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

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

No Kill Sheltering Spring 2026

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

The current issue covers:

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

• A victory for animals on death row;

• A once-deadly feline disease has a cure;

• Protecting pets from tainted products;

• How technology is helping find lost pets;

• Misrepresenting bite data puts lives at risk;

• No Kill Companion 2026;

• No Kill is about programs, not geography;

And more.

PETA: Community cats are better dead than fed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Virginia again fails to outlaw bestiality

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

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

No Kill Companion giveaway

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

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do.

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

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

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

Shame on West Virginia.

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

The current issue covers:

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

• A victory for animals on death row;

• A once-deadly feline disease has a cure;

• Protecting pets from tainted products;

• How technology is helping find lost pets;

• Misrepresenting bite data puts lives at risk;

• No Kill Companion 2026;

• No Kill is about programs, not geography;

And more.

Read more

In other news: Rescue rights becomes law in Utah. Massachusetts Senate unanimously passes comprehensive pet protection bill. Another state strengthens its animal neglect and cruelty laws. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Another week, more tainted and potentially tainted pet foods. Despite animal abuse and mass killing, people have more pedestrian concerns. Federal Appeals Court sides with companies that kill animals. Animals pay the price for the state of our politics.

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

Rescue rights becomes law in Utah

SB 201, a bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals that rescue groups are willing to save, has passed the Utah House and Senate and was signed into law by the Governor.

The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing animals and allow their rescue. It will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue.

In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year to 99,783 — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers. ​In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $4,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains. Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.

Massachusetts Senate unanimously passes comprehensive pet protection bill

The Massachusetts Senate has passed legislation that:

• Requires public housing projects that have received state funds to allow pets; prohibits breed discrimination; and prohibits declawing as a condition for having a cat;

• Bans the retail sale of commercially-bred dogs and cats in pet stores, allowing those stores to partner with shelters and rescue groups to offer adoptions as an alternative;

• Prohibits homeowner and renter insurance companies from discriminating based on a dog’s breed, including whether to issue a policy, charge more, refuse to renew, or cancel an existing policy;

• Prohibits animal testing on consumer products when non-animal alternatives exist; and,

• Expands neglect and cruelty laws.

It also funds a study on whether and how pet restrictions and pet deposits/rent impact relinquishment of animals.

Regarding the public housing pet ban and the study on landlord pet restrictions:

Read more

SB 201, a bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals that rescue groups are willing to save, has passed the Utah House and Senate and was just signed into law by the Governor.

The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing animals and allow their rescue. It will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue.

In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year to 99,783 — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers. ​In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $4,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains. Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.

While Best Friends issued a press release applauding SB 201’s legislative passage and claiming to have helped draft it, the language was taken nearly verbatim from prior No Kill Advocacy Center bills in other states that Best Friends has opposed and, in some cases, helped defeat, such as Bowie’s Law and Oreo’s Law. Best Friends helped kill these bills at the behest of its regressive partners, consigning tens of thousands of animals to certain death every year and hundreds of rescuers to heartbreak.

Although Best Friends still uses No Kill catchphrases like “save them all,” it increasingly takes regressive positions that undermine No Kill efforts and legitimize killing as it has grown into an organization with $126 million in annual revenue and $153 million in assets.

This includes encouraging shelters to make pandemic-related closures permanent — closing their doors to people, including volunteers, rescuers, families looking for lost animals, and adopters unless they make an appointment; as well as advising municipal shelters to silence critics by forbidding volunteers and rescuers from exposing killing and inhumane conditions.

One question remains: Will Best Friends continue to oppose rescue rights in other states, now that they supported it in their own? We will find out soon enough.

SB 201, the Utah Animal Rescue Act, goes into effect on May 6.

In other news: Utah legislature passes Animal Rescue Act. State strengthens animal abuser database. Police go “nuts” because a local man fed hungry, homeless cats during a snowstorm. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Reducing chronic disease goes hand-in-hand with killing fewer animals. Industries that kill animals fight humane alternatives.

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

Utah legislature passes Animal Rescue Act

SB 201, a bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals that rescue groups are willing to save, has passed the Utah House and Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing animals and allow their rescue. If signed into law, it will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue.

In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year to 99,783 — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers.

​In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $4,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains. Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.

While Best Friends issued a press release applauding SB 201’s legislative passage and falsely claiming to have helped draft it, the language was taken nearly verbatim from prior No Kill Advocacy Center bills in other states that Best Friends has opposed and, in some cases, helped defeat, such as Bowie’s Law and Oreo’s Law. Best Friends helped kill these bills at the behest of its regressive partners, consigning tens of thousands of animals to certain death every year.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a similar law in their city, county, or state.

Florida strengthens animal abuser database

As reported previously,

A new Florida law took effect on January 1 that requires the state to maintain a public database of people convicted of aggravated animal cruelty charges. “Dexter’s Law” was named for a dog adopted from a shelter and killed just days later.

Unfortunately, there are no birthdays, photographs, the names of the counties where the crime occurred or where the people live, to provide more identifying information. That is about to change.

The House and Senate unanimously voted to correct the defect.

If signed by the Governor, as expected, the updated database will include, “aliases, date of birth, race, counties of conviction, charges, case numbers, dispositions, descriptions of any identifying marks and tattoos and a photograph of a person.”

By knowing the right lies to tell and which truths to omit, convicted animal abusers can potentially acquire animals from shelters, rescuers, and others who lack access to valuable information to help them make better, more informed choices. An “Animal Abuser Registry” or database modeled on laws now protecting children, strips abusers of this advantage by requiring those abusers to register with the state or be included on a public database.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a similar law in their city, county, or state.

Village criminalizes compassion

Read more

In other news: No Kill Companion (2026 Edition). Smell-induced chronic tension in shelter dogs. California to slaughter deer. Hawaii threatens to slaughter cats. Addressing trauma in hoarding rescues.

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

No Kill Companion (2026 Edition)

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

The definitive guide to animal shelter issues, The No Kill Companion is a reference manual for legislators, policymakers, shelter managers, media, advocates, rescuers, and other stakeholders.

