Awakening from a National Nightmare: Exposing Best Friends’ No-Kill Charade
How a Bombshell ‘Truth in Rescue’ Document—Distributed at BFAS’ Own Conference—Ignited an Awakening to Decades of Mismanagement, Misplaced Priorities, and Municipal Betrayal
In recent years, Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) has positioned itself as the vanguard of the no-kill movement, pledging to "Save Them All" with a well-funded campaign aimed at reshaping the landscape of animal sheltering in the United States. But as more communities experience the (unintended?) consequences of BFAS’ policies, a national reckoning appears to be underway.
This week, at the Best Friends National Conference in Palm Springs, a document titled "Truth in Rescue" circulated widely, offering a scathing critique of the organization’s methods and motives. The document was authored by a former BFAS donor, who, while choosing to remain anonymous for now, is actively exploring legal options to reclaim her contributions. The document highlights concerns that mirror criticisms raised by shelter workers, rescue groups, and concerned citizens across the country.
The Cost of No-Kill at Any Cost
BFAS’ No-Kill by 2025 initiative, at face value, appears noble. However, the effort—rooted in data-driven benchmarks rather than on-the-ground realities—has led to dire consequences for the very animals it claims to protect. Many city shelters following BFAS’ lead have adopted the Human Animal Support Services* (HAAS) model that encourages limited intake, leaving strays on the streets and shifting responsibility from shelters to overwhelmed community members. This shift has been heavily influenced by a Consortium* of influential organizations that work together to influence shelter policies, often prioritizing ideological benchmarks over practical animal welfare solutions.
The results have been grim: increasing numbers of abandoned, malnourished, and injured animals, many of whom reproduce, exacerbating the crisis. "We are starving. We are covered in fleas, ticks, and disease. We are getting hit by cars. We are being abused and left for dead," states the letter within the "Truth in Rescue" document, written from the perspective of a homeless dog. The letter encapsulates the devastating impact of BFAS and HAAS policies that have been aggressively implemented in communities across the nation.
Follow the Money
One of the most damning allegations in the document is BFAS’ financial prioritization. Despite vast financial resources, a significant portion of its budget is directed toward marketing and public relations rather than directly addressing the root causes of animal homelessness. Observers note that spending on advertising has surged in recent years, far outpacing investments in critical services like spay/neuter programs, community education, and shelter capacity.
Advocates argue that such funds could be better utilized for free or low-cost spay/neuter programs, robust community education, and increased shelter capacity—actual solutions that prevent suffering rather than masking it. Instead, BFAS has invested heavily in controlling the public narrative, using polished campaigns that often obscure the harsher realities of its policies.
Communities Pushing Back
Until recently, many shelter employees and volunteers felt silenced—bound by NDAs or fearing retaliation for speaking out against BFAS’s approach. That appears to be changing. The "Truth in Rescue" document highlights growing dissent from animal welfare professionals, journalists, and advocates, many of whom have begun to expose the long-term consequences of BFAS’ strategies.
The pushback may have begun with Paulette Dean, the executive director of the Danville Area Humane Society in Virginia. In 2021, she found herself under siege after resisting Best Friends' pressure to implement their policies, which she believed would harm both animals and the community. Despite harassment and political attacks, Dean held her ground, setting a precedent for other shelter leaders to challenge BFAS’ overreach.
Since then, resistance has spread. In Harlingen, Texas, local officials severed ties with Best Friends after disastrous outcomes left shelters overwhelmed. In Los Angeles, BFAS’ influence over sheltering policy has been widely criticized, with many pointing to worsening conditions under its guidance.
In El Paso, this strain became all too clear when public complaints of pet abandonment under Best Friends’ embed program led to the termination of their contract. The city saw a significant rise in stray animals, which caused public safety risks, health concerns, and stretched local animal services thin. As Ron Comeau, director of Lucy’s Dream Rescue, put it, “It’s going to take El Paso years to recover from Best Friends’ programs.”
Similarly, in San Antonio, Consortium consultant Outcomes Consulting's "let them roam" approach led to a federal lawsuit when three pit bulls—despite multiple public complaints—were released back to their owners and subsequently killed an elderly man. This tragic incident illustrates the dangers of prioritizing shelter depopulation over community safety, leaving local officials and communities grappling with the aftermath.
Then there is the City of Mission, TX, that recently ended it’s animal control contract with the Rio Grande Valley Humane Society “in light of alleged horrific conditions for animals at the facility.” “But the last thing that city leaders should do now is accept ‘help’ from Best Friends Animal Society, the group whose policies created this disaster in the first place,” advised PETA’s animal care and control issues manager Teresa Chagrin.
Indianapolis is another battleground. Indianapolis Animal Care Services (IACS) has struggled with overcrowding and mismanagement, exacerbated by BFAS-backed policies and embedded staff that have resulted in a backlog of unadoptable animals, a failure to enforce public safety regulations, and a culture where live release rates are prioritized over responsible sheltering.
