A Wake-Up Call for Shelter Directors: The Legal and Ethical Consequences of Abandoning Animals
Court Ruling Challenges Best Friends and 'No-Kill' Advocates to Reevaluate Policies That Shift Responsibility from Shelters to Communities
The recent ruling against the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) by Judge Katherine Bacal is more than a condemnation of one organization’s practices—it’s a clarion call for shelter directors nationwide to rethink their policies and responsibilities. This decision not only found SDHS in violation of California’s Penal Code §597s, which prohibits the abandonment of animals, but also highlighted the legal and ethical consequences of neglecting the welfare of animals under their care.
Additionally, Hayden's Law reinforces that shelters have a duty to take in and care for stray and abandoned animals, making it clear that turning them away or releasing them without proper oversight is not only irresponsible but illegal.
While Judge Bacal's ruling does not explicitly extend to adoptable stray dogs, the legal principles cited in the decision, particularly California Penal Code §597s and Hayden's Law, apply broadly to the abandonment and care of all animals. This ruling could set a precedent for addressing similar issues involving dogs if shelters were found to be engaging in comparable practices that violate these laws.
The Consequences of Breaking Animal Welfare Laws
Judge Bacal’s ruling makes it clear: shelters that abandon animals under the guise of community animal programs or managed intake policies are breaking the law. The law specifies that no animal should be deprived of proper food, water, or shelter—conditions that are often unmet when adoptable animals are released into unsafe environments without confirmed caretakers.
Penal Code §597s states that anyone who willfully abandons an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine per animal. This means that each instance of willfully abandoning an animal could result in a separate misdemeanor charge. For shelter directors engaging in widespread practices of abandonment, such as releasing multiple animals without proper care or oversight, the potential fines and jail time could accumulate significantly.
This ruling underscores that shelters cannot sidestep their legal obligations by reclassifying adoptable animals as “community” animals or turning away healthy strays. The consequences for failing to comply with these laws extend beyond fines and penalties; they include public scrutiny, loss of trust, and potential lawsuits from advocates and taxpayers demanding accountability.
A Warning to Shelter Directors Nationwide
For years, organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, the ASPCA, Maddie’s Fund, and consultants like Kristen Hassen, have promoted strategies such as managed intake and community animal programs as part of the “no-kill” movement. While these policies aim to reduce euthanasia rates, they often shift responsibility onto communities ill-equipped to care for abandoned animals. This ruling exposes the flaws in these approaches and serves as a warning to shelter directors who may be tempted to adopt similar practices.
Judge Bacal’s decision reinforces that shelters have a duty to provide care for all animals brought to them. Releasing friendly, adoptable animals into the community without confirmed caretakers is not only unethical but also illegal. Shelter directors must understand that prioritizing metrics like live release rates over humane treatment can lead to both legal repercussions and harm to the animals they are entrusted to protect.
Shelter directors must take this ruling as an opportunity to reassess their policies and ensure they align with both legal requirements and ethical standards. Programs like high-volume spay/neuter initiatives, robust adoption efforts, and stricter breeding regulations offer sustainable solutions to overpopulation without compromising animal welfare.
The Path Forward
This ruling is a wake-up call for shelter directors across the country: it’s time to stop shirking responsibilities under feel-good slogans like “no-kill” and start addressing the root causes of overpopulation with meaningful action.
Shelters must prioritize transparency, accountability, and humane treatment over metrics-driven policies that leave animals vulnerable.
As Judge Bacal’s decision demonstrates, the consequences of failing to do so are not just legal—they’re moral. For shelter directors who truly care about the health, safety, and welfare of animals and the communities they serve, this ruling offers a chance to lead with integrity and compassion.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Long post warning 🐾
WOW! Ed, you are probably the first person to say out loud publicly what we rescuers and advocates have been saying YEARS. Fire their asses! Punish bad shelter directors and make it so they don’t go to another shelter, creating the exact same mess- but with a pay raise. Why are these animal abusers getting away with multiple violations of the law? We animal lovers and rescue groups have had to sit by and watch these organizations with their leaders basically abuse every single animal protection law WITHOUT consequence. We founded our rescue in 2011 and have been crushed and gutted by their ILLEGAL and inhumane violations of the Hayden Animal Protection laws. My rescue sued and won a lawsuit last year against LA County and Marsha Mayeda for their years long Hayden Law violations. That didn’t change a thing over there. Twenty years at the helm- Mayeda is still there being paid $30,000 + a MONTH by CA taxpayers to basically run a slaughterhouse.