With short encyclopedia-like entries, it covers the definition of No Kill, its history, opposition, challenges, and threats, as well as the state of the movement, costs and benefits of No Kill animal services, model legislation, shelter assessment tools, and a primer on various sheltering issues, including temperament testing, community cats, and more.

Buy

There is also a 10-pack for shelter board members, legislators, and others.

Buy 10-Pack

Please note: 10-packs will begin shipping in early April.

Smell-induced chronic tension in shelter dogs

Ozzy, our pup, treated others as they treated him. He was nice to everyone he met — people, other dogs, cats — with some small, rare exceptions. After a quick sniff of some new dogs, he would get angry and go into defensive, and sometimes offensive, mode. A little guy, he was not much of a threat and easily restrained with his harness and leash, but we could never quite figure out what he saw — and we didn’t — in the other dogs that set him off. A new study suggests it wasn’t something he saw, but rather smelled.

Read more

As a thank you for supporting my work by being a founding/patron subscriber, I would like to send you a courtesy copy of the 2026 edition of The No Kill Companion.

The definitive guide to animal shelter issues, The No Kill Companion is a reference manual for legislators, policymakers, shelter managers, media, advocates, rescuers, and other stakeholders.

…

Read more

In other news: Another week, another pet food recall. Most voters couldn’t be bothered to spare dogs who have done nothing wrong. Dog wins gold at the Winter Olympics. U.S. Air Force neglected/killed dogs. Despite criticism, congressman doubles down on dogs. Florida moves to expand animal abuser registry. Eating meat without harming animals.

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

Utah animal rescue act clears senate

A bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals who rescue groups are willing to save has passed the Utah Senate and is now before the House. The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing and allow them to rescue them. If passed and signed into law, it will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue.

In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year to 99,783 — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers.

​In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $4,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains. Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.

While Best Friends issued a press release applauding its passage in the Utah Senate, it has opposed and, in some cases, helped defeat nearly identical bills in other states, such as Bowie’s Law and Oreo’s Law, at the behest of its regressive partners, consigning tens of thousands of animals to death every year.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a similar law in their city, county, or state.

Most voters couldn’t be bothered to spare dogs who have done nothing wrong

Read more

In other news: Microchip data lost as registry company goes out of business. Communities are looking for someone to run their animal shelters. Another week, another pet food recall. “Alarming” levels of contaminants found in dog foods. New study shows breathing problems in numerous breeds. Congressman faces calls for discipline over dog tweet.

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

Microchip data lost as registry company goes out of business

Microchips registered with Save This Life, a pet microchip company, are now inaccessible because the company has gone out of business. That means pets with chips registered through that company can still be scanned, but shelters and veterinarians can no longer access owner contact information tied to those chips, rendering them ineffective for reuniting lost pets with their families.

The company did not notify people about this, and some shelters report that they have been unable to reunite animals with their families. Had they notified them, those chips could have been registered with other companies.

Do you have what it takes to save lives?

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

Read more

In other news: A cure for FIP. PETA’s mass killing continues. Dogs remain banned in communities based on their appearance. Communities are looking for someone to run their animal shelters. Ring cameras help people find lost pets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has taken a heavy toll on dogs.

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

A cure for FIP

For years, cats who developed feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) were either killed or died. The disease had a 100% fatality rate. No more. Colorado State University veterinarians tested an antiviral therapy that has proven 77% effective in treating FIP. While 12% of cats relapsed, all relapsed cats achieved remission after a second higher dose. Importantly, there were no adverse side effects. The oral treatment studied at CSU, molnupiravir (MPV), is the second therapy shown to be effective in treating FIP.

Earlier research indicates that another antiviral, GS-441524, also achieves remission in roughly four out of five cats diagnosed with FIP. In 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration took steps that allowed veterinarians to legally prescribe it in compounded form, a common practice in veterinary medicine for tailoring drugs to individual animals. MPV is also available through compounding pharmacies.

With multiple treatment options now available, FIP is a treatable disease, and shelters and veterinarians should not be killing cats and kittens who test positive.

PETA’s mass killing continues

According to records recently reported by PETA and released by the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS), PETA killed 938 cats in 2025. Another 179 were transferred, primarily to pounds that also kill animals. And despite millions of “animal-loving” supporters, a staff of hundreds, and annual revenues of over $85 million, PETA also admitted that they found homes for only 14 — an adoption rate of less than 1%.

They also killed 719 dogs, while adopting out only 21.

They killed 90% (18 out of 20) of rabbits and other small pets.

They killed roughly half of all “farmed” animals and 76% of all wild animals.

And though PETA tells the media and the public that all the dogs, cats, and other animal companions they kill are suffering when criticized, they do not report that to VDACS. Only wild animals are listed as “critically injured/dying.”

The cats are not.

The dogs are not.

The rabbits and other small animals are not.

The chickens are not.

And they are not listed as “critically injured/dying” because, if history is any guide, they weren’t.

Dogs remain banned in communities based on their appearance

Read more

PETA has been killing animals for decades. It has been reported on by newspapers such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe, television news outlets such as CNN and Fox, and magazines such as Newsweek and The Atlantic.

PETA is also required to report the number of animals it kills annually to the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS), which makes those statistics public. And PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk admits that they “do not advocate ‘right to life’ for animals,” admits they kill animals, and even admits they kill healthy and adoptable animals.

None of this is new. Still, most people are unaware of it.

So it should also surprise no one that the vast majority of PETA supporters over the years are/were likewise unaware that their donations not only paid to kill those animals, but helped pay for the roundup and killing of healthy kittens and puppies, the theft and killing of beloved dogs, efforts to kill more animals in pounds, the defense of abusive “shelter” workers, and a mobile death van.

The question, of course, is why? Why does PETA kill? And why is it so monomaniacal about it, even in the face of adoption and other non-lethal alternatives?

Why PETA kills animals

PETA officials believe that sharing one’s home with an animal subjects them to bondage and oppression:

Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles — from our firesides, from the leather nooses and metal chains by which we enslave it.

Employees also reported that they were made to watch “heart-wrenching” films about animal abuse designed to brainwash them into believing that people are incapable of caring for animals. They are then told that animals cannot survive outside a home. Thus, the animals are damned either way, and killing them is a “gift.” In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder, it is “the greatest gift of all.”

