Bowie's Law: A Second Chance for California's Shelter Animals Against Powerful Opposition
How Powerful Animal Welfare Groups Fought to Kill a Lifesaving Reform—And Why They Might Do It Again
As a former General Manager of LA Animal Services and executive who has led animal welfare agencies in New York City and Maricopa County, I've spent decades fighting for shelter reform and animal protection. When Assemblymember Bill Essayli reintroduced Bowie’s Law to protect shelter animals this February, I felt both hope and profound déjà vu. This bill deserves passage, but Californians must understand why its predecessor failed despite unanimous committee support—and who orchestrated its defeat.
A Tragic Death Sparks Legislation
In 2023, a 15-week-old puppy named Bowie was euthanized at Baldwin Park Animal Center despite a rescue organization’s willingness to save him. His needless death became the catalyst for Assemblymember Bill Essayli’s AB 595, a bill designed to prevent such tragedies by requiring shelters to provide 72-hour public notice before euthanizing adoptable animals. This simple safeguard would have given rescues and adopters a final chance to intervene.
The bill sailed through the Assembly Business & Professions Committee with unanimous support. But then, a powerful coalition of national animal welfare organizations mobilized—not to champion the measure, but to ensure its defeat.
The Inexplicable Opposition
Despite its life-saving intent, the original Bowie’s Law faced fierce opposition from some of the most influential names in animal welfare, including Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA. The National Animal Control Association and the California Animal Welfare Association (CalAnimals), which represents many of the state’s shelters, also joined the resistance.
During committee testimony, a CalAnimals lobbyist argued that requiring shelters to work more proactively with rescue groups was "burdensome" and would somehow lead to more euthanasia—a claim that defies both logic and my decades of experience in shelter management. Assemblymember Essayli later remarked that "CalAnimals worked overtime to kill this bill."
This opposition coalition—what some now call The Consortium*—includes organizations that raise millions through emotional appeals about saving animals from euthanasia. Yet, behind closed doors, they lobbied against a simple 72-hour safety net that could have saved countless lives. Their representatives even made demonstrably false claims, with a CalAnimals lobbyist asserting that “all shelters already do outreach to rescues before euthanizing animals”—directly contradicted by Bowie’s case and thousands like it.
This isn’t just a policy dispute; it’s a profound betrayal of donor trust. When groups like Best Friends and the ASPCA actively fight against legislation that would help save animals, it raises a disturbing question: Do these organizations benefit from the very crisis they claim to be solving? Does a perpetual state of overcrowding and high euthanasia rates fuel their fundraising efforts and cement their influence—while a true solution could threaten their business model?
Behind Closed Doors
During my years leading animal services departments, I saw how national animal welfare organizations often prioritize their business interests over real reforms that challenge the status quo.
Bowie’s Law would have introduced true accountability, requiring shelters to notify the public 72 hours before euthanizing an animal. This transparency would have revealed whether every effort was made to save a life—or if killing remained the default solution. But transparency threatens long-standing shelter autonomy, and that’s exactly why powerful organizations fought to stop it.
The National Animal Control Association and municipal shelter leaders have long resisted external oversight, shielding their decisions from public scrutiny. Meanwhile, groups like Best Friends and the ASPCA have built financial dependencies on these same agencies—offering grants, paid consulting services, and data-sharing agreements that keep them deeply invested in maintaining the system and its crisis narrative - rather than reforming it.
These so-called watchdogs have become lapdogs, more interested in protecting their financial ties than holding shelters accountable. Their opposition to a simple rule—one that would give rescues a chance to intervene before an animal is killed—exposes their true priorities. It’s like a guard dog cozying up to a burglar—suddenly, there’s no incentive to sound the alarm.
Faced with Bowie’s Law, these nonprofits had a choice: support lifesaving transparency at the risk of upsetting their municipal partners, or protect their business relationships at the cost of countless animals. Their decision was clear. In the end, their loyalty wasn’t to the animals—it was to the system that keeps them funded and indispensable.
The Reintroduction: A More Comprehensive Approach
The newly introduced AB 1482 takes Bowie’s Law in a slightly different direction, but still aims to tackle multiple factors driving California’s pet homelessness crisis. The bill expands the definition of commercial breeders, mandates microchipping and vaccination for bred puppies, requires online posting of adoptable animals, and commissions a study on shelter overcrowding.
This broader approach is strategically smart. By addressing both prevention and transparency, Assemblymember Essayli has crafted a reform that is harder to dismantle—ensuring that no single provision can be isolated and undermined.
One of the most critical improvements is the requirement that shelters publicly post adoptable animals online. During my tenure in animal services, I saw countless animals euthanized while potential adopters remained unaware of their existence. In the digital age, there’s no justifiable reason for shelters to obscure these animals from the public.
Who Speaks for the Animals?
The original Bowie's Law died in the Appropriations Committee without even reaching the Assembly floor for a vote. In a last-ditch effort, Assemblymember Essayli attempted to introduce "Bowie’s Amendment" to an existing bill, forcing lawmakers to take a public stance. This maneuver also failed, abandoning California’s shelter animals to a system that operates without accountability.
Californians must ask: Why would organizations that raise millions to "save lives" fight against legislation designed to do exactly that? The coordinated opposition to Bowie’s Law exposes a fundamental betrayal at the heart of institutional animal welfare. When transparency threatens the status quo, even groups claiming to protect animals may prioritize protecting power and funding over the very lives they pledge to save.
A Second Chance for Reform
As the 2025 legislative session unfolds, Californians must pay attention to how AB 1482 is fought for—or against. This legislation offers practical, moderate reforms that have succeeded elsewhere, tackling shelter transparency, breeder regulation, and the need for data-driven policy.
Will The Consortium once again put institutional power over animal lives? Organizations like Best Friends, ASPCA, and Maddie's Fund should be asked—directly—whether they support or oppose AB 1482. Their response will expose where their true loyalties lie: with the animals or with their own financial interests.
For the memory of Bowie and thousands like him, California deserves a law that makes euthanasia truly a last resort. AB 1482 is our best chance to stop needless deaths. This time, Californians must demand that so-called animal protection organizations live up to their mission statements—not betray them.
Let’s not allow institutional politics to kill more animals. Bowie's Law deserves passage, no matter which powerful interests stand in its way.
Contact Your California Representatives About AB 1482
Call your representative now—demand they support AB 1482 to protect shelter animals:
Visit findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov
Bill Sponsor:
Assemblymember Bill Essayli
Phone: (916) 319-2063
What to Say:
"I'm a constituent urging support for AB 1482 (Bowie's Law) to protect shelter animals and increase transparency."
Acknowledgment: A special thanks to Judy Mancuso and the team at Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL) for their relentless advocacy in getting this bill reintroduced. Their dedication to protecting shelter animals has, and continues to make, a real difference.
Consider supporting SCIL in their ongoing fight for stronger animal welfare legislation. Your donation helps drive meaningful reforms that save lives.
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 refers to a powerful network of influential organizations that collaborate—without independent oversight—to shape the future of animal welfare, often prioritizing their own agendas over transparency and accountability. This network includes:
Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) / Shelter Pet Data Alliance (SPDA)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
These organizations often drive shelter policy, animal welfare initiatives, and fundraising strategies nationwide. An independent watchdog would help ensure their efforts are evidence-based, financially transparent, and truly benefit animals.
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.
Whopping great article Ed.
And CALL TO ACTION. Please everybody contact lawmakers, let them know we are paying attention and expect reform.
Another excellent, eye-opening piece. Eventually, the real agendas are exposed - as in this case. Thank you, Ed.