California Animal Shelters: A Legal and Ethical Collision

UC Davis Koret's Shelter Policies Raise Legal, Ethical, and Public Safety Alarms

A $50 million state-funded initiative, California for All Animals, led by the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program (KSMP), has plunged California's animal shelters into a heated controversy. KSMP, established in 2001, is recognized as a pioneering shelter medicine program in the United States and has become highly influential in shaping shelter medicine as a formal discipline.

The California for All Animals initiative aims to reduce euthanasia rates by promoting innovative sheltering practices such as "reduced intake" and "community-based sheltering." These strategies encourage shelters to limit the number of animals they accept, relying on community foster care. The goal is to reduce overcrowding in shelters and empower citizens to find alternative solutions for animals, such as rehoming them privately or keeping them in their communities. While the initiative includes spay/neuter programs, it notably places greater emphasis on intake reduction strategies like "community-based sheltering" and urging citizens to explore alternatives before surrendering pets to shelters.

National Animal Welfare Foundations have shifted their funding away from spay/neuter programs, perhaps taking their cue from UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program’s emphasis on intake reduction and community-based sheltering - neglecting the obvious root cause of the problem.

Neglecting the Root Cause

Critics argue that the initiative’s emphasis on reduced intake overlooks one of the root causes of shelter overcrowding—animal overpopulation. Without sufficient investment in spay/neuter programs to prevent unwanted litters, intake reduction alone fails to address the continual influx of animals into shelters. By prioritizing community-based sheltering and intake reduction, the program risks diverting resources from spay/neuter efforts, creating only temporary relief while leaving the underlying population issue unresolved.

Although this approach seeks to reduce the number of animals entering shelters, it has sparked significant criticism for potentially violating state laws that require shelters to accept stray animals, shifting responsibility from public agencies to private citizens, and compromising animal welfare.

Funding and Influence

KSMP is primarily funded by the Koret Foundation and Maddie’s Fund. Maddie's Fund also supports specific initiatives within KSMP, such as the "Maddie’s Million Pet Challenge," which provides online learning resources for shelter medicine professionals. However, Maddie's Fund's involvement raises questions about potential conflicts of interest since it actively promotes the no-kill movement alongside organizations like Best Friends Animal Society and ASPCA—groups that could influence, as well as benefit from, KSMP's approach and policies.

Critics argue that by minimizing the focus on spay/neuter programs, these organizations may ensure a perennial overpopulation problem, which allows them to continue fundraising efforts based on the ongoing need to address shelter overcrowding. By putting spay/neuter programs—the most viable long-term solution—on the back burner, they may profit from a cycle of overpopulation that keeps the issue alive for future campaigns.

Unchecked pet overpopulation provides a steady stream of animals in need, which allows these organizations to continuously raise funds to address the ongoing crisis. This approach creates a financial incentive for these organizations to prioritize short-term solutions over addressing the root cause of shelter overcrowding.

In this prominent role, KSMP has set standards that shape policies not only across California but nationwide. Their recommendations are then amplified by influential organizations like Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA—especially in Los Angeles, where both groups wield considerable influence over animal welfare strategies and have a considerable fundraising base.

However, critics argue that these policies—particularly ‘reduced intake’ and ‘community-based sheltering’—violate California state laws, risk public safety, and compromise the ethical treatment of animals. Legal experts, public safety officials, and animal welfare advocates are questioning whether KSMP’s influential recommendations put California communities and animals in harm's way.

Legal Noncompliance: A Direct Violation of State Law

One of the strongest arguments against KSMP’s recommendations is their potential violation of California state law. The Coalition of Public and Private Animal Welfare Agencies—a group representing municipal animal control agencies and private humane societies across California—has raised serious legal concerns about the reduced intake protocols promoted by KSMP.

The Coalition was formed in response to a white paper titled Charting a Path Forward, issued by a small self-selected group called the California Shelter Policy Stakeholders Group. This small group proposed controversial changes to shelter operations that many in the broader animal welfare community believe could violate state laws and jeopardize both animal welfare and public safety.  

These recommendations—such as intake reduction, community-based sheltering, and return-to-field programs—laid the groundwork for what would later become central policies in the California for All Animals initiative. Both efforts share a common goal: reducing euthanasia rates by limiting shelter intake and encouraging community involvement in animal care.  However, critics argue that by shifting focus away from robust spay/neuter programs, these policies neglect overpopulation control—the root cause of shelter overcrowding—and shift responsibility from public shelters to private citizens, leaving vulnerable animals at risk.

The Coalition has voiced strong opposition to the California for All Animals / Stakeholders’ recommendations. While both groups aim to reduce euthanasia, the Coalition argues that KSMP-endorsed approach may not only be ineffective but also legally problematic.

