We have a huge issue in the high desert (Victor Valley) with no current TNR programs, a shortage of Vets and if you do find a vet for spay or neuter they are unaffordable for most. I would like to connect with you regarding our urgent and serious situation of our Animal Shelter here in Hesperia, CA Animals are being euthanized at an alarming rate.
Finally! A win for the cats! I attended several of the hearings over the summer and was glad that I was able to attend today's judicial decision. Previously, Judge Bacal stated that her job was not to decide policy but it was her responsibility to make a decision based upon the law. SDHS's abandonment of an estimated 18,000 social, friendly cats over the last 4+ years is clearly in violation of 597s and Judge Bacal so ruled. 597s states that anyone who willfully abandons an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by $1000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. The law further provides that no animal should be deprived of proper food, water or shelter which is exactly what the euphemistically entitled "Community Cat" program does by dumping cats back into the neighborhoods without any support or oversight. Violations of this section of the statute can result in criminal charges up to and including felony charges. We have no idea how SDHS will respond to this very large chastisement but the judge's ruling certainly does support the claims and concerns of San Diego's animal advocates and taxpayers. And, hopefully, it provides a foundation for other communities to follow suit. Hooray to Pet Assistance for leading the charge!
I urge everyone to keep an eye out for sneaky proposals tagged onto purported humane legislation from lobbyists and so called experts. They have tried to legislate an exemption from 597s in the past and will likely try again. On a local level, I urge concerned animal advocates to join the effort to protect San Diego's companion animals.
Not incidentally, I stopped by the Gaines St. SDHS shelter on my way home from the hearing to take a self guided tour. I spent 20+ years as a volunteer at the County Animal Control shelter that is now being used by SDHS via their contract with the city. However, I rarely entered the SDHS shelter and have not been inside for 10+ years. After their major and expensive remodeling, the cat designated area now consists of 75-100 small, vet-type kennels, around 10 large modules that can easily house 3 to 5 cats plus a very large "showcase" in the lobby that could easily accommodate 10-15 felines. Almost all were empty. When asked how many cats were in adoption, a staff person replied "about 20". I asked her why SDHS was abandoning cats back into the neighborhoods via their "community cat" program when there was so much empty space. She said she didn't know anything about that. 18,000 cats! However, I was assured that they would have more cats after March when kitten season hit again. Right - why provide free and truly low-cost public spay/neuter when your fundraising depends on an overflow supply of homeless animals and all the sad stories that can be gleaned.
Thank you, Ed, for all of the articles that you have written in December. A number of us have become aware that something stinks and have been putting together pieces of the puzzle but, thanks to you, the players and their narrative are coming into focus so that those who truly have the best interests of the animals and our community at heart have a means to educate others about what is wrong and why metrics have taken priority over solutions. It's certainly not a good look.
Thank you, Candy, for your thoughtful and detailed comment! It’s heartening to see your dedication to this issue and your commitment to advocating for San Diego’s animals. Judge Bacal’s ruling is indeed a significant victory, and your firsthand account of attending hearings and visiting the shelter adds a powerful perspective to the conversation.
You’re are correct—this decision not only validates the concerns of animal advocates but also shines a light on the troubling practices that have allowed thousands of friendly, adoptable cats to be abandoned under the guise of “community cats.” The judge’s acknowledgment of Penal Code 597s sends a strong message that shelters must prioritize care and accountability over convenience.
Your observations about the empty spaces in SDHS’s cat adoption areas are particularly striking. It raises important questions about why these resources aren’t being fully utilized to house and care for vulnerable animals. As you pointed out, proactive solutions like spay/neuter programs could go a long way in addressing overpopulation without resorting to harmful practices.
Thank you for your kind words about my articles—I’m glad they’ve helped bring clarity to these issues. Together, we can continue to educate others and advocate for policies that truly serve the best interests of animals and our community. Let’s keep the momentum going!
I have strong feelings about cat overpopulation, and I’ve rewritten this comment several times to capture my thoughts clearly.
I’m curious about the involvement of Best Friends Animal Society in this court case. They were instrumental in promoting Return-to-Field (RTF) and Return-to-Home (RTH) programs as a way to reduce shelter euthanasia rates, which aligned with their "Save Them All" mission. Their national advocacy deserves credit for bringing attention to the issue and saving many lives.
That said, I’ve always seen RTF/RTH as a pendulum swing—an important step to address immediate crises but not a long-term, comprehensive solution. As the pendulum begins to swing back toward center, we need broader, more balanced strategies that prioritize both the welfare of individual cats and the communities they live in.
This is just affecting California. Chicago animal control funded by taxpayers has chosen not to intake any cats. They are telling people to put cats back where they found them and to not bring them to the shelter. We have harsh winters, high crime and high traffic. In a 10 month period, there were over 3000 deceased cat pick up requests. Tell me how that's Humane Kerryann.
