Thank you so much, Carmen! I truly appreciate your kind words and support. This issue is so important for California's shelter animals, and it means a lot to know the article resonated with you. It's readers like you who help spread awareness about the challenges our shelter animals face and the need for meaningful reform. Thanks for being part of this important conversation!
Thank you so much, Annoula! I truly appreciate your kind words and support. It's not always easy shining a light on these complex dynamics in animal welfare, but transparency is essential if we're going to create lasting change. Organizations should be judged by their actions, not just their mission statements. Your encouragement means a lot as we continue pushing for the accountability and reforms our shelter animals deserve. Together, we can make a difference!
Hi again, Speaking for Spot! Great follow-up question. Yes, based on my decades in shelter leadership, I believe there are several deeper reasons for their opposition. The Consortium organizations have built extensive financial relationships with municipal shelters through grants, consulting contracts, and data partnerships. Transparency requirements, (and aggressive s/n funding) threaten these relationships.
More troublingly, there's what I call the "crisis perpetuation" incentive - these organizations raise millions by highlighting shelter overcrowding and euthanasia. If simple solutions like 72-hour notices and/or s/n funding dramatically reduced killing, it would undermine their fundraising narrative and institutional relevance.
Many also prefer shelter autonomy without external accountability, as it maintains their position as the primary "solution providers" rather than empowering grassroots rescues.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Are you seeing similar dynamics in your community?
I've really not delved into the politics of animal sheltering. I'm learning a lot from your posts. I suspect you are a thorn in the side of animal shelters! :-)
Thank you for sharing these concerns, Christine. You've highlighted some troubling questions about organizational priorities that deserve closer examination. The financial dynamics you've described certainly add another dimension to understanding why these groups might oppose simple transparency measures like Bowie's Law.
I've witnessed firsthand how resistance to accountability often masks deeper issues. When organizations spend more on advertising than direct animal care while actively lobbying against legislation that would save lives, we must question their true priorities.
Your specific points about Best Friends' operations, especially their involvement with CalAnimals to oppose animal protection bills, align with patterns I've documented. The relationship between funding, influence, and policy positions is something we need to continue exposing with facts and evidence.
Thank you for adding your voice to this important conversation. It's only through this kind of informed advocacy that we can hope to create the changes our shelter animals desperately need.
Once again Ed, you have exposed some very hard truths. I personally was very upset when I hard what happened to Bowie. I greatly appreciate all this information and although almost all of the Jason Heigl Foundation's efforts are in Southern Cal, we no longer are CA residents and can't reach out to representatives to help. Is there anything else you think that the Foundation can do to bring more awareness to this situation and get this bill passed. It's truly heartbreaking to think of these very, very well funded animal advocacy organizations prioritizing against the animals. Obviously one cannot post this whole article but I am wondering how a short, succinct paragraph may bring more awareness? Again, good job.
Thank you so much for your kind words and for your concern about this important issue. I appreciate the Jason Heigl Foundation's continued commitment to animals in Southern California.
I need to clarify something important about the current AB 1482: unlike the original Bowie's Law (AB 595), this revised version does NOT include the 72-hour notification requirement before euthanasia. Sadly, this provision was removed in order to avoid the resistance of The Consortium. The current bill focuses instead on other important reforms: expanding the definition of commercial breeders, requiring microchipping and vaccination of puppies from breeders, and commissioning a study on shelter overcrowding causes and solutions.
Even without California residency, your foundation can help by sharing accurate information about AB 1482 with your California supporters, emphasizing the importance of regulating backyard breeding and studying shelter overcrowding - two key drivers of unnecessary euthanasia. Also, you don't need to share my entire article, but you can forward the link.
Here's a concise paragraph you might share:
"California's shelter animals need your voice! AB 1482 tackles root causes of shelter overpopulation by expanding breeder regulation and studying overcrowding solutions. Despite opposition to previous transparency measures, this bill takes a different approach to address the crisis. Contact your representative at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and urge support for AB 1482 to prevent more tragedies like Bowie's needless death."