To that dystopian end, PETA’s known death toll topped 50,000 by 2024, with thousands more killed at local pounds. The number may be many times higher. According to an employee whose job it was to acquire animals to kill:

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

A second PETA field worker also admitted that PETA routinely rounded up and killed healthy animals, including lying to people to acquire their animals.

With the recent release by VDACS of 2025 animal “shelter” statistics, one thing remains clear: killing at PETA continues unabated.

Mass killing continued in 2025

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

It is not just cats who face oblivion at PETA.

They also killed 719 dogs, while adopting out only 21.

They killed 90% (18 out of 20) of rabbits and other small pets.

They killed roughly half of all “farmed” animals and 76% of all wild animals.

And though PETA tells the media and the public that all the dogs, cats, and other animal companions they kill are suffering when criticized, they do not tell VDACS that. Only wild animals are listed as “critically injured/dying.”

The cats are not.

The dogs are not.

The rabbits and other small animals are not.

The chickens are not.

And they are not listed as “critically injured/dying” because, if history is any guide, they weren’t.

Fudging the numbers

Running what appears to be the functional equivalent of a slaughterhouse has not earned PETA accolades. How could it? Who loves a political death cult outside of the people in the cult? So it is unsurprising that when reporting their 2025 statistics to VDACS, PETA opted to categorize the numbers in a new way that appears designed to deflect criticism by making their killing rate appear lower than it may actually be.

In 2025, PETA reported that despite only taking in six stray cats, 443 were “reclaimed by owner.” They likewise reported that despite taking in only four stray dogs, 303 were reclaimed. That is not just improbable, it is impossible within the accepted meaning of the reclaim category. Reclaims are for strays and, on rare occasions, owner surrenders when the person has a change of heart. PETA understands this.

Compare the 443 cat and 303 dog “reclaims” with those from past years.

In 2023, for example, PETA took in four stray cats and four stray dogs, reporting no cats and only one dog reclaimed.

In 2022, PETA took in 10 stray cats and seven stray dogs, and reported that one cat and three dogs were reclaimed.

How did the number jump by orders of magnitude to 443 cats and 303 dogs reclaimed without dramatically increasing the number of strays impounded? Is PETA reporting animals taken in for spay/neuter or similar reasons as intakes and then listing them as “reclaimed by owner” to pad their numbers?

The inflated reclaim rate coincides with PETA’s unilateral addition of a new intake category. PETA informed VDACS, which collects annual statistics, that its Community Assistance Program (CAP) took in a number of animals roughly comparable to those listed as reclaimed. CAP is the agency within PETA primarily responsible for its spay/neuter program.

When I was a criminal prosecutor, we referred to this type of misinformation as “consciousness of guilt.” We presented it to the jury as evidence of intent — that the defendant knew their conduct was wrong. But when it comes to PETA, calling their conduct “wrong” does not adequately explain how egregious it is.

Beyond sterilization, CAP has a more sinister mission. It is also responsible for the roundup and killing of animals. The two staff whistleblowers noted above, who reported lying to people to acquire and kill animals and killing animals “off the books” worked in CAP. Other whistleblowers I interviewed for Why PETA Kills, my book, also worked in CAP. As did the PETA representatives who stole Maya, a little dog, from her home, and then illegally killed her.

I considered requesting the intake and disposition records from PETA, but they have never responded to my previous record requests. And even if they did this time around, I could not ignore their history of lying — lying to people by promising to find homes only to kill animals within minutes, lying to the public by claiming all the animals they kill are suffering, and lying to a young family that they didn’t steal and destroy Maya, until confronted with surveillance video of the theft.

Enter the PETA apologists

While the thousands of animals they killed — over 52,000 — is enough to turn anyone’s stomach, it is not likely to convince people whose identity on social media is wrapped up in support of PETA to condemn them for it. In previous years, these individuals argued that criticism is unfair because PETA does “so much good.” Indeed, PETA tries to convince people of that.

At the same time they report the mass killings for the year, they add notes apropos of nothing relative to the state’s reporting form about the spay/neuter surgeries they offer and the free doghouses and straw bale bedding they give out. By this same logic, were a slaughterhouse owner to donate a percentage of his profits to a vegan advocacy organization, or a dogfighter to donate some of his winnings to a companion animal rescue group, the killing and cruelty they inflict upon animals would be rendered acceptable, with the harm canceled out by the good. This is an obvious absurdity, but time and again, self-professed animal lovers, animal rights activists, and even PETA itself postulate this exact scenario to defend the killing. People who genuinely love animals should have none of it.

Because for all we do not know about PETA, this much appears certain: PETA is letting loose upon the world individuals who not only believe that killing is a good thing and that the living want to die, but who are legally armed with lethal drugs, which they have already proven — at least 52,694 times — that they are not averse to using.

In other news: A beacon of light for animals and animal lovers; Will relying on AI cause cats to suffer more than they already do at the New York City pound? Communities are looking for someone to run their animal shelters; Best Friends is making No Kill claims contradicted by their own data; Reports of a demise in demand for plant-based foods are greatly exaggerated; Another week, another pet food recall; Vegan goldfish; Strategy to reduce stress in shelter dogs; No Kill Companion (2026 Edition).

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

Injunction sought to stop Riverside County from neglecting, abusing, and killing animals

As reported previously, a lawsuit against Riverside County alleges animal cruelty and “a shocking, callous, and ongoing failure to follow California law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the pound releases unspayed and unneutered animals, in violation of a law prohibiting it. It also asserts that taxpayer funds were wasted on the nepotistic hiring of an incompetent, unskilled pound director and on a $2.45 million contract with a consultant who has a track record of abject failure and animal harm.

In court, Riverside County officials didn’t dispute that they neglect, abuse, and kill animals. They did not dispute the release of unspayed and unneutered animals. And they didn’t dispute spending what will ultimately be millions of taxpayer dollars on the hiring of a consultant who advocates leaving animals on the street, has defended abuse and abusers, and even promoted shelters breeding dogs. Instead, they asked the Court to dismiss the case, arguing that no one should be able to hold them accountable for it. The Court rejected most of these claims (one dismissed count for waste of taxpayer funds is on appeal).

