Best Friends Animal Society: Lofty Promises, Lingering Doubts in Los Angeles
As Best Friends calls for more support, past controversies and vague proposals raise questions about transparency and long-term impact.
A Call for Support Amid Controversy
Best Friends Animal Society, a leading animal welfare organization in the United States, has long been at the forefront of efforts to reduce the euthanasia of homeless pets. Known for their "Save Them All" campaign, Best Friends operates through partnerships with shelters and rescue groups across the country.
Recently, the organization has sparked controversy by asking its supporters to lobby the Los Angeles City Council to approve an unspecified "robust offer of support" for the city's animal services. This request, made without providing any detailed information about the proposal, has raised eyebrows. Critics argue that this vague proposal reflects a recurring pattern of lofty promises followed by incomplete follow-through, casting doubt on the organization's long-term impact and commitment to transparency.
Historical Context: Ambitious Beginnings and Legal Challenges
In 2011, Best Friends Animal Society secured a highly favorable agreement with the City of Los Angeles, taking over management of the city-owned Northeast Valley Shelter in Mission Hills. The multi-million dollar facility was leased to Best Friends for just one dollar per year—a deal that reflected the city's confidence in the organization's ability to transform the shelter into a successful pet adoption center. Best Friends promised to bring their "Save Them All" mission to life locally, aiming to reduce euthanasia and increase adoptions.
However, despite these ambitious goals, the shelter soon faced significant challenges. As operational difficulties mounted, concerns about the organization's shelter management practices began to surface. Between 2016 and 2019, multiple lawsuits were filed in connection with dog attacks, the most notable involving a pit bull named Bleu. Adopted through Best Friends, Bleu attacked a young girl, causing severe injuries that required reconstructive surgery. The ensuing lawsuit alleged that Best Friends knowingly placed a dangerous dog in a home, exposing troubling lapses in both their adoption process and professional judgment.
These legal challenges raised questions about the organization’s ability to effectively manage high-risk animals, casting a shadow over the initial optimism surrounding the Mission Hills venture.
Withdrawal and Community Impact
Despite, or perhaps because of, these challenges, Best Friends eventually withdrew from their commitment to the Mission Hills agreement, leaving lingering questions about the sustainability and impact of their involvement. The decision to abandon the Mission Hills shelter in favor of consolidating operations at their West Los Angeles location, further underscores the need for transparency in local ventures soliciting public support.
While Best Friends assures the community that animal placement opportunities will remain unchanged, many supporters view the closure of the Mission Hills shelter as a disappointing loss of a vital community center. The shelter had served not only as a place for adoptions but also as a community resource. Its role as a hub for community engagement made it an integral part of the local animal welfare landscape, and its absence will be keenly felt by those who relied on its services.
Criticism: Optics Over Action
Critics argue that Best Friends often prioritizes optics over meaningful action. Their premature declaration of Los Angeles as a "No Kill" city in 2020, followed by an embarrassing decline in the live-release rate, starkly illustrates the gap between their rhetoric and on-the-ground realities.
While Best Friends has been largely successful in promoting their "Save Them All" campaign, it demonstrates their real expertise is in marketing and fundraising rather than direct shelter management, as evidenced by their tenure at the Mission Hills shelter. The organization excels at crafting compelling narratives and engaging the public through clever marketing initiatives.
These efforts highlight their ability to rally public support under the Best Friends banner, generating crucial funds to sustain their national initiatives. However, this focus on marketing often overshadows the practical aspects of shelter management, where hands-on experience and operational expertise are vital for addressing the complex challenges of animal welfare on the ground.
Furthermore, their consistent opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws and programs has fueled skepticism about their commitment to addressing the root causes of overpopulation and achieving lasting change.
Call for Transparency and Accountability
Best Friends has historically emphasized transparency and accountability in their operations, earning recognition for their financial openness and commitment to clear communication with donors and the public. However, their recent call for supporters to lobby the City Council without sharing detailed plans has been seen by some as presumptuous, lacking the detail necessary to sustain this trust - especially in light of their track record in Los Angeles.
To truly lead in the animal welfare sector, Best Friends must align their strategic initiatives with the transparency and accountability they champion. By doing so, they will not only bolster their credibility but also ensure their efforts lead to sustainable, positive outcomes for the animals and communities they serve.
The Need for a Clear, Actionable Plan
Before Best Friends advances its latest initiative, presenting a clear, actionable plan is essential. Their ability to balance public image with tangible results will shape how they are perceived going forward. Without transparency, asking supporters to rally behind uncertain outcomes can only risk further disappointment.
Failure to present a well-defined, vetted, and realistic strategy grounded in tangible results—such as measurable improvements in adoption rates or reductions in shelter intake—could further erode trust among supporters and the broader community. In a city that thrives on innovation and accountability, Los Angeles deserves a proposal that is transparent, strategic and lasting. Anything less risks diminishing Best Friends’ standing as a leader in the animal welfare movement.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. 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. He is available for consultations at animalpolitics8@gmail.com
We recently adopted 2 dogs (one female, one male) from the Best Friends on the West Side and were surprised by a couple of things. We weren’t questioned at all about our living situation or our ability to care for these animals, something every other no kill shelter has done. The dogs had been released to Best Friends only 2 days before and they were suffering badly from fleas. They had been spayed and neutered but the incision on the male looked like it was in the beginning stage of an infection. Everyone T Best Friends was incredibly nice and the facility looked more like a day spa than an animal shelter, but we felt a bit hustled to take these animals right away. We’re glad we did because they’re really incredibly remarkable little critters, but we ended up spending quite a bit of money at the vet to deal with infections, both from fleas (the male developed spots with hair loss all over his back from the fleas) and the incision. I have to say, it was nice to visit a shelter that was so lovely but it was clear to me that the dogs should have been there long enough to know if there were any serious problems and, at least, were flea free. All that said, we are already terribly smitten with these small critters.
I’ve been a supporter of Best Friends Animal Society for over two decades—having adopted a dog from their main sanctuary in Kanab, Utah—referred many friends to them—and seen an enormous record of success over that time.
I’ve also witnessed a rapid growth phase of BF—adding partners and facilities in a dozen communities around the US.
BF took on the abused and infamous “Michael Vick” dogs and rehabbed many of them for eventual adoption.
I’m not familiar with their activities in Los Angeles—where much of their financial support and adoptions have always come from.
I appreciate you bringing this issue into the light. They’ve always been tremendous fundraisers and marketers in an admittedly difficult business of saving dogs and cats.
I fear that their rapid growth has—like many organizations whether for profit or non-profit—caused employee and management oversight issues. It is indeed difficult for fast-growing organizations to make sure they maintain values across their facilities and employees.