Why are these monsters in charge - getting away with such egregious behavior DAY AFTER DAY?
I know for a fact, they kill out of spite, they retaliate against volunteers and rescue groups. The shelters are filthy, the animals who need BASIC vet care (hit by a car, kennel cough) are NOT treated, but left to suffer in a filthy concrete floors, in outdoor hellholes. Shelter directors, even with the resources don’t make the necessary upgrades to shelters. Many of California’s orphaned animals are outdoors in freezing winters and in sweltering heat in the summers. Shelter directors could actually ask for more money from taxpayers, through city council/Board of Supervisors - It seems since they don’t care and plan to kill ASAP, why would they want to improve the horrific conditions? It doesn’t seem to be on their radar to care or plan ahead.
Shelter directors apathy and UTTER incompetence doesn’t just affect the animals, but extends to the entire working environment— creating a hostile work place. They pit employees against each other. Those who love animals are singled out as troublemakers.
And WORST OF ALL California shelter directors have banded together to consolidate their power through Cal Animals ( a California Shelter Director organization) to MAINTAIN complete and utter control over the entire CORRUPT system. They band together to fight legislation with OUR tax dollars that could actually be used to improve and help the crises they have created. (2 recent examples: Bowie’s Law and a shelter transparency bill AB2265, both laws killed because of Cal Animals marching orders issued to shelters directors to show up and LIE to legislators.)
You can read some of the distortions and lies on SD Humane’s website about the shelter transparency bill.
And if that weren’t bad enough. We’ve had literal sociopaths… Gina Whiteside at Apple Valley, Marsha Mayeda at LA County, Stacee Daines at LA City/Long Beach/San Jose, Erin Gettis at Riverside, and San Bernardino City has had more than 4 different sociopaths in charge - who create an UPHILL BATTLE for us to save animals even with all the legal mandates on our side!! They burden rescues with insane requirements to become a “partner” to be able to rescue animals they plan to kill. We heard LA Co is now requiring tiny rescues to purchase multi million dollar insurance policies and name THE COUNTY as the protected party in the policy.
Rescues like ours, using our own damn bake sale money are just trying to save lives face these barriers along with EVERYTHING else it takes to save an animal after they leave the shelter. It is an EPIC calling, we rescues are weary and broke.
And now we have Gary Weitzman at San Diego Humane Society — SD taxpayers are paying him over $37,000 a month as their CEO.
He happens to be a board member at Cal Animals👹. Shouldn’t he know better than to violate the law?
Weitzman and his SDHS board members decided in secret - in 2019 to CLOSE San Diego Humane Society cat adoption centers. And get this: they started throwing list, friendly cats brought to them on the streets— by the the thousands 18,000 so far.
And now he’s been caught redheaded for violating the law — and AFTER THIS RULING on Friday- he immediately tells the San Diego Union Tribune he won’t stop because it’s not a clear ruling AND his experts, his policies, his “bought and paid for” studies and his junk science are more important than the law- more important than compassion or honesty. I hope donors are listening.
I for one, would love to see him fired, and then prosecuted for all the cats who have turned up dead on our streets . It would certainly send a message to all those other shelter directors who are members of Cal Animals who are being directed to violate the law and abuse and mistreat animals- saying they guided by their “policies and experts” instead of California state animal protection laws.
Thank you for your voice, your courage and efforts to inform and educate! It is appreciated by all of us who have worked so hard to make positive changes.
You nailed it in one sentence: …”Programs like high volume spay/neuter initiatives, robust adoption efforts and stricter breeding regulations offer sustainable solutions to overpopulation without compromising animal welfare.”
These are the three main methods begged for by advocates. Koret, HASS, BF have placed no emphasis on any of them, finding them ‘not innovative enough’.
Koret in particular dangles the carrot of California grant money to direct shelters to literally violate state law. Think about that: a group of licensed California veterinarians working at Koret Shelter Medicine Dept. (a non-profit affiliated with UCD) was enabled to instruct local shelter directors to violate the most comprehensive anti-cruelty, humane treatment, animal welfare statutes )Hayden’s) in California. Turning stray unaltered animals, releasing unaltered animals, increasing our overpopulation and bad death in our streets has been nothing short of criminal. Their 503(c) status should be pulled.
Keep up these great articles with your keen insight.