Now, the volunteers and rescuers who filed the lawsuit are seeking a preliminary injunction (an order by the Court) to compel the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) to:

• Stop killing animals who are not irremediably suffering;

• Acquire additional kennels, even temporarily, to house animals;

• Provide reasonable and necessary medical care, nutrition, and housing; and,

• Stop releasing unspayed animals.

Petitioners base their request on:

• Statistical evidence that the pound is killing, on average, 11 animals per day;

• Admissions by the current director that they are killing “for space”;

• Evidence, including photographs of sick and injured animals who are not receiving veterinary care or pain management; and,

• The killing of healthy and treatable animals, despite rescue attempts.

In addition to being inhumane, petitioners allege that the pound’s actions are illegal, citing violations of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law (Hayden Act), including its requirement of veterinary care and humane treatment, and local ordinances that mandate pre-adoption sterilization and prohibit summary destruction of an animal unless vicious or irremediably suffering. Petitioners allege that “irreparable harm” to animals will result if the injunction is denied, up to and including death of animals.

The court is scheduled to hear the motion on February 10.

A beacon of light for animals and animal lovers

In 2025, Fremont County, CO, achieved a 98% placement rate for dogs, 98% for cats, and 100% for rabbits and other animals.

The Humane Society of Fremont County, which runs the open-admission shelter, is so committed to saving every animal that Doug Rae, its director, called it a “decent year” despite challenges, including a hoarding case involving dozens of cats in very poor condition: “Terrified. Neglected. Broken. Some so sick they can barely open their eyes. Others carrying the weight of untreated infections, tumors... All of them in pain. All of them in desperate need of hope.” At HSFC, they received more than hope. They received medicine, surgery, love, and loving new homes.

So why are so many others satisfied with less?

Will relying on AI cause cats to suffer more than they already do at the New York City pound?

Read more

We live in an age of institutional rot. Its impact is broad, across numerous government agencies, regardless of the party in power. It has hit our movement particularly hard. Our animal “shelters” are little more than dog pounds. They turn away orphaned neonatal kittens. They don’t answer the telephone, rarely return calls, and will not send staff to assist rescuers and animals. They make it difficult to adopt, often requiring appointments, even though appointments markedly reduce the number of animals that find homes. They no longer publish statistics or only provide opaque “save rates” that ignore animals they turn away, remove whole categories of animals who lose their lives (like “owner requested killing” or “deaths in kennel”), and combine species to hide mass killing of cats. They are killing more animals despite taking in fewer, with even extremely well-funded cities like Los Angeles and Austin failing. Meanwhile, corrupt fundraising organizations, like Best Friends, pretend most of these facilities — neglectful, abusive, murderous — are No Kill.

Adding insult to injury, much of this was by design. During the pandemic, Ellen Jefferson and Kristen Hassen of Austin Pets Alive enlisted other organizations, like Maddie’s Fund, to dismantle the infrastructure that brought killing to all-time lows (while not turning animals away). Central to this strategy was convincing animal “shelters” to close their doors and stop rescuing lost dogs or providing refuge for stray kittens.

The policies manipulated intake and placement rates by abandoning the fundamental purpose — indeed the very definition — of a shelter: to provide a safety net of care for lost, homeless, and unwanted animals. Under a vision more suited to the 19th century than the 21st, “Intakes of healthy strays and owner surrenders doesn’t exist anymore,” and there is “No kennel space for rehoming, stray hold or intake.” And as the public began to push back, Jefferson, Hassen, and their ilk didn’t pause to reconsider. They hit the gas.

During a strategy session, Jefferson and her team admitted that “people are already starting to complain about lack of infrastructure to support lost and found and abandoned pets during COVID.” To prevent shelters from providing that infrastructure once the pandemic ended, Austin Pets Alive told partners they needed to move fast because public expectations that shelters would do the job entrusted to them would return.

It’s been five years since the rollout of the vaccines that ended the pandemic, and many of the Jefferson-Hassen policies, going by the euphemisms “community sheltering” or “Human Animal Support Services,” are still harming animals and doing so on a mass scale.

But there is hope.

Some shelters refused to betray animals to court the resources and attention of Best Friends, Maddie’s Fund, Austin Pets Alive, and others. And they continue to offer a beacon of light to those who care. One of those beacons is the shelter in Fremont County, CO.

In 2025, it achieved a 98% placement rate for dogs, 98% for cats, and 100% for rabbits and others, inclusive of all animals (“owner-requested euthanasia,” “court-ordered,” and deaths in kennel). That not only makes them the most successful shelter in Colorado, it makes them one of, if not the most successful shelter in the U.S.

The Humane Society of Fremont County, which runs the open-admission shelter, is so committed to saving every animal that Doug Rae, its director, called it a “decent year” (not their best, as they have achieved 99% placement rates and near 100% rates in some years). And the 2025 result came despite challenges, including a hoarding case involving dozens of cats in very poor condition: “Terrified. Neglected. Broken. Some so sick they can barely open their eyes. Others carrying the weight of untreated infections, tumors... All of them in pain. All of them in desperate need of hope.” At HSFC, they received more than hope. They received medicine, surgery, love, and loving new homes.

In addition to living in an age of institutional rot, we live in an age of extremes. In politics, we are offered two poor choices, with no regard for an effective, practical, and pragmatic route that improves the lives of the vast majority of people who live, work, and play by the rules. So, too, in animal sheltering. On the one hand, death cults like PETA promote quick killing in pounds. On the other hand, the money-hoarding national “humane” groups and their acolytes promote leaving animals to fend for themselves on the streets. HSFC went a different route.

Instead of listening to Jefferson, Hassen, or any of the groups that turned coat, they listened to their conscience and then went to work. Instead of leaving animals on the street, they brought them to the shelter. Instead of excuses, they embraced solutions.

So it is incumbent on legislators, rescuers, advocates, animal lovers, taxpayers, and residents in other communities not to be satisfied with less. Because more is possible and anything less is a profound failure.

Onward, onward, onward and, most importantly, upward…

In other news: A legacy of killing. The rhythm of care. Misinformation circulates about “pit bull” bite risk. State launches animal abuser registry. Do you have what it takes to save lives? Communities are looking for someone to run or help run their animal shelters. Carriage horse crashes in New York City. Advocates threaten a lawsuit to prevent deaths. Another week, another pet food recall. Dogs are learning by eavesdropping. New federal food guidelines undermine human and animal health.

