Easy Wins or Easy Marks? Best Friends' Controversial Shift in Markets
A Bold Strategy or a Dangerous Gamble? Does Best Friends’ New Approach Sacrifice Lives for Optics?
In a confidential Zoom meeting on August 6, 2024, Best Friends Animal Society unveiled a bold shift in its approach to achieving its ambitious "No Kill 2025" goal. The meeting, led by CEO Julie Castle and Senior Director of Lifesaving Centers Sue Cosby, was intended for an internal audience but became public after details surfaced on Reddit. The plan revealed a calculated pivot: redirecting resources away from high-intake shelters—those struggling most with euthanasia challenges—and focusing on smaller, rural shelters closer to achieving no-kill status.
Looking for "Easy Wins"
While Best Friends’ leadership characterized this shift as a pragmatic step to secure "easy wins" on the road to their ambitious deadline, critics both within and outside the organization have expressed serious concerns. To some, this move signals a further departure from the society's founding principle: saving every animal, no matter the difficulty. Others see it as emblematic of a broader trend in Best Friends' operational strategy—one that prioritizes optics and fundraising over meaningful, long-term impact.
This new direction raises unsettling questions: Is Best Friends backing away from its foundational commitment to the hardest-to-help animals in favor of statistical victories? And what are the broader implications of this strategy for the communities it now targets? Will rural communities find Best Friends’ tactics—limited-intake and community animal policies, deprioritization of spay/neuter programs, and crisis narratives—effective or exploitative?
A Pragmatic Pivot or a Strategic Retreat?
Best Friends’ decision to pivot toward smaller, rural shelters was presented as a necessary adjustment in the face of the approaching deadline. According to the leaked meeting notes, Castle and Cosby described the shift as “focusing our resources where they can do the most measurable good.” On its surface, this approach appears logical—directing resources toward shelters that are closer to achieving no-kill status could yield faster results and inspire broader systemic change.
However, critics argue that this strategy skews the definition of success by prioritizing statistical victories over addressing systemic challenges and saving lives.
“This is a betrayal of the very animals Best Friends claims to champion,” said a shelter director who requested anonymity. “Friendly, adoptable animals in high-intake shelters are being euthanized because of overcrowding, while unsocialized animals from rural shelters are prioritized to meet Best Friends’ metrics.”
The Miscalculation
According to Sue Cosby, larger shelters—often overburdened with stray, surrendered, or harder-to-adopt animals—have “not made significant progress” and will receive less support. On the surface, this might seem like a practical decision to achieve measurable results quickly.
However, critics argue that this approach betrays Best Friends’ fundamental misunderstanding of large shelter dynamics. Over the years, many large shelters have made tremendous progress in reducing shelter intake through spay/neuter programs, public education, and adoption campaigns. These achievements have saved countless lives. However, this very success has transformed these shelters into the last refuge for the most vulnerable animals—those who are sick, injured, or behaviorally challenged – or as Cosby calls them, “harder-to-adopt.” This shift highlights the complexity of progress: fewer adoptable animals entering shelters but more animals requiring extensive care and rehabilitation.
Best Friends has yet to acknowledge these dynamics, much less step up to help support the needs of the animals caught in this paradigm shift. Worse still, Best Friends refuses to meaningfully invest in preventative spay/neuter programs—the cornerstone of authentic no-kill sheltering—calling into question their commitment to sustainable solutions.
Experts point out that proven strategies like spay/neuter programs and behavioral rehabilitation could alleviate these “large shelter” challenges if adequately funded. Instead of shifting focus away from high-intake shelters, critics argue that investing in these strategies would yield more sustainable and meaningful results. Yet, strangely, spay/neuter is the one approach Best Friends seems most resistant to embracing.
The Risks for Rural Communities
Shifting focus to smaller communities brings with it unique risks. While rural shelters may appear closer to achieving no-kill status on paper, they often lack the infrastructure (low/no-cost spay/neuter programs) needed for long-term success. Critics warn that Best Friends’ strategies like managed intake and community animal policies—which push animals back onto the streets—combined with limited or no spay/neuter initiatives fail to address the root causes of pet overpopulation. These policies risk overwhelming rural shelters unprepared for the demands, and the blowback, that comes with these ill-conceived strategies.
“Best Friends is exporting a broken model,” said one advocate familiar with their operations. “Rural communities don’t have the resources to cope with inflated success metrics designed more for donor reports than real impact.”
Fundraising vs. Impact
Perhaps most contentious is Best Friends’ dependence on crisis-driven narratives to fuel its fundraising machine. While dramatic storytelling has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually, critics argue it perpetuates reactive solutions rather than addressing systemic issues.
These narratives are often accompanied by shaming campaigns targeting city officials and shelter leaders who resist Best Friends’ prescribed policies. While such tactics may compel short-term compliance in cities like Los Angeles, they risk alienating smaller communities where collaboration is critical.
Noteworthy in this transition to small, rural communities is Best Friends’ continued fixation on LAs’ massive market. Critics suggest their sustained presence in Los Angeles may be less about addressing systemic challenges and more about maintaining visibility in a lucrative fundraising market.
A Need for Accountability, Not Just Collaboration
If Best Friends intends to shift its focus to rural shelters successfully, it must move beyond coercive tactics and superficial partnerships. Critics argue that the organization has a history of "snowing" city and county officials with polished presentations and lofty promises, often without delivering tangible, measurable results. This pattern risks undermining trust in smaller, resource-strapped communities that cannot afford to gamble on unfulfilled assurances.
To truly make a difference, Best Friends must prioritize transparency and accountability alongside collaboration. Building genuine trust with local leaders requires more than rhetoric; it demands measurable investments in foundational solutions like spay/neuter programs, community education, and infrastructure improvements. Without this shift, Best Friends risks exporting a model that prioritizes optics over outcomes, leaving rural shelters overwhelmed and disillusioned.
A Turning Point for Best Friends?
As 2025 approaches, Best Friends faces a defining moment: will it rise above criticism by embracing sustainable solutions or continue chasing statistical victories at the expense of its stated mission? Animal welfare isn’t about arbitrary deadlines or flashy metrics—it’s about doing what’s right for animals and communities in ways that endure long after headlines fade.
Best Friends has an opportunity to recalibrate its approach by focusing on transparency, collaboration, and meaningful investments in systemic change. Anything less risks betraying not only its mission but also the trust of those who believed in its promise to save lives without compromise or calculation.
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.
It seems that Best Friends is willing to try ANYTHING but the very obvious solution of reducing the birthrates through spay and neuter. If affordable spaying and neutering became widely available through generous funding (which Best Friends could certainly provide) pet overpopulation would quickly begin to decline. Shelters would become less crowded, and animal control budgets could be shifted to maintaining spay and neuter programs, because the thing about spay/neuter (or other sterilization techniques, if they become available) is that they absolutely need to be ongoing. They are not high-profile extravaganzas that grab attention and bring in bucks, but they are the true no-kill solution.
“Friendly, adoptable animals in high-intake shelters are being euthanized because of overcrowding, while unsocialized animals from rural shelters are prioritized to meet Best Friends’ metrics.” I hope Los Angeles elected officials takes note and develops policies to prevent Best Friends from importing rural dogs—particularly livestock guardian breeds—into urban areas. After adopting one myself, I’ve learned how challenging these breeds can be in non-rural settings. The low euthanasia rates in rural areas often mask a harsh reality: owners frequently resort to shooting these dogs when they don’t meet expectations. Best Friends also seems to lack a commitment to proper spay/neuter education, transporting dogs from areas without such programs into Los Angeles, exacerbating local issues.