Are National Animal Groups Shaping Local Animal Welfare Policies for Profit?

Behind the Push for 90% Live Releases: Unintended Consequences and the Erosion of Local Control

In the small community of Douglas, AZ, a seemingly innocuous decision to shift animal control oversight may signal a broader plan by Best Friends to reshape animal welfare nationwide. By transferring authority from City law enforcement to an embedded Best Friends employee, Douglas is aligning with the organization's ambitious goal of achieving a 90% live release rate. This shift entails the creation of an Animal Shelter Coordinator position within the Police Department, funded by a $62,000 grant from Best Friends, with a mandate to implement strategies aimed at increasing live animal releases and reducing euthanasia.

While this reorganization is intended to improve animal welfare, Douglas represents a significant departure from similar Best Friends embed initiatives in other communities. Unlike previous programs, this may be the first time a city has ceded direct authority to Best Friends, potentially revealing the organization's plan for reshaping animal control nationwide.

The consequences of embedding initiatives in other areas offer a cautionary tale. For instance, the nearby Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) aimed to boost its live release rate by transporting hundreds of adoptable cats and kittens to the Douglas shelter. To avoid euthanizing these animals, the Douglas shelter released them as “community cats” into the harsh Arizona desert allegedly under the direction of the HSSA Best Friends embedded employee. In that unforgiving environment, survival was grim. While returning feral cats to the locations where they coexisted with the environment may be defensible, releasing large numbers of adoptable cats into an unfamiliar and dangerous territory is a different matter entirely.

Given this troubling precedent, Douglas cedes authority with knowledge of such past incidents, raising concerns about whether animals could face similar outcomes under this reorganization. The troubling patterns seen in other communities suggest that Best Friends' ambitious goals may come at a greater cost than initially apparent. As we delve into the implications of the 90% live release rate, it becomes clear that achieving this benchmark poses significant challenges for many communities.

The 90% Challenge

Best Friends defines "no-kill" as saving at least 90% of the animals entering a shelter. However, achieving this benchmark poses significant challenges for many communities. As effective spay/neuter and responsible pet ownership programs successfully reduce the intake of healthy, adoptable animals, shelters face two emerging realities:

1. Intakes represent a growing number of animals with severe medical or behavioral issues, straining resources and complicating care efforts.

2. A decline in adoptable animals that increasingly hampers efforts to maintain high live release rates.

To address these realities, Best Friends, along with consultant Kristen Hassen, recommend managing a limited number of animals entering shelters while releasing unadopted “community” animals back into the environment. While these policies may temporarily help achieve a 90% live release rate, they potentially neglect animals most in need of assistance and create public safety concerns.

Adding to the complexity is Best Friends’ unexpected decision to discontinue funding for spay/neuter initiatives several years ago. This controversial move raises alarming questions about a strategic shift, seemingly designed to maintain a steady influx of homeless animals and, by extension, sustain fundraising revenue.

Compounding this issue is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)’s equally surprising recommendation in 2020 for shelters to bypass or suspend spay/neuter requirements prior to adoption. This policy could lead to an estimated half a million additional puppy and kitten litters during breeding seasons, raising serious concerns about the long-term implications for community animal welfare.

Together, these actions reflect a troubling alignment of national organizations that may be prioritizing sustainable revenue streams over sustainable solutions to the homeless animal crisis.

Tell me it ain’t so. It's only while shelters struggle that the national Fat Cats can thrive?

Exploring the Fine Line Between Coincidence and Collusion

The situation grows more intricate when examining revelations from the National Animal Control Association (NACA) meeting minutes. These documents indicate that Human Animal Support Services (HASS), led at the time by Kristen Hassen—a key player closely aligned with Best Friends—had a significant influence on NACA's pandemic guidelines. Although Hassen is no longer with HASS, she continues to collaborate with Best Friends through her consulting firm, Outcomes for Pets Consulting, LLC. This close association raises concerns about the extent of influence shared between these organizations and the potential implications for national animal welfare policy.

Hassen has been a staunch advocate for controversial limited intake and community animal policies implemented across various communities. Under her leadership, HASS encouraged NACA to adopt guidelines that prioritize live releases, even when spay/neuter services are available but not immediately accessible. This recommendation marks a troubling departure from the hard-won progress made in animal control over the years to ensure all adopted animals were spayed or neutered prior to release.

Adding to these concerns is the fact that these guidelines have yet to be officially rescinded. This allows industry consultants to continue promoting practices that jeopardize years of progress in spay/neuter initiatives. This convergence of interests raises urgent questions about whether external groups are manipulating national strategies to advance their own agendas at the expense of authentic animal welfare. Such actions further complicate the already delicate balance between improving outcomes for animals and safeguarding community interests. As these external influences grow, their implications for local governance become increasingly concerning, particularly regarding how community needs are prioritized.

Implications for Local Governance

The influence of national organizations like Best Friends, along with allies such as Kristen Hassen, raises urgent questions about local governance. Policies shaped by external agendas often prioritize the interests of these organizations over community needs. This misalignment can lead to regulations that compromise public safety while advancing the goals of the involved organizations.

