Ventura County officials are now trying to deny rescuers their day in court.

City rejects killing dogs based on the way they look

Read more

As previously reported, a Ventura County Superior Court judge 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.” 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 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.

The litigation also challenges the factual basis for killing Bruce. Although the County relied on prior incidents to classify him as dangerous, records from Bruce’s months in the shelter describe him as a “model citizen” who behaves well with kennel staff and adapts successfully to a stable, controlled environment.

According to court filings, SPARC and others proposed permanent placement in a secure sanctuary or other controlled setting where Bruce could live without posing a risk to the public. The central ethical question therefore is whether a dog should be killed when a safe, permanent alternative exists that protects both public safety and the animal’s life.

For an analysis of why the answer is No, click here.

Despite the denial of the protective order, the litigation in both state and federal court continues. But Ventura County officials are trying to deny SPARC their day in court and Bruce an opportunity for life and happiness by demanding the litigation be dismissed under the threat of sanctions.

Dan C. Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group, which represents SPARC, calls the County’s threat of sanctions “sanctimonious gamesmanship,” arguing that VCAS intent to kill Bruce while ignoring a humane alternative, is both illegal and unethical. He refutes that SPARC’s claims lack a good-faith basis, explaining that the denial of a temporary restraining order does not dictate the merits of the underlying action because they operate under different evidentiary standards.

He has also tried, without success, to reach County attorneys by telephone, a courtesy that every attorney normally extends to one another. Despite the failure to return his calls, he subsequently offered to meet at a place and with officials of their choosing to find an accommodation that saves Bruce’s life, protects public safety, and furthers judicial efficiency. Will they ignore those overtures, too?

The jury, as they say, is still out. But what is clear and what never ceases to amaze me — although after so many years I should no longer be surprised — is how much time, resources, and effort “shelter” managers and their enablers spend trying to kill or justifying the killing of animals. If they spent even a fraction of that trying to actually place them, they would be the heroes they now only pretend to be.

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