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

County of Hawaii grants cats and their caretakers a reprieve

As reported last summer,

Despite opposition from 23 local animal welfare groups and receiving thousands of emails requesting a “No” vote, the Hawaii County Council voted to criminalize the feeding of community cats. According to Aloha Animal Advocates, the local organization that spearheaded opposition, the bill would have “thwart[ed] years of dedicated efforts to reduce and control the cat population” through sterilization and caretaking.

In addition to depriving cats of food and care, the bill also would have harmed the caretakers. A recent study found that approaches similar to those in the Hawaii bill lead to profound human suffering.

The law was supposed to go into effect on January 1. Thankfully, the county animal control agency has agreed to certify cat caretakers and allow them to continue sterilizing and feeding the cats.

A legacy of killing

New York State Assemblymember Donna Lupardo has announced that she is retiring and will not seek reelection to her seat. For dog and cat lovers, this is good news. Lupardo is responsible for the killing of an estimated 25,000 dogs and cats a year throughout New York State.

These are animals in “shelters” who rescue groups were ready, willing, and able to save, but who were instead put to death, and continue to be killed. As Chair of the Agriculture Committee, she would not allow the Shelter Animal Rescue Act (SARA) to come to a vote, even though it had the support to pass.

SARA would have made it illegal for New York shelters to kill animals if qualified non-profit rescue organizations were willing to save them. It was modeled on legislation passed in California and Delaware, as well as in municipalities across states, including Texas, Minnesota, and Indiana. Over 85,000 animals are saved each year in California alone because of a similar law.

Why did she block this common-sense, proven reform? Lupardo was doing the bidding of the regressive ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and the New York State Animal Protection Federation, “humane organizations” in name only. She leaves behind a legacy of mass killing.

The rhythm of care

The story of Grimm, a little cat who was abandoned on the streets of Philadelphia, found a home in California, discovered the sink, and then asked that the sink be turned on 2,361 times last year. More importantly, it is a tribute to the rescuers who open up their hearts and homes to animals in need — who get up early and go to bed late, and turn their bathrooms and spare rooms into rehab clinics because someone has to.

Misinformation circulates about “Pit Bull” bite risk

A chart has been circulating online claiming “Pit Bull Types” are over 12 times more likely to bite than other dogs in New York City. Its author is calling for all dogs who look a certain way to be killed, even though no such risk exists.

This claim has two inputs: the number of bites by breed (the numerator) and the population of that breed (the denominator). Both are systematically biased in ways that inflate the risk, including undercounting the population, visual misidentification, and aggregating dogs with a blocky head or a short coat into a single category. When you correct for the massive errors, the alleged risk simply evaporates.

Dog bites are rare events, even in a city with hundreds of thousands of dogs. In New York City, the vast majority of dogs labeled “Pit Bull Types” will never bite. Likewise, the vast majority of people will never be bitten by a dog. Only 0.039% of residents are bitten annually, and serious injuries occur at a rate of roughly 0.0035% across all breeds.

Scientific research also tells a very different story than the chart suggests. Breed is a poor predictor of individual behavior, and “agonistic threshold” (aggression) correlates nearly zero with breed. Not surprisingly, breed-specific bans kill many non-aggressive dogs but fail to reduce dog bites or improve public safety.

State launches animal abuser registry

Read more

On X, Jordan Lasker, who goes by the internet name “Cremieux,” is attacking dogs alleged to be “Pit Bulls,” even endorsing calls for all of them to be killed. Jordan’s claims are primarily based on his own analysis of bite data from New York, in which he concluded that “Pit Bull Types” in New York City are 12.59 times more likely to bite than Maltese. No such risk exists. This claim has two inputs: the number of bites by breed (the numerator) and the population of that breed (the denominator). Both are systematically biased in ways that inflate the risk, including:

• Data Discrepancy: The chart uses a “deflated denominator” because low licensing rates and housing bans discourage owners from registering “Pit Bull Types,” making their bite rate appear artificially high.

• Visual Misidentification: The chart uses an “inflated numerator,” making their bite rate even higher. Accuracy is compromised by the “wastebasket effect,” in which victims and witnesses frequently mislabel mixed-breed dogs as “Pit Bulls” based on general physical traits, such as a blocky head or a short coat.

• Aggregation vs. Fragmentation: The data unfairly groups multiple breeds into a single “Pit Bull” category while keeping other breeds separate, inflating bite counts for the former and deflating them for the latter.

When the flaws are corrected, the risk evaporates.

Scientific research also contradicts the chart’s implications, showing that breed is a poor predictor of behavior and that aggression has nearly zero correlation with a dog’s breed. Not surprisingly, breed-specific bans kill many non-aggressive dogs but fail to reduce dog bites or improve public safety. Given that dog bites across all breeds are exceedingly rare events in New York City — affecting only 0.039% of residents annually — and serious bites across all breeds requiring hospitalization even rarer — only 0.0035% — the data does not support the “mass killing” of an entire population of dogs.

Even if one were to dismiss all of this and falsely believe, despite the evidence, that “Pit Bull Types” are biting at higher rates, the conclusion they should reach is that people select them for aggression because of their muscular appearance. The solution then is to step up enforcement of dogfighting, which we should be doing anyway. If one believes, again despite the evidence, that they are genetically predisposed to violence, then, given how rare dog bites are and even rarer serious bites are, the logical conclusion is to sterilize them, which we should be doing anyway for all dogs.

The conclusion is not that we should systematically round up and kill all dogs who look a certain way, regardless of behavior or genuine, genetic heritage. In addition to the immense moral toll, the cost of such a program would not justify the killing. This is, of course, why breed-specific legislation is on the decline across the United States. It’s expensive. It does not improve public safety. It is bad policy. It’s evil. Unfortunately, it is encouraged by people like Jordan, who stoke racial tensions for internet “hot takes.”

For a one page summary of key flaws in the data and methodology, click here.

Garbage in, garbage out.