In addition, the reliance on external funding for embedded positions introduces sustainability concerns once grants expire, risking the burden on local taxpayers. This financial dependency can create conflicts of interest and erode local authority, ultimately prioritizing external agendas over the well-being of the community.

Real-world examples from cities like El Paso and San Antonio illustrate how these policies can result in unintended consequences, underscoring the urgent need for a cautious approach.

Real-World Examples of Unintended Consequences

These concerns are not merely theoretical. Beyond the previously mentioned issues with HSSA in Tucson, the experiences in El Paso and San Antonio illustrate the potential risks associated with implementing Best Friends' policies. In El Paso, the embed program led to a rise in street dog and cat populations, increased pet abandonment, and a surge in citizen complaints, eventually resulting in the termination of Best Friends' contract. Local rescue director Ron Comeau remarked, "We were so close to achieving no-kill before Best Friends arrived. Now it will take years to recover from the impact of their programs."

Similarly, in San Antonio, Kristen Hassen's controversial "community animals" policy, which allowed animals to roam freely, resulted in tragedy. Despite multiple complaints about three pit bulls, the dogs were returned to their owner, only to later fatally attack an elderly man. This incident led to a federal lawsuit, highlighting the dangers of prioritizing shelter depopulation over public safety.

These cases underscore the need for a balanced approach that addresses both animal welfare and community safety, emphasizing the importance of local control and community engagement in shaping effective policies.

A Vision or a Takeover?

Best Friends' efforts to reform animal welfare may seem commendable, but the methods used warrant closer scrutiny of governance and control. As cities like Douglas, Los Angeles, and Riverside County announce new partnerships with the organization—and with Kristen Hassen—critical questions arise: Are these initiatives genuine attempts at collaboration, or are they part of a broader strategy to consolidate influence over animal control policies?

Hassen's involvement in Los Angeles and Riverside County marks the beginning of what could be a significant shift in local animal welfare strategies. Given her history of advocating for controversial policies like limited intake and the release of community animals, there is concern about how these approaches may evolve in these new settings.

The experiences in El Paso and San Antonio serve as cautionary tales; in these communities, Best Friends' initiatives led to increased stray populations and public safety incidents. While the immediate goals—such as raising live release rates and reducing euthanasia—might appear beneficial, the long-term consequences, such as heightened risks to community safety and the erosion of local authority, remain a concern.

The balance between humane care and public safety hinges on transparency and local input, especially as these new contracts unfold. Without these elements, pursuing a "90% live release" target may serve more as a metric-driven strategy for external organizations and consultants to extend their influence, rather than truly improving animal welfare. Local leaders must remain vigilant to ensure that efforts to protect animals do not erode their authority or compromise the community's best interests. Ignoring these critical dynamics could lead to a situation where the well-intentioned reforms of today pave the way for unintended consequences tomorrow.

Investigating Potential Collusion and Protecting Community Interests

The push for increased live releases and the reshaping of animal control practices by national organizations like Best Friends, the ASPCA, NACA, and HASS may be driven by well-intentioned goals. However, the convergence of interests, policy changes, and financial dependencies raises serious concerns about whether these initiatives genuinely prioritize community welfare or primarily serve the agendas of the organizations involved.

The alignment of these groups, coupled with the persistence of controversial guidelines, suggests a coordinated effort that could mislead local authorities about the real impact on animal welfare and public safety. This significant shift in animal control strategies—especially those affecting community safety and public resources—warrants thorough investigation.

Given the high stakes, an independent investigation is essential to determine whether outside entities are exerting undue influence over local policies for their own gain. By thoroughly examining relationships, financial arrangements, and policy recommendations, investigators can assess whether these practices truly support sustainable animal welfare or primarily benefit external organizations at the expense of community interests.

Local governments must stay vigilant to ensure that animal welfare reforms genuinely serve the public good rather than external agendas. Community members play a crucial role in demanding transparency and accountability to protect the integrity of local animal control policies. By actively participating in local decision-making and advocating for responsible practices, we can help shape policies that prioritize the safety and well-being of all residents, including our animals.

Disclaimer:

This series of articles is based on the author's observations and analysis of trends and policies within the animal welfare sector. It is not intended to assert any definitive proof of wrongdoing by the organizations mentioned. The intention of this piece is to encourage dialogue and critical examination of current practices in animal control and welfare. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple perspectives and seek further information on this complex issue.

Related Articles:

Behind the Contracts: The Need for Accountability and Transparency in Animal Services

Best Friends No-Kill Initiative: A Power Play with Local Consequences

LA's Dangerous Gamble: Are Homeless Animals Pawns in a Numbers Game

Best Friends Latest Play in LA: Is the Cat Out of the Bag?

Best Friends Animal Society: Pressure Tactics or Life Saving Solutions?

Animal Shelters at the Brink: Addressing the Crisis in Arizona and California

Best Friends Animal Society: Lofty Promises, Lingering Doubts in Los Angeles

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.