Best Friends Animal Society: Pressure Tactics or Lifesaving Solutions?
A Critical Examination of Their Proposal to Los Angeles
In a recent move that has sparked controversy, Best Friends Animal Society is mobilizing its members once again to exert pressure on Los Angeles City officials to revive a vague multi-million-dollar proposal initially presented to Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) in July 2024. Lacking detailed implementation strategies, budget, and measurable outcomes, the proposal raises significant concerns about its viability and the organization's ability to deliver on its promises.
The Proposal: Promises and Pitfalls
Best Friends' proposal to LAAS was presented as a comprehensive solution to the city's shelter challenges, promising programs like community cat initiatives, foster care expansion, and adoption enhancements. However, it lacks detailed implementation strategies and measurable outcomes, raising concerns about their ability to fulfill commitments. Given these critical challenges, it's essential to consider Best Friends' historical performance in similar initiatives.
A History of Controversy and Track Record
Best Friends Animal Society has been a prominent advocate for the no-kill movement, yet their methods have faced criticism. Experts question their approach to shelter management, particularly regarding managed intake strategies and adoption procedures, which require specialized expertise. Their history includes several instances where proposed solutions did not yield expected results, leading to skepticism about their current proposal's potential effectiveness.
Critics suggest that Best Friends should focus on leveraging their fundraising capabilities to support shelters financially rather than acting as shelter management experts. These criticisms are underscored by the organization's track record:
Northeast Valley Shelter Agreement (2011) and Current Proposal
In 2011, Best Friends signed an agreement to manage the Northeast Valley Shelter in Mission Hills for $1 per year, promising transformative changes. However, operational difficulties soon emerged, culminating in the organization’s eventual withdrawal from the shelter in 2020. The challenges faced during that period mirror the current concerns regarding their ability to deliver on promises, as the new proposal similarly lacks detailed implementation strategies and measurable outcomes. Best Friends' failure to sustain its commitment to the Mission Hills shelter raises doubts about its ability to handle future projects of a similar scope.Operational and Legal Issues (2016–2019) and Adoption Enhancements
The legal issues arising from multiple lawsuits and incidents like the misguided adoption of a pit bull named Bleu underscore the importance of having robust and safe adoption protocols. The current proposal's emphasis on adoption enhancement strategies, requires careful evaluation and execution by experienced professionals to avoid repeating past mistakes. Without clear guidelines and expert oversight, the risk to public safety remains a significant concern.Premature "No-Kill" Declaration (2020) and Transparency
The premature declaration of Los Angeles as a "no-kill" city illustrates a focus on optics over substance. This parallels current concerns about transparency in Best Friends' proposal, where lack of clarity on execution plans could lead to similar discrepancies between public announcements and actual outcomes.
These events collectively paint a picture of an organization that excels in mobilizing public support and raising awareness but struggles to deliver sustainable results on the ground. The importance of transparency and accountability is increasingly evident as stakeholders seek to ensure donations genuinely benefit animals and communities. Examining Best Friends’ past efforts provides valuable insights into potential challenges they may face with this new proposal.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
Given Best Friends' history of unmet promises and operational challenges, they must prioritize transparency by providing clear implementation plans and measurable outcomes. Leveraging their fundraising strengths to financially support local shelters, rather than directly managing operations, can enhance their impact. Collaborating with experienced shelter management professionals will help avoid past pitfalls and align efforts with community needs, transforming proposals into effective solutions that advance animal welfare goals.
Financial Considerations and City Officials' Response
A significant aspect of Best Friends' operations is their reliance on funding from Los Angeles supporters. While the organization raises millions from sympathetic donors, their influence on solving systemic animal welfare issues remains unclear. For example, Best Friends' executive compensations alone total nearly $4 million. This raises troubling questions about resource allocation and whether the emphasis on executive compensation aligns with their stated mission of saving animals. Ideally, the majority of the funds raised in Los Angeles should be directed toward local shelter operations and animal care rather than overhead and salaries.
These financial considerations have undoubtedly influenced the cautious stance taken by Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles City Council regarding Best Friends' proposal. By not acquiescing to pressure without a clear understanding of the proposal's specifics and potential impact, city officials are performing due diligence over hasty decision-making. Their decision reflects a prudent approach to ensuring that any partnership with Best Friends genuinely benefits the community and aligns with fiscal responsibility.
Continued Advocacy and Community Mobilization
In response to the stalled proposal, Best Friends has intensified efforts to rally public support. Their members are being urged to lobby local government through petitions and social media campaigns, creating pressure on city officials. Additionally, the organization is offering financial incentives to smaller organizations willing to align with their initiatives, positioning themselves as a leader in the local animal welfare landscape.
However, while this advocacy generates attention, it does little to address the core concerns surrounding their proposal—namely, its lack of specificity and transparency. Without clear, actionable plans, their community mobilization efforts appear as more of a fundraising strategy than a genuine attempt to implement meaningful change. As Best Friends continues to mobilize supporters, it’s essential that these efforts be paired with a commitment to transparency and collaboration with experienced shelter professionals.
Demonstrating Trustworthiness Through Action
Despite its advocacy for animal welfare, Best Friends faces credibility issues due to a history of unmet promises and operational challenges. For Los Angeles to view them as a credible partner, Best Friends must shift its focus from promises to tangible outcomes. This involves transparency of purse and programs, and producing measurable results. By shifting their focus from making promises to delivering measurable results, Best Friends may still be able to rebuild trust and contribute meaningfully to progress in animal welfare.
Only through greater transparency and accountability can Best Friends demonstrate that their proposals are not merely well-intentioned but are also capable of producing lasting, positive change for animals and the communities they aim to serve.
Additional Reading:
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. 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
Unfortunately, if we are to review their past history, it appears there is more perception than substance. That only goes so far and does not establish credibility or provide any assurances. I've reached out to them about a Las Vegas-specific initiative and have yet to hear back from them, but they seem to remember me when they're soliciting for funds. Odd.
I think it's important to define some of these "programs" they are promoting actually violate California Animal protection laws. Food & Ag Codes regarding abandonment and Hayden Laws. This makes this entire "reduced intake protocol illegal, inhumane and cruel. Just ask the communities that have worked with these grifters promoting these failed programs. Unwanted litters, animals dying on the streets. Shelter doors closed to the community? Yet collecting millions in tax dollars.
Here in San Diego, the Humane Society, now under a HAAS program has "community cat program" (it use to be called "Out into the Wild") it's nothing more than dumping friendly, tame cats by the 1000's back on the streets with no care givers to fend for themselves. (These are not TNR feral cats). Left to be eaten by coyotes in the canyons, dodge traffic, no food, no water. If they get into trouble, people are told to find a "rescue". San Diego has all but closed their adoption center for cats.
I have in court over the last few months observing the trial, Kate Hurley who is ALL for these policies spent 2 days under cross examination, she is terribly misguided and cruel. She described how cats are brought to the shelter by good samaritans, altered, then IMMEDIATELY dumped as soon as the anesthesia wears off. No pain meds, no e-collar, no microchip, no food, no water. Just dumped back at the location the good samaritan claimed they found the cat. Oozing incisions, smelling of blood for predators. Maybe I'm alone, but I happen to feel if San Diego Humane can pay it's CEO $37,000 a month, and collect $20,000,000 in taxpayer money, they can figure out how to take care of our cats.
Kate Hurley calls herself a veterinarian. (and yes, she is... but not one who seems to care about animals). She claimed on the stand that indoor cats don't live any longer than outdoor cats, that "NO ONE WANTS TO ADOPT CATS ANY MORE". She said if a cat is found, perhaps some kids riding by on a bike could help find that cat a home. Frankly, she sounded like a lunatic about half the time.
I have the transcripts, and they are not pretty. She was constantly referring to her "studies" that she was paid millions for by Koret. With statistics like 10-50% of animals will find their way home if they are dumped. Yet she not a SINGLE cat was microchipped, so how would she know?
We are seeing corruption like never before with these big box animal organizations. Follow the money.