A year and a half ago, a chart circulated online purporting to show “Which Breeds Were the Most Likely to Bite in New York City,” based on data from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). Jordan Lasker, the author of the chart, claimed that “Pit Bull Types” were over 12 times more likely to bite than the Maltese. I ignored it because it constitutes statistical malfeasance, and I did not want to draw attention to it, especially given the national obsession with confirmation bias rather than truth-seeking. And it came and went without much of a ripple.

But it has reared its ugly head again, and now Jordan is amplifying other reactionary voices calling for the killing of every dog labeled “Pit Bull” in America.

In the interests of dogs, the people who love dogs, the truth, and good government policy, this is my analysis of why it is wrong.

The chart obscures the fact that the vast majority of dogs, including those alleged to be “Pit Bull Types,” will never bite.

The chart purports to rank breeds by bite risk, with “Pit Bull Types” dramatically outpacing all others. The most basic problem is a mismatch between the chart’s title — “Which Breeds Were the Most Likely to Bite” — and its metric. It does not tell the reader how often dogs bite in absolute terms, nor does it indicate the chance that an individual dog of a given breed will bite someone. Finally, it fails to indicate how likely a New Yorker is to be bitten. Without that distinction, the chart invites readers to draw conclusions the data cannot support.

Dog bites are rare events, even in a city with hundreds of thousands of dogs. In New York City, the vast majority of dogs labeled “Pit Bull Types” will never bite. Likewise, the vast majority of people will never be bitten by a dog. Indeed, only 0.039% of New Yorkers will be in any given year. A New Yorker is more likely to be injured in a car accident, be assaulted, or slip and fall, requiring medical attention, and the vast majority of New Yorkers will not experience those things.

Moreover, since the vast majority of dog bites are minor and occur within the household, a New Yorker is even less likely to be bitten by an unknown dog or suffer serious injury requiring hospitalization. As to the latter, only about 300 of these occur annually across all breeds, or roughly 0.0035% of the 8.5 million city population. It is so rare that a New Yorker is over twice as likely to be injured working in the construction trade, even though 95% of New Yorkers do not work in the construction trade. By contrast, most New Yorkers will have contact with dogs.

The chart’s visual presentation amplifies these flaws. The extreme horizontal scale and color emphasis create a strong but false emotional impression of danger, exactly as Jordan intended.

The chart excludes most “Pit Bull Types” living in New York City, inflating the bite risk by an order of magnitude.

Relative risk calculations require accurate estimates of the number of dogs of each breed in the population. In New York City, such data simply does not exist. Jordan uses licensing data on the number of dogs and tests robustness with a 5% differential. That is far too small. Estimates from the DOHMH, animal control agencies, and independent research consistently place the dog licensing compliance rate in New York City at approximately 20%. This implies that for every licensed dog in the dataset, four unlicensed dogs are living in the city. Research into pet licensing compliance reveals that it is influenced by a variety of factors, including socioeconomic status, trust in government institutions, and, crucially, the fear of breed-specific consequences, such as housing bans and insurance exclusions.

New York City presents a unique regulatory environment that specifically suppresses the licensing of “Pit Bull” dogs. For example, aside from discrimination by private landlords and property managers, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which provides housing for over 300,000 New Yorkers, explicitly bans “Pit Bull Types.” Registering a dog with the city creates a public record. For a NYCHA resident owning a dog that visually resembles a “Pit Bull,” obtaining a license is tantamount to admitting to a lease violation. Consequently, this demographic of dog owners is structurally excluded from the licensing dataset. If these dogs make up a significant portion of the unlicensed population but only a small portion of the licensed population, any rate calculated using the licensed population as the baseline will be grotesquely inflated.

Put another way, if these dogs bite, they appear in the numerator (bite reports), but they are absent from the denominator (the population of dogs). To illustrate this, let’s assume 100 of these dogs bite and 1,000 are licensed: 100 bites/1,000 licensed Pit Bulls = 10% risk a Pit Bull will bite under Jordan’s flawed model. But to get an accurate risk assessment, all dogs, not just licensed ones, must be included in the denominator. So if 100 of these dogs bite, 1,000 are licensed, but 10,000 are not licensed, the risk is less than 1%. By ignoring the unlicensed population, Jordan artificially magnifies the risk by an order of magnitude. Ignoring all other variables that would drive it down even further (as discussed below), the “12x” risk is likely a “1.2x” risk or less when adjusted for the actual population.

The chart aggregates “Pit Bull Types” by phenotype, inflating the risk.

Another reason “Pit Bull Types” appears as a dominant category in Jordan’s chart is that he aggregates multiple breeds and mixes into a single label, inflating the number of incidents attributed to it. No other category — with the exception of “Terrier,” which Jordan also claims has a high bite rate — is treated this way, creating an apples-to-oranges comparison that predictably inflates bite counts for the aggregated group. By contrast, many other breeds are treated as discrete categories, fragmenting their counts.

Bites are misattributed to “Pit Bull Types.”

Bite reports generally rely on visual identification by victims, witnesses, or responding officials. The DOHMH states explicitly that breed information in the bite data, “has not been verified by DOHMH and is listed only as reported.” The breed is whatever the person reporting the bite says it is. Jordan dismisses this, claiming “Pit Bull Types” are easy to identify. He is wrong. A peer-reviewed study tested this directly: trained animal shelter staff visually identified hundreds of dogs, then researchers validated their claims with DNA analysis. Staff identified 52% of the dogs as “Pit Bulls.” DNA showed that only 21% actually were. Professionals over-identified these dogs by a factor of 2.5. Bite victims are not trained professionals, so they are likely to be even less accurate at identification. Other studies have replicated these findings.

Dogs lacking any genetic evidence of “Pit Bull” heritage were labeled as such up to 48% of the time by some observers. Further research reinforces the finding that visual identification is little better than random guessing for mixed-breed dogs. This creates a “wastebasket” effect in the data. The “Pit Bull Types” category in the bite dataset serves as a repository for a wide range of mixed-breed dogs that share broad physical characteristics, such as a blocky head or a short coat. Meanwhile, the “Maltese” category is protected by its distinct phenotype; a dog is unlikely to be misidentified as a Maltese unless it truly resembles one.