The growing trend of reduced (or managed) shelter intake must be reversed. Shelters exist to serve as safe havens for animals in need. Policies that close doors to these animals fail the public and violate the spirit of the Law.
Okay, San Diego -- harsh conditions? It's a dream for weather. What are these harsh conditions they are referring to?
And the plaintiff would rather the cats be killed at the shelter (or other cats killed due to lack of space, disease, etc.) than live a life outside? How very PETA of them. And realisticially, no shelter is following up with the cats adopted from them either, long term. I mean, we send emails after adoption, we hear from some adopters for a few months or whatever, but after that, who knows??
Thank you, Kerryann, for sharing your thoughts! You’re right that San Diego’s weather is ideal compared to many other places, but the “harsh conditions” referred to in this case go beyond climate. Outdoor cats in San Diego face significant dangers, including predators like coyotes, traffic hazards, and even cruelty from people. These risks are compounded for friendly, adoptable cats who may lack the survival instincts of feral cats.
As for the broader implications of this case, it’s not just about San Diego—it could set a precedent for how shelters across the country handle free-roaming cats. A ruling in favor of the defense might reinforce the use of programs like SDHS’s Community Cat Program nationwide.
You also raise a great point about follow-up care. While it’s true that long-term monitoring isn’t always feasible for adopted pets, releasing cats outdoors without confirmed caretakers or follow-up creates a unique set of risks. This case highlights the need for transparency and accountability in shelter practices to ensure all animals are treated humanely.
Thanks again for contributing to this important discussion!
Thank you, Christine, for your thoughtful and passionate response! You’ve highlighted some critical points that deserve attention. While San Diego’s weather may be mild, the dangers faced by outdoor cats in the region are anything but. Predators, traffic accidents, dehydration during hot summers, and even cruel acts by humans. These risks are especially concerning for friendly, adoptable cats who are often unprepared for life on the streets.
Your observation about SDHS’s funding and internal decisions adds another layer to this discussion. As SDHS is receiving millions in taxpayer dollars and donations to care for homeless animals, it raises serious questions about their responsibility to provide safe outcomes for all cats. The allegations of secrecy and the lack of follow-up or accountability for released cats are deeply troubling, especially when paired with reports of dead or injured cats turning up in neighborhoods.
Beyond San Diego, this case has national implications. A ruling in favor of SDHS could set a precedent for shelters across the country to adopt similar practices, potentially leaving countless adoptable cats at risk.
Thank you again for sharing your insights and for being such a strong advocate for animal welfare. This is a critical issue that deserves continued attention!
So true! At the 2024 Fur Ball, donors yelled at protesters, "Liars!" We were protesting the Community Cat dumping program and driving 318 small animals for a snake breeder in Arizona to feed to his reptiles. The TV news showed the people eating and drinking at the Fur Ball in their evening wear. There was a shot of the protesters. Then a spokeswoman for the Humane Society gave a long sob story about how sad the SDHS was about the rabbits and guinea pigs that were fed to snakes. They were duped! They had no idea! They were cleared of wrong doing by their own investigators! Not a very balanced piece. And there was nothing in the San Diego Union Tribune about the protest. They publish puff pieces about the SDHS. Ugh.
I am struck by CA's Fourth Estate's consistent unwillingness to report accurately on these issues. They lazily rely on the pablum dished out by the spokesperson of any wealthy foundation rather than asking an on-the-ground, in-the-trenches volunteer about what they know and see every day. That, I hope, is the gap Animal Politics can help fill.
Hi Christine, the issues you’ve highlighted with SD Humane’s lack of transparency and questionable practices are deeply concerning. It’s was shocking to hear about the transport of small animals to Arizona and the lobbying against the shelter transparency bill—actions that seem to contradict their mission of animal welfare.
The points you raised about their CEO’s salary, refusal to provide records, and the closure of the cat adoption center underscore the need for greater accountability and transparency in nonprofit organizations, especially those receiving taxpayer dollars. These are critical issues that deserve more attention, and platforms like "Justice for 318" are invaluable in exposing these practices and advocating for change.
It’s heartening to connect with people like you who are speaking out and holding organizations accountable. Thank you for being a voice for the animals who cannot speak for themselves. I hope this recent court ruling serves as a step toward shedding light on these injustices and ensuring that shelters prioritize the well-being of the animals they are entrusted to care for.
We have a huge issue in the high desert (Victor Valley) with no current TNR programs, a shortage of Vets and if you do find a vet for spay or neuter they are unaffordable for most. I would like to connect with you regarding our urgent and serious situation of our Animal Shelter here in Hesperia, CA Animals are being euthanized at an alarming rate.