Thank you for standing with California's shelter animals. Even with these changes to the bill, your support remains incredibly valuable.
Hello Speaking for Spot! Thank you for that thoughtful question. You're right that HSUS is certainly a major player in the animal welfare landscape. In compiling the Consortium list, I focused specifically on organizations that were documented as opposing the original Bowie's Law legislation or those closely and narrowly aligned in shelter policy development and cross-promotion.
While HSUS has significant influence, and issues of their own, they haven't been as directly involved in the development of shelter policy. That said, the Consortium concept is evolving as we track these relationships, and I appreciate you highlighting this potential oversight. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think HSUS should be included.
I've always assumed they are a major player in terms of all things having to do with animal advocacy. I tremendously value their strong stance and work against puppy mills.
Virginia had similar legislation introduced which has never passed. Pit Bull "rescue" groups are the most numerous of any breed type and Pit Bulls in all their iterations and mixes are the most prevalent dog in virtually every public shelter in the United States. Pit Bull devotees are the "no kill" folks attempting to convince potential adopters that these dogs are "just like any other dog" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There was nothing in the legislation to prevent a new "rescue" from popping up every 72 hours in efforts to "save them all". Thus increasing overcrowding, dangerous dogs being transferred from one state to another, miserable animals living in cages for endless periods(see Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA-Niko). The egos and arrogance of groups such as Best Friends are in part responsible for the alarming rise in human morbidity and mortality from dog attacks as well as the deaths of countless domestic pets. Keep in mind that of the well over 800 deaths since 2005 many are children and the elderly, our most vulnerable citizens. This shelter crisis is solved only by required spay and neuter of high risk dogs by ordinance if necessary. The "right" to own any breed you want does not supersede your neighbors right to live and walk in safety in their own neighborhoods.
Whopping great article Ed.
And CALL TO ACTION. Please everybody contact lawmakers, let them know we are paying attention and expect reform.
Thank you so much, Carmen! I truly appreciate your kind words and support. This issue is so important for California's shelter animals, and it means a lot to know the article resonated with you. It's readers like you who help spread awareness about the challenges our shelter animals face and the need for meaningful reform. Thanks for being part of this important conversation!
Another excellent, eye-opening piece. Eventually, the real agendas are exposed - as in this case. Thank you, Ed.
Thank you so much, Annoula! I truly appreciate your kind words and support. It's not always easy shining a light on these complex dynamics in animal welfare, but transparency is essential if we're going to create lasting change. Organizations should be judged by their actions, not just their mission statements. Your encouragement means a lot as we continue pushing for the accountability and reforms our shelter animals deserve. Together, we can make a difference!
It feels like the Consortium members must have reasons beyond not wanting to work with rescue organizations. Do you know of any?
Hi again, Speaking for Spot! Great follow-up question. Yes, based on my decades in shelter leadership, I believe there are several deeper reasons for their opposition. The Consortium organizations have built extensive financial relationships with municipal shelters through grants, consulting contracts, and data partnerships. Transparency requirements, (and aggressive s/n funding) threaten these relationships.
More troublingly, there's what I call the "crisis perpetuation" incentive - these organizations raise millions by highlighting shelter overcrowding and euthanasia. If simple solutions like 72-hour notices and/or s/n funding dramatically reduced killing, it would undermine their fundraising narrative and institutional relevance.
Many also prefer shelter autonomy without external accountability, as it maintains their position as the primary "solution providers" rather than empowering grassroots rescues.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Are you seeing similar dynamics in your community?
I've really not delved into the politics of animal sheltering. I'm learning a lot from your posts. I suspect you are a thorn in the side of animal shelters! :-)
Thank you for sharing these concerns, Christine. You've highlighted some troubling questions about organizational priorities that deserve closer examination. The financial dynamics you've described certainly add another dimension to understanding why these groups might oppose simple transparency measures like Bowie's Law.
I've witnessed firsthand how resistance to accountability often masks deeper issues. When organizations spend more on advertising than direct animal care while actively lobbying against legislation that would save lives, we must question their true priorities.
Your specific points about Best Friends' operations, especially their involvement with CalAnimals to oppose animal protection bills, align with patterns I've documented. The relationship between funding, influence, and policy positions is something we need to continue exposing with facts and evidence.
Thank you for adding your voice to this important conversation. It's only through this kind of informed advocacy that we can hope to create the changes our shelter animals desperately need.
Once again Ed, you have exposed some very hard truths. I personally was very upset when I hard what happened to Bowie. I greatly appreciate all this information and although almost all of the Jason Heigl Foundation's efforts are in Southern Cal, we no longer are CA residents and can't reach out to representatives to help. Is there anything else you think that the Foundation can do to bring more awareness to this situation and get this bill passed. It's truly heartbreaking to think of these very, very well funded animal advocacy organizations prioritizing against the animals. Obviously one cannot post this whole article but I am wondering how a short, succinct paragraph may bring more awareness? Again, good job.
Dear Nancy,
Thank you so much for your kind words and for your concern about this important issue. I appreciate the Jason Heigl Foundation's continued commitment to animals in Southern California.
I need to clarify something important about the current AB 1482: unlike the original Bowie's Law (AB 595), this revised version does NOT include the 72-hour notification requirement before euthanasia. Sadly, this provision was removed in order to avoid the resistance of The Consortium. The current bill focuses instead on other important reforms: expanding the definition of commercial breeders, requiring microchipping and vaccination of puppies from breeders, and commissioning a study on shelter overcrowding causes and solutions.
Even without California residency, your foundation can help by sharing accurate information about AB 1482 with your California supporters, emphasizing the importance of regulating backyard breeding and studying shelter overcrowding - two key drivers of unnecessary euthanasia. Also, you don't need to share my entire article, but you can forward the link.
Here's a concise paragraph you might share:
"California's shelter animals need your voice! AB 1482 tackles root causes of shelter overpopulation by expanding breeder regulation and studying overcrowding solutions. Despite opposition to previous transparency measures, this bill takes a different approach to address the crisis. Contact your representative at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov and urge support for AB 1482 to prevent more tragedies like Bowie's needless death."
Thank you for standing with California's shelter animals. Even with these changes to the bill, your support remains incredibly valuable.
Best regards,
Ed
I'm curious why the Humane Society of the United States is not a member of the consortium.
Hello Speaking for Spot! Thank you for that thoughtful question. You're right that HSUS is certainly a major player in the animal welfare landscape. In compiling the Consortium list, I focused specifically on organizations that were documented as opposing the original Bowie's Law legislation or those closely and narrowly aligned in shelter policy development and cross-promotion.
While HSUS has significant influence, and issues of their own, they haven't been as directly involved in the development of shelter policy. That said, the Consortium concept is evolving as we track these relationships, and I appreciate you highlighting this potential oversight. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think HSUS should be included.
I've always assumed they are a major player in terms of all things having to do with animal advocacy. I tremendously value their strong stance and work against puppy mills.
Virginia had similar legislation introduced which has never passed. Pit Bull "rescue" groups are the most numerous of any breed type and Pit Bulls in all their iterations and mixes are the most prevalent dog in virtually every public shelter in the United States. Pit Bull devotees are the "no kill" folks attempting to convince potential adopters that these dogs are "just like any other dog" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There was nothing in the legislation to prevent a new "rescue" from popping up every 72 hours in efforts to "save them all". Thus increasing overcrowding, dangerous dogs being transferred from one state to another, miserable animals living in cages for endless periods(see Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA-Niko). The egos and arrogance of groups such as Best Friends are in part responsible for the alarming rise in human morbidity and mortality from dog attacks as well as the deaths of countless domestic pets. Keep in mind that of the well over 800 deaths since 2005 many are children and the elderly, our most vulnerable citizens. This shelter crisis is solved only by required spay and neuter of high risk dogs by ordinance if necessary. The "right" to own any breed you want does not supersede your neighbors right to live and walk in safety in their own neighborhoods.