The statistical implication is profound: The “Numerator” (bite reports) for “Pit Bull Types” is inflated by false positives (dogs that are not “Pit Bulls” are included), while the “Numerator” for other breeds is artificially deflated (as their mixes are siphoned off into the “Pit Bull” category). When Jordan calculates a risk ratio, he divides an inflated numerator (misidentified breeds) by a deflated denominator (excluding unlicensed population), thereby compounding the error.

Making matters worse, studies have shown that media reporting of dog bites suffers from a similar bias. One analysis found that when a dog alleged to be a “Pit bull” is involved in a biting incident, the breed is mentioned in the headline 68% of the time. In contrast, when the biting dog is a non-“Pit Bull” breed, the breed appears in the headline only 8% of the time. This creates a feedback loop in public perception: the public believes “Pit Bulls” bite more often because they hear more about it, which not only makes it more likely that they will report even minor bites only when they think a “Pit Bull” is involved, it leads them to identify any biting dog as a “Pit Bull,” further skewing the statistics.

The chart attempts to convince people that breed determines behavior.

The implication that breed alone drives risk is unsupported by the data and contradicted by a substantial body of scientific research: namely, that a dog’s breed tells how the dog looks, not how the dog behaves. Researchers found that “breed offers little predictive value for individuals.” While some traits showed some heritability, “agonistic threshold” (how easily a dog is provoked to aggression) showed near-zero correlation with breed. Not surprisingly, recent research also demonstrates that dogs targeted by breed-discriminatory laws are no more likely to bite, do not bite harder, and such bans do not result in fewer dog bites or bite-related hospitalization rates. Though enforcement is expensive, it has no measurable impact on public safety. This scientific consensus shatters the biological essentialism underlying Jordan’s argument. As a result, a 1259% (12.59x) difference in bite risk, false as it is, cannot be attributed to breed biology.

A scientifically bankrupt witch hunt.

Jordan’s methodology amplifies every systematic bias in the dataset, producing a sensationalist outlier. When subjected to scrutiny, the “excess risk” of alleged “Pit Bull Types” evaporates. His proposal to eliminate an entire population of dogs based on such false data is not “euthanasia,” it’s mass killing.

But I suspect the fact that it is wrong won’t matter to most people who follow Jordan, have reposted it, or want to believe it. We live in an age when people no longer just believe they are entitled to their own opinions; they now demand that those opinions be granted equal weight, regardless of the factual basis for them or their lack thereof. Heck, we live in an age when people believe they are entitled to their own facts.

Not surprisingly, the author’s X account is popular with those who subscribe to agenda-driven identitarian beliefs. As my regular readers know, I despise identity politics, regardless of whether they bend left or right. I subscribe to the horseshoe theory of politics, which suggests that the far-left and far-right, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear spectrum, curve toward each other like a horseshoe, and despite different ideologies, often share similar authoritarian tendencies and a propensity for extremist and even racist ideologies, which are fueled by misinformation and wilful blindness to facts that contradict their beliefs. Clowns to the left of me; jokers to the right.

Moreover, a brief scan of Jordan’s page shows a tendency to race-baiting, and dogs labeled “Pit Bulls” often get caught in the crosshairs. I apologize for showing his tweet, but it underscores the point:

If the comments to his posts are any indication, the author’s archetypal follower is a grievance-driven snowflake. Without a hint of irony or embarrassment, one of Jordan’s cheerleaders and a fellow proponent of the “kill them all” mentality wrote that he knows all he needs to know about a person if they “own one of these dogs” or “drive a Subaru,” dog-whistling for a black person and liberal-leaning person.

And now Jordan is amplifying other reactionary voices who are calling for the killing of every dog labeled “Pit Bull” in America, likening them to (and here’s the race-baiting again) “the cannibals from the Congo or pirates from Somalia.”

And for what? For the dopamine hit he gets from likes and retweets. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. In the end, Jordan is the bully here.

On X, Jordan Lasker, who goes by the internet name “Cremieux,” is attacking dogs alleged to be “Pit Bulls,” even endorsing calls for all of them to be killed. Jordan’s claims are primarily based on his own analysis of bite data from New York, in which he concluded that “Pit Bull Types” in New York City are 12.59 times more likely to bite than Maltese. No such risk exists. This claim has two inputs: the number of bites by breed (the numerator) and the population of that breed (the denominator). Both are systematically biased in ways that inflate the risk. When the flaws are corrected, the risk evaporates.

Data Errors

• Data Discrepancy: The chart relies on dog licensing records to estimate each breed’s total population. However, New York City has a licensing compliance rate of only about 20%. In addition to discrimination by private landlords and property managers, residents in public housing (NYCHA), where “Pit Bull Types” are banned, are structurally discouraged from licensing their pets to avoid lease violations. This results in a “deflated denominator,” making the bite rate appear much higher than it is for “Pit Bull Types.”
  

• Visual Misidentification: Bite reports rely on unverified visual identification by victims or witnesses. Studies show that even professionals over-identify dogs as “Pit Bulls” by a factor of 2.5. Bite victims are not trained professionals, so they are likely to be even less accurate at identification. This creates a “wastebasket” effect in the data. The “Pit Bull Types” category in the bite dataset serves as a repository for a vast array of mixed-breed dogs that share broad physical characteristics, such as a blocky head or a short coat. This results in an “inflated numerator,” making the bite rate appear even higher than it is for “Pit Bull Types.”
  

• Aggregation vs. Fragmentation: The “Pit Bull” category aggregates multiple breeds and mixes, while most other breeds are treated as discrete, fragmented categories. The statistical implication is profound: The “Numerator” (bite reports) for “Pit Bull Types” is inflated by false positives (dogs that are not “Pit Bulls” are included), while the “Numerator” for other breeds is artificially deflated (as their mixes are siphoned off into the “Pit Bull” category).

Scientific and Public Safety Errors

• Misunderstanding of Risk: Dog bites are rare events, even in a city with hundreds of thousands of dogs. In New York City, the vast majority of dogs labeled “Pit Bull Types” will never bite. Likewise, the vast majority of people will never be bitten by a dog. Only 0.039% of residents are bitten annually, and serious injuries requiring hospitalization occur at a rate of roughly 0.0035% across all breeds.

• Behavior vs. Breed: Scientific research indicates that breed is a poor predictor of individual behavior, and “agonistic threshold” (aggression) correlates nearly zero with breed. Not surprisingly, breed-specific bans kill many non-aggressive dogs but fail to reduce dog bites or improve public safety.

