By Ed Boks, for Animal Politics — Editorial: Price of Telling the Truth: Journalism, Advocacy, and the Riverside Divide

Why reporting progress doesn’t mean endorsing power—and why we must hold systems accountable even when things improve.

A Backlash to Reporting, Not Advocacy

After publishing my recent article on Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS), I received a wave of critical feedback. Some readers accused me of "selling out," "undermining the movement," or even applying for a job with the County. Others questioned my integrity, suggesting that by reporting signs of progress, I had turned my back on the animals and the advocates fighting for them.

Some have even gone so far as to accuse me of parroting consortium-driven crisis narratives or aligning with these discredited organizations. That’s not only false—it’s insulting to the intelligence of readers who can distinguish between reporting a number and endorsing a strategy.

Let me be clear: I haven’t changed sides. I haven’t joined the establishment. I haven’t stopped caring about transparency, prevention, or animal welfare. I simply reported what appears to be a rare and cautious step in the right direction.

Animal Politics with Ed Boks: Revealing the Truth One Edition at a Time…

Journalism and Consulting: One Mission

Yes, I am both a journalist and a consultant. As a consultant, I make my services available to struggling shelters—and every bit of advice I’ve offered over the past three years has been pro bono. In the interest of full disclosure, I did offer to assist RCDAS, just as I have many shelters in need. But that offer was not a quid pro quo, and it had no bearing on the article I wrote.

The mission of Animal Politics is to share and discuss proven no-kill strategies for animal shelters and communities, and to explore the intersection of animals and politics, covering topics such as animal welfare legislation, advocacy, and the political landscape surrounding animal issues. My consulting work shares that same mission. My goal—always—is to help animals, especially in under-resourced, mismanaged, or overwhelmed shelter systems. That is why I write. That is why I advise. That is why I report.

Responding to a Serious Allegation

The aforementioned article was prompted by a legal letter from attorney Dan Bolton to Riverside County, alleging an “uptick in the killing of animals” and threatening legal action. Bolton sent me the letter and invited me to discuss it, which I did. During that call, I told him I would also speak with Mary Martin in order to present a fair and balanced view. He acknowledged and agreed that was fair.

Based on his allegations, I examined the data. What I found was not an increase, but a significant decline in euthanasia. That is a data point—not a verdict, not a whitewash, and certainly not a dismissal of the many ongoing problems at RCDAS. But it’s a fact that deserved to be reported—especially in light of Bolton’s recently released letter alleging the opposite.

Setting the Record Straight

During that same on-the-record phone conversation, I asked Bolton what he hoped the County would do in response to his letter. I reported on his answer, which he may have found embarrassing, and in apparent retaliation, he publicly posted a partial transcript of a private text conversation*. I did not know the earlier call was being recorded—something that, if true, would be a violation of California law. I won’t dwell on it, except to say that we all share a responsibility to uphold professional standards, especially in emotionally charged debates. Publishing private exchanges in response to fair reporting helps no one—not the animals, and not the cause.

Some readers also took issue with my inclusion of public figures like Fred Roggin and Dan Bolton, suggesting I was trying to discredit or undermine them. That was not the case. I corrected specific public inaccuracies. Roggin claimed the County set June 3 as a no-kill deadline, when in fact Supervisor Manny Perez pledged only to announce a future goal on that date. Bolton stated the County should stop intake altogether—a quote I reported in full and in context. These corrections are not personal attacks; they are part of fair and responsible journalism.*

No Praise, Just Attribution

Others criticized my mention of consultant Kristen Hassen, suggesting I was "praising" her. I wasn’t. I quoted Mary Martin, who credited Hassen for sharing useful recommendations early in her tenure. Reporting what Martin said does not mean I share her view or absolve Hassen of her deeply flawed track record elsewhere.

The Bigger Picture Still Demands Scrutiny

Many also raised a valid point: euthanasia numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. Intake, transports, turn-aways, and outcomes for animals left on the streets are critical pieces of the puzzle. I agree. That’s why future reporting will continue to investigate these issues, including where public money is going, how decisions are being made, and what outcomes those decisions are producing.

I have already submitted requests for comprehensive intake, outcome, and transport data from RCDAS. My commitment is to report these findings in detail, ensuring the community understands not just the numbers, but the practices behind them. If lower euthanasia rates are being achieved through managed intake, community release, mass transport, or other controversial strategies, those policies and their impacts will be investigated and reported with the same rigor and objectivity. The goal is to provide readers with a complete, accurate picture of how Riverside County’s animal shelter system is functioning-and who is being affected.

Movement or Echo Chamber?

What this moment reveals is a deeper tension within the animal welfare movement. There are those who believe any recognition of partial progress undermines the cause. But I believe something else: if we can’t acknowledge when things improve—even slightly—we lose credibility, and we lose the public.

This tension isn’t unique to Riverside animal advocates. In many movements, especially those grounded in moral urgency and long-standing institutional failure, even modest acknowledgments of improvement can feel like betrayal. Activists invest identity, emotion, and history into their cause. When reality complicates the story, it can feel disorienting. But if we allow fear of misinterpretation to keep us from telling the whole truth—good and bad—we risk turning advocacy into echo, and journalism into partisanship.

The Reporting Continues

This article was not a puff piece. It was a factual account of a shift in one of the country’s most troubled shelter systems. It doesn’t mean RCDAS is fixed. It means the story is evolving, and so is our responsibility to cover it fairly.

There is no movement without truth. And sometimes the truth is inconvenient, for all sides.

Stay tuned. This is an evolving story, and I intend to continue chronicling it as honestly and transparently as I am able—just as I have for nearly a year.

*EDITOR’S NOTE: The author mistakenly referred to a private phone call with Dan Bolton; the exchange was via text. Animal Politics apologizes for the error and any resulting confusion. The texts were considered private and were shared publicly without permission.

Quotes from Mr. Bolton came from an on-the-record exchange. In standard journalistic practice, unless explicitly stated otherwise, such statements are considered attributable. His remarks were included to reflect a shared recognition of the challenges facing RCDAS—insight we believe the public deserves to understand.

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.

Stay Informed

For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.