Best Friends' Latest Play in LA: Is the Cat Out of the Bag?
Is Best Friends' LA Proposal a Sincere Effort or a Strategic Ploy to Bolster Their Image?
Recent revelations suggest that the “cat may be out of the bag” regarding Best Friends Animal Society’s proposal to take a more hands-on role in Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS). Although few details have been publicly disclosed, early insights gleaned from a reliable source raise important questions about whether this proposal will truly address LAAS’s challenges or if it's yet another effort to bolster Best Friends’ public image and fundraising endeavors.
Best Friends has attempted similar strategies before, most notably in their 2011 partnership with the Northeast Valley Shelter in Los Angeles. That initiative also promised "transformative" changes but fell short due to financial constraints, costly lawsuits, and operational difficulties. This history raises legitimate concerns about whether their current proposal will follow a similar path or achieve meaningful results.
The Los Angeles Proposal
The core of the proposal reportedly involves embedding Best Friends staff within LAAS to spearhead efforts aimed at achieving a 90% save rate. This approach mirrors Best Friends' national shelter embed program, which positions their staff within shelters to drive what they call “transformative” change. Although Best Friends claims this strategy has worked in certain areas, there is evidence suggesting otherwise. The complexities of Los Angeles and the history between Best Friends and the city add layers of skepticism to the proposal's potential success.
To fully grasp the implications of this proposal, it’s critical to assess LAAS's current challenges and the complexities that come with them. LAAS has made progress in recent years, but significant challenges remain in managing stray populations, overburdened facilities, and limited funding. While a 90% save rate is an admirable goal, the question is whether Best Friends can successfully navigate these existing hurdles to deliver results that have eluded the department for years.
Concerns Over Ethical Practices in Achieving a 90% Save Rate
Lifelong animal advocate Candace Charvoz, with deep Arizona connections, has voiced significant concerns about how a 90% live release rate can be ethically achieved and sustained without substantial structural changes to the shelter system. Charvoz highlights practices such as covert disposal—the act of sending animals from "no-kill" shelters to high-kill shelters for euthanasia without public acknowledgment, effectively concealing the true fate of these animals. She also points to statistical manipulation, which involves selectively admitting only the most adoptable animals into the shelter to artificially inflate save rates, creating a misleading impression of success while neglecting the less adoptable animals in need of help.
These ethical concerns are not unfounded. I recently reported on the shelter crisis in Arizona and California, highlighting how national organizations like Best Friends and the ASPCA can inadvertently pressure shelters into desperate, ethically questionable decisions. Decisions such as the one involving the Southern Arizona and San Diego Humane Societies that resulted in over 300 adoptable animals being processed as reptile food; or the decision made by Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) and Douglas Animal Control to identify hundreds of cats and kittens as “community cats” to justify releasing them into the harsh Arizona desert with little chance of survival. This latter decision disturbingly involved an embedded Best Friends employee serving at the executive level of HSSA as the Chief Programs Officer. This highlights potential conflicts of interest, as the current executive director at HSSA is a former Best Friends Senior Director of Lifesaving Programs.
Such practices raise questions about Best Friends’ protocols, particularly given their national influence in shelter management and promotion of no-kill goals. This kind of manipulation raises serious ethical questions about Best Friends' broader impact on shelter systems. Charvoz’s point is clear: Without legislation to curb over-breeding and broad access to free spay/neuter services, any claims of “no-kill” success may obscure troubling realities. If Los Angeles adopts Best Friends' model without full transparency, the city could become victim to such unintended consequences.
Compounding Concerns
Los Angeles recently approved a questionable consulting contract with Kristen Hassen, former director of Pima County Animal Control and Austin Pets Alive. According to a private investigator, it is an “indisputable fact Kristen is part of BF.” With such close ties between Hassen and Best Friends, the risk of repeating ethically dubious practices is high. If Los Angeles fails to critically examine these connections and ensure full transparency, the city's shelter system could be left to bear the brunt of these harmful consequences. The pressing question remains: Will the city hold these organizations accountable, or will it allow a system built on manipulation to take root? (Stay tuned for more on this connection and its implications in a future article.)