For a full analysis of Jordan’s claims and errors, click here.

I have a cat named Grimm. He was abandoned in Philadelphia by his former person, who turned him out when her landlord found out she had a cat. My daughter rescued him and brought him to us. Grimm spent the first week or so under the bed, slowly came out, and then discovered the sink. He now has one overriding goal in life: sink water.

I decided to keep a count of how much water Grimm demanded and how often I obliged. Some people keep a fitness or calorie journal. I kept a tab open on my phone for Grimm’s water requests. The result? In 2025 alone, Grimm asked for water 2,361 times. And yes — I turned on the faucet 2,361 times. (Rescuers, you need not worry. His kidneys are fine; he’s been given a clean bill of health. Grimm is merely a hydration enthusiast, the feline equivalent of a GenZer lugging around an oversized water bottle.)

Like Adam and Chubbles, his brothers, Grimm has a perfectly good water bowl. It’s pretty (gold in the winter and a blue ceramic to keep the water cool in the summer). It is washed daily. The water is always fresh. But to Grimm, this bowl is merely decorative. The only acceptable form of drinking water is running water from the sink.

Morning, noon, night: If he so much as suspects there is a drop of H₂O waiting to run, he will find you. And he will ask. And the sinks must vary. Sometimes he wants kitchen sink water. Sometimes he wants bathroom sink water. Sometimes he wants water from a different bathroom sink. 2,361 times. I am the human embodiment of a water pump.

While tracking Grimm’s faucet requests, I also kept a few other statistics, like the litter box — a duty we all know intimately in the rescue world. In 2025, I scooped the litter box 2,571 times. That’s a lot of scooping.

I realize that an article about 2,361 drinks from the sink and 2,571 scoops of a litter box is somewhat odd. But for those of us who’ve worked in shelters or do rescue, those numbers speak of care and the tiny lives entrusted to us. They tell us to wake up early, go to bed late, and do the work because someone has to. And they remind us that acquiescing to little absurdities is important because animals find comfort in routines. Besides, little things make big memories. Years from now, I might not recall a lot, but I will remember Grimm and his insatiable need to have water cascade off his face and down the drain.

To the people reading this — who spend days filling water bowls, scooping litter, cleaning runs, comforting frightened animals, walking dogs, racing to the emergency vet, advocating for a more compassionate world, and turning bathrooms and spare rooms into rehab facilities — you know the work we do is very serious. We deal with heartbreaking cruelty, neglect, and loss. Yet on any given day, we also witness profound joy: that first purr, the first time the tail comes out from under the dog and wags, the slow build-up of trust from an animal who’s finally safe and no longer ducks his head when you go to pet him, and the bittersweet relief of finding a loving home or release back to the wild. It’s important to take moments like these and let them remind us of why we do what we do.

So to all who open their hearts and homes to animals in need: Happy New Year! Here’s to another year of cleaning messes, offering sips of water, and the steady — drip, drip, drip, scoop, scoop, scoop — rhythm of care.

P.S. Keeping Grimm hydrated, the litter box clean, advocating for humane policies, and nurturing all the animals we rescued and found homes for can take its toll. In 2025, I was fueled by 1,804 shots of espresso, 218 cocktails, 747 kisses from my wife, and one championship ring in my softball league.

In the news: State bans declawing and online broker sale of commercially-bred kittens, puppies, and bunnies. No Kill Sheltering. Boiling lobsters alive to be banned. State bans Horseshoe Crab harvesting. U.S. military banned from conducting painful experiments on dogs and cats. Military also banned from shooting live animals. State bans abalone harvesting through 2036. A new year, a new opportunity to save lives.

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

State bans declawing and online broker sale of commercially-bred kittens, puppies, and bunnies

On January 1, California’s new welfare laws will take effect, most notably a ban on cat declawing and a ban on third-party pet brokers from selling, offering for sale, or making available for adoption dogs under one year of age, cats, or rabbits.

Declawing cats causes long-term harm that extends far beyond the initial surgery. Declawed cats suffer from chronic pain, impaired mobility, and permanent nerve damage. And contrary to conventional dogma, studies also show that banning the practice does not lead to cat relinquishment as “owners are able to manage normal scratching behavior and retain cats in their homes without needing to resort to onychectomy [declawing].”

Meanwhile, pet stores generally get their animals from Commercial Breeding Enterprises (CBEs), commonly known as “puppy mills.” CBEs engage in systematic neglect and abuse of animals, leaving severe emotional and physical scars on the victims. One in four former breeding dogs has significant health problems, is more likely to suffer from aggression, and is psychologically and emotionally shut down, compulsively staring at nothing.

In 2017, California became the first state in the nation to pass legislation banning the retail sale of commercially-bred dogs, cats, and rabbits in pet stores. (The law became effective on January 1, 2019.)

These laws serve three purposes:

1. Encouraging people to adopt/rescue;

2. Educating the community about dog, cat, and rabbit abuse in mills; and,

3. Stopping that abuse.

And they work. “Nebraska Department of Agriculture records show that half of the state’s commercial dog and cat breeders have left the business” because of retail pet store sales bans.

The California legislature then passed a law banning the financing of dogs and cats purchased online, aiming to reduce the number of commercially-bred puppies and kittens entering California through online sales. Now, California has taken another step to reduce the number of milled animals entering California.

As many CBEs pretend to be small hobby breeders by selling pets through online brokers, AB 519, passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, prohibits third-party pet brokers from selling cats, puppies, and rabbits bred by others for profit in California.

No Kill Sheltering

The No Kill Advocacy Center published its Winter 2025 issue of No Kill Sheltering. As a thank-you, patron-level donors of my Substack page also receive it.

The current issue covers:

• How to reform the local pound;

• Ending animal cruelty through technology;

• The last gas chamber;

• A noble legacy saves over 2,000,000 animals (you can make it more);

• A glimmer in the dark: 2025 in review.

And more.

Boiling lobsters alive to be banned

Read more

Happy holidays to you and yours, including the furry, fuzzy, feathery, and scaly ones. Together, not only will we save lives, we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and every individual life will be protected and revered. ~ Nathan