Also, in a closely watched legal case, the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) was recently found to have violated California animal welfare laws by releasing non-feral cats brought to its shelter back into the outdoors without ensuring proper care. This ruling is a direct repudiation of BFAS’ community animal programs.
Silencing Dissent: BFAS’ Culture of Retaliation
The Truth in Rescue document amplifies these concerns, revealing a pattern of dysfunction that mirrors the struggles seen in many other cities.
The document’s author and longtime BFAS donor, met with BFAS CEO Julie Castle at the conference. During their brief meeting, she asked about BFAS’ lack of commitment to spay/neuter programs, only to be dismissed and then ignored. “She dismissed the wrong person. I'm more fired up now than I was before. That little 5 minute meeting confirmed my thoughts! Arrogance!”
When the author returned for the next session, she was summarily escorted off the premises—a move that only reinforced the concerns raised by former BFAS employees, partners, and whistleblowers who have spoken of a culture of retaliation against those who dare to question leadership.
Though her protest did not make waves in the moment, her removal sent a clear message—BFAS is not interested in dialoguing with its critics. Having traveled across the country and paying $425 to attend, she came seeking answers and accountability. Instead, she was met with silence and expulsion. While her voice may have been shut out of the conference halls, her experience is now part of a growing movement demanding transparency and real reform in animal welfare.
A Pivotal Moment for Animal Welfare
What started as isolated pushback has evolved into a national movement demanding accountability in animal welfare. The push for true accountability is gaining momentum, fueled by an increasing number of whistleblowers and former supporters dedicated to ensuring that future donor dollars serve the animals first.
As more municipalities weigh whether to hand over shelter operations to BFAS, the question remains: Will they fall for the glossy marketing, or will they demand real, measurable results? The growing revolt against BFAS suggests that for many, the answer is clear.
Stay Informed
For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
*Addendum: What is the Consortium?
The Consortium is a shorthand term that animal advocates use to identify a powerful network of influential organizations collaborating to shape the future of animal welfare. This network includes:
Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) / Shelter Pet Data Alliance (SPDA)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of 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.
Thank you for your continued reporting. While dealing with a deeply unethical situation involving Best Friends, multiple Los Angeles rescuers privately told me that Best Friends is the problem—but none would speak publicly, fearing retaliation. One rescuer even shared (yes, hearsay) that Julie Castle once said, "We haven't yet figured out how to monetize spay/neuter."
What’s clear is that they have figured out how to monetize full shelters, no-kill messaging, and displaced fire dogs. Elected officials should prohibit Best Friends from operating in certain capacities (including transporting livestock guardian breeds into urban areas), and corporate donors and celebrities should reconsider their support. Resources should go to the rescues actually doing the hard, underfunded work of helping animals—not to a marketing machine that prioritizes optics over ethics. If Best Friends was ethical -- they'd keep the marketing machine going and turn that money over to rescues who ethically help animals -- and remove their unattainable no-kill metrics (that leads to adopting out aggressive dogs in urban areas and/or reduces intake of dogs who need help...even if that means euthanasia).
Pushback from within the animal care & control community against the Best Friends Animal Society's practices & policies began long before Paulette Dean of the Danville Area Humane Society in Virginia spoke out in 2021. In this regard must be mentioned that those practices & policies mostly originated not with Best Friends, but rather with Maddie's Fund, founded in 1998 with an endowment twice the size of that of any other animal advocacy organization ever. Had it been spent to further spay/neuter of at risk animals, we could have been a "no-kill nation" many years ago; but it wasn't. Meanwhile, I pointed out both in person and in print the absurdity & impracticality of the "90% live release rate" to Maddie's Fund founding president Richard Avanzino & then-Best Friends president Michael Mountain as early as 1999. As of the adoption of the Asilomar Accords, concocted in 2004 by Avanzino & Mountain, I had been a featured speaker at 19 national humane conferences, including 10 of Best Friends' No More Homeless Pets conferences, but after I criticized the "90% live release rate" at the Best Friends' conference in April 2005, the American Humane Association conference in 2006, the Ohio Dog Wardens' Association conference later in 2006, and the Animal Care Expo in 2007, soon after the Michael Vick dogfighting bust made pit bull rescue & advocacy the focal activity of Best Friends in particular, seven years elapsed before I was asked to speak again to any U.S. animal care & control gathering. The message was clear: speak out and you will be muzzled. However, as editor of independent media, I was at liberty to speak out anyway, & have, ever more so since founding ANIMALS 24-7 with my wife Beth in 2014, herself a longtime animal care & control professional. We have also, from the beginning, often given voice to other critics of the misdirection of the no-kill movement as guest columnists. The problem has never been lack of people speaking out; the problem has been lack of people paying attention.