Under Civil Code §1816(a) and Penal Code §597.1, public shelters are mandated to accept stray or abandoned animals brought to them by citizens. These laws are clear: shelters cannot refuse to take in animals that are found or relinquished within their jurisdiction. However, KSMP’s recommendations encourage shelters to limit intake—particularly of stray cats—through programs like “community cat” initiatives and “return to field” practices. These policies turn animals away from the shelters, which critics argue violates legal mandates.

The Coalition specifically highlights this conflict:

“The Stakeholders propose that agencies refuse to admit or seriously restrict the intake of animals, particularly cats... This is almost certainly in contravention of current law regarding lost property and could legally be construed as a taking of property without due process.”

What makes this issue even more troubling is that KSMP’s recommendations do not distinguish between feral cats—who may be suited for return to their outdoor environment after sterilization—and non-feral, adoptable cats.  Dawn D. Danielson, former Director of San Diego Animal Services and one of the signatories of the Coalition, explains that California law requires shelters to take in all stray animals brought to them, regardless of whether they are feral or adoptable. While a case could be made for returning altered feral cats to the care of a feral cat colony manager, the release of adoptable cats back into the community instead of offering them for adoption may violate both state law and ethical standards for animal care.

Public Safety Risks: Unvaccinated and Unaltered Animals on the Streets

Beyond legal conflicts, KSMP’s policies present serious public safety risks. By leaving unvaccinated and unaltered animals in communities, KSMP’s recommendations increase the likelihood of disease transmission and dangerous encounters between stray animals and people.

The Coalition warns that these policies could lead to more abandoned or neglected animals on the streets, which jeopardizes public health. Rabies outbreaks, dog bites, and other zoonotic diseases become more likely when stray animals are not properly vaccinated or neutered. In fact, recent data from the California Department of Public Health shows a troubling rise in dog bites across the state—a trend that some attribute directly to reduced shelter intake.

Julie Virga, an animal welfare advocate and president of Fix Our Shelters, who has been vocal in her opposition to these policies, echoes these concerns in her correspondence with state officials:

“California now leads the nation in emergency room visits for dog bites... When you turn away stray animals at shelter doors, you're putting both people and pets at risk.”

This public safety argument is further supported by Danielson’s analysis, which points out that allowing unvaccinated cats back into communities increases the risk of disease transmission—not just among animals but also to humans who may come into contact with them.

Ethical Concerns: Abandonment Over Euthanasia?

While reducing euthanasia is a noble goal, critics argue that KSMP’s reduced intake protocols may lead to worse outcomes for animals left on the streets.  The Coalition describes these practices as "unconscionable," arguing that they merely shift the problem from shelters to communities where vulnerable animals face neglect, starvation, disease, or worse.

Danielson’s analysis reinforces this ethical critique by stating that releasing cats without ensuring their ability to survive amounts to abandonment under Penal Code §597s:

“If we release an animal into an environment where it is likely not to have all of its basic needs met... we have failed to perform our duty of providing humane treatment—we have abandoned that animal.”

Releasing adoptable cats back into potentially dangerous environments—where they may face threats like traffic or predators—raises serious concerns about whether these practices meet basic standards of humane treatment.

This ethical dilemma pits two undesirable outcomes against each other: euthanizing healthy but homeless animals versus leaving them vulnerable on the streets. The Coalition argues that while reducing euthanasia numbers may look good on paper, it does not solve the underlying problem—it simply pushes it out into neighborhoods where residents must deal with roaming strays.

A Call for Reassessment

The combination of legal violations, public safety risks, and ethical concerns creates a compelling argument against UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program's recommendations. By promoting policies that appear to conflict with California law—specifically Civil Code §1816(a), Penal Code §597.1, and Penal Code §597s—KSMP is encouraging practices that may not only be illegal but also harmful to both animals and people.

Moreover, these policies endanger public health by allowing unvaccinated and unaltered animals to remain in communities where they can spread disease or cause harm. And ethically speaking, abandoning vulnerable animals to suffer on the streets is hardly a humane alternative to euthanasia.

As California continues down this path of shelter reform, it is clear that more oversight and accountability are needed. Virga sums up this sentiment succinctly:

“We need solutions that protect both people and pets—not policies that abandon our most vulnerable animals.”

Up until now, many communities and animal shelters have relied on KSMP for ethical guidance. However, in light of the serious concerns raised about their policies—particularly regarding legal compliance, public safety risks, and the ethical treatment of animals—it may no longer be advisable to look to KSMP as a standard-bearer for shelter practices.

If California’s shelters are to truly achieve humane outcomes for all animals while protecting public safety, policymakers must reconsider KSMP’s recommendations and ensure that shelters comply with both legal mandates and ethical standards. A new approach is necessary—one that prioritizes long-term solutions like spay/neuter programs that address the root causes of shelter overcrowding.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, 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.