Finally! A win for the cats! I attended several of the hearings over the summer and was glad that I was able to attend today's judicial decision. Previously, Judge Bacal stated that her job was not to decide policy but it was her responsibility to make a decision based upon the law. SDHS's abandonment of an estimated 18,000 social, friendly cats over the last 4+ years is clearly in violation of 597s and Judge Bacal so ruled. 597s states that anyone who willfully abandons an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by $1000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. The law further provides that no animal should be deprived of proper food, water or shelter which is exactly what the euphemistically entitled "Community Cat" program does by dumping cats back into the neighborhoods without any support or oversight. Violations of this section of the statute can result in criminal charges up to and including felony charges. We have no idea how SDHS will respond to this very large chastisement but the judge's ruling certainly does support the claims and concerns of San Diego's animal advocates and taxpayers. And, hopefully, it provides a foundation for other communities to follow suit. Hooray to Pet Assistance for leading the charge!
I urge everyone to keep an eye out for sneaky proposals tagged onto purported humane legislation from lobbyists and so called experts. They have tried to legislate an exemption from 597s in the past and will likely try again. On a local level, I urge concerned animal advocates to join the effort to protect San Diego's companion animals.
Not incidentally, I stopped by the Gaines St. SDHS shelter on my way home from the hearing to take a self guided tour. I spent 20+ years as a volunteer at the County Animal Control shelter that is now being used by SDHS via their contract with the city. However, I rarely entered the SDHS shelter and have not been inside for 10+ years. After their major and expensive remodeling, the cat designated area now consists of 75-100 small, vet-type kennels, around 10 large modules that can easily house 3 to 5 cats plus a very large "showcase" in the lobby that could easily accommodate 10-15 felines. Almost all were empty. When asked how many cats were in adoption, a staff person replied "about 20". I asked her why SDHS was abandoning cats back into the neighborhoods via their "community cat" program when there was so much empty space. She said she didn't know anything about that. 18,000 cats! However, I was assured that they would have more cats after March when kitten season hit again. Right - why provide free and truly low-cost public spay/neuter when your fundraising depends on an overflow supply of homeless animals and all the sad stories that can be gleaned.
Thank you, Ed, for all of the articles that you have written in December. A number of us have become aware that something stinks and have been putting together pieces of the puzzle but, thanks to you, the players and their narrative are coming into focus so that those who truly have the best interests of the animals and our community at heart have a means to educate others about what is wrong and why metrics have taken priority over solutions. It's certainly not a good look.
Candy Schumann
Thank you, Candy, for your thoughtful and detailed comment! It’s heartening to see your dedication to this issue and your commitment to advocating for San Diego’s animals. Judge Bacal’s ruling is indeed a significant victory, and your firsthand account of attending hearings and visiting the shelter adds a powerful perspective to the conversation.
You’re are correct—this decision not only validates the concerns of animal advocates but also shines a light on the troubling practices that have allowed thousands of friendly, adoptable cats to be abandoned under the guise of “community cats.” The judge’s acknowledgment of Penal Code 597s sends a strong message that shelters must prioritize care and accountability over convenience.
Your observations about the empty spaces in SDHS’s cat adoption areas are particularly striking. It raises important questions about why these resources aren’t being fully utilized to house and care for vulnerable animals. As you pointed out, proactive solutions like spay/neuter programs could go a long way in addressing overpopulation without resorting to harmful practices.
Thank you for your kind words about my articles—I’m glad they’ve helped bring clarity to these issues. Together, we can continue to educate others and advocate for policies that truly serve the best interests of animals and our community. Let’s keep the momentum going!
I have strong feelings about cat overpopulation, and I’ve rewritten this comment several times to capture my thoughts clearly.
I’m curious about the involvement of Best Friends Animal Society in this court case. They were instrumental in promoting Return-to-Field (RTF) and Return-to-Home (RTH) programs as a way to reduce shelter euthanasia rates, which aligned with their "Save Them All" mission. Their national advocacy deserves credit for bringing attention to the issue and saving many lives.
That said, I’ve always seen RTF/RTH as a pendulum swing—an important step to address immediate crises but not a long-term, comprehensive solution. As the pendulum begins to swing back toward center, we need broader, more balanced strategies that prioritize both the welfare of individual cats and the communities they live in.
This is just affecting California. Chicago animal control funded by taxpayers has chosen not to intake any cats. They are telling people to put cats back where they found them and to not bring them to the shelter. We have harsh winters, high crime and high traffic. In a 10 month period, there were over 3000 deceased cat pick up requests. Tell me how that's Humane Kerryann.
The growing trend of reduced (or managed) shelter intake must be reversed. Shelters exist to serve as safe havens for animals in need. Policies that close doors to these animals fail the public and violate the spirit of the Law.
Okay, San Diego -- harsh conditions? It's a dream for weather. What are these harsh conditions they are referring to?
And the plaintiff would rather the cats be killed at the shelter (or other cats killed due to lