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.

Justice Served: Animal Shelter Director Arrested for Violating Hayden’s Law, Failing California’s Most Vulnerable Animals.

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.