Lessons from Past Efforts
Best Friends’ previous attempts to engage with LAAS provide valuable lessons. The most notable example is the Northeast Valley Shelter Agreement in 2011, which also promised “transformative” changes but eventually ended in operational challenges and withdrawal. The reasons behind this failure—ranging from financial constraints, multiple costly lawsuits, and logistical difficulties—illustrate the challenges Best Friends encounters working within a large, complex municipal system like LAAS.
Additionally, the premature declaration of Los Angeles as a "no-kill" city in 2020 by Best Friends has sparked ongoing controversy. Critics argue that this declaration was more about fundraising optics than life-saving substance, as key metrics like euthanasia rates remained unchanged in some quarters. The focus on public perception rather than tangible results has raised concerns that Best Friends excels at mobilizing support but struggles with sustainable, on-the-ground execution. To ensure accountability in their current proposal, Best Friends must not only learn from past mistakes but also commit to transparent evaluations and measurable outcomes, framing their efforts within a context of genuine reform rather than mere optics.
Is This a Marketing Ploy?
As Best Friends pursues further involvement in LAAS, some question whether this is an effort to truly address shelter challenges or simply a marketing exercise. Embedding staff into high-profile shelters like LAAS would allow them to take credit for any progress and solidify their status as leaders in the field. However, unless they can clearly demonstrate successful execution and direct measurable outcomes, this proposal may be more about boosting their brand than solving LA’s animal welfare issues.
Best Friends’ fundraising history also ties into this narrative. For instance, their campaigns often highlight high-profile “success” stories, garnering significant public and donor support. If embedding staff at LAAS leads to any perceived “successes”, it could be used as a marketing tool to amplify their narrative and attract further financial backing. Without clear, transparent results, stakeholders are right to question whether this initiative is about meaningful impact or merely a marketing strategy.
Public Safety Concerns
Moreover, concerns about Best Friends’ influence on public policy go beyond operational inefficiencies. Merritt Clifton, a news reporter, editor, and columnist with Animals 24-7, has voiced strong opposition to the organization’s history of controversial adoptions. Clifton, who was acquainted with many of Best Friends’ cofounders, shared his dismay over the organization’s 2005 campaign to promote pit bull adoptions as part of their effort to transition the U.S. to no-kill animal sheltering.
He points out that, prior to this campaign, dogs in the U.S. had killed fewer than 200 people over a 230-year span (less than one person per year), with pit bulls responsible for more than half of those deaths. Since 2005, pit bulls have killed 699 people (49.9 per year) and disfigured over 5,500 (more than 390 per year), with about 20% of the incidents involving pit bulls rehomed from shelters, often following protocols taught by Best Friends.
These statistics cast significant doubt on Best Friends’ involvement in public safety and animal control policymaking. Clifton contends that the organization's focus on promoting pit bull adoptions, despite inherent risks, should preclude it from influencing public policy, especially concerning safety. The City of Los Angeles has already experienced the repercussions of Best Friends’ questionable adoption practices during its management of the Northeast Valley Shelter from 2016 to 2019, which resulted in several costly lawsuits related to the placement of dangerous dogs.
The most notable case involved a pit bull named Bleu, adopted through Best Friends, which 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. This incident underscores the urgent need for scrutiny of Best Friends' policies and practices in the context of public safety.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Path Forward
As details of the proposal continue to emerge, it’s important to gather input from various stakeholders within the LA animal welfare community, including rescue organizations, volunteers, and city officials. Their insights into LAAS’s challenges and their experience with Best Friends’ past involvement can help determine the viability of this new initiative. Best Friends will need to demonstrate they can move beyond the optics of “transformative” change to delivering tangible, measurable improvements in LAAS's operations.
Some experts argue that the key to sustainable success will be fostering deeper collaboration between city-run services and external organizations like Best Friends, rather than a top-down, outsourced approach. LA's animal welfare system is unique, and any external proposal must account for the city's specific challenges, like diverse community needs, long-standing political obstacles, and limited financial resources.
Conclusion
As stakeholders await further details, it’s crucial to remain both hopeful and cautious. Best Friends has a track record of mobilizing resources and raising awareness, but questions about their ability to implement long-term, sustainable solutions in LA remain. If they are serious about this proposal, they will need to demonstrate transparency, execution, and measurable progress to earn the trust of the LA animal welfare community.
Call to Action
As details of Best Friends’ proposal continue to emerge, I invite shelter staff and volunteers nationwide who have experienced Best Friends' embed program firsthand to share their results. Your insights—whether positive, negative, or somewhere in between—are crucial in assessing the effectiveness of this model and its potential application in Los Angeles. To encourage honest feedback, I assure that all submissions will remain anonymous.
If you have insights to share, please email animalpolitics8@gmail.com. All perspectives are valued and will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the program's effectiveness and the potential impact on animal welfare in Los Angeles.
Additional Reading:
Best Friends Animal Society: Pressure Tactics or Lifesaving Solutions?
How Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA Fail Shelters in Crisis—and What Must Change Now
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
We have had a similar experience with Best Friends staff being embedded into our largest shelter. After all these years, common sense would dictate that if certain policies and procedures aren't working, it's time to re evaluate. After all, animal lives are at stake.
Thank you, Ed, for spotlighting my concerns, and Beth's, about the enormous wrong turn that the Best Friends Animal Society took toward pit bull advocacy, beginning in 2005, which soon hijacked and corrupted the entire "no kill" movement. In fairness, the wrong turn really began when in 1996 then-San Francisco SPCA president Richard Avanzino and his director of advocacy Nathan Winograd sought to rehome pit bulls by renaming them "St. Francis terriers." This program predictably blew up in their faces & was withdrawn within 60 days after several of the rehomed pit bulls killed cats. Avanzino went on to 15 years as founding director of the $350 million no-kill advocacy foundation Maddie's Fund; Winograd in 2007 founded the No Kill Advocacy Center. Neither specifically pushed pit bulls again, though, until Best Friends politically cleared the way for them to do so.
Meanwhile, as keynote speaker at the first No Kill Conference in 1995 in Phoenix, Arizona, at which you, Ed, introduced yourself to me, and I introduced Avanzino, who spoke for the first time at a national conference, I emphasized that authentic no-kill animal control could only be achieved under three conditions: that access to free & low-cost spay/neuter be extended to the point that there are no longer accidental & surplus births of puppies & kittens; that pit bulls, responsible for 70% plus of all fatal & disfiguring attacks on humans and 90%-plus of fatal attacks on other animals, be sterilized out of existence; and that feral cats be sterilized through neuter/return programs to the point of non-problematic invisibility.
None of these programs have been pursued. On the contrary, Best Friends and Maddie's Fund have pulled back completely from expanding access to free & low-cost spay/neuter; pit bulls have now killed 699 Americans & Canadians, up 102 from the already appalling 597 cited in your article, Ed; and the "Community Cats" program promoted by Best Friends, along with Winograd's advocacy of allowing cats to roam outdoors, "return to field" in place of sheltering cats, and the decline of low-cost & free sterilization help for neuter/return programs have combined to stall any measurable progress on behalf of cats.
Ken White, then representing the Humane Society of the U.S. as successor to longtime companion animal programs director Phyllis Wright, stood up after my 1995 No Kill Conference address & predicted that the no-kill community would never have the foresight and self-discipline to pursue my recommendations.
The ensuing 30 years have amply proved Ken was right. Led or rather misled by Best Friends et al, the humane community has tried to adopt its way out of pet overpopulation, with the net result despite the expenditure of literally billions of dollars on adoption promotion, that total shelter adoptions of dogs & cats are actually fewer now than 40 years ago, but we are still almost as far as ever from becoming an authentic no-kill nation because we have yet to focus on addressing the reasons why we need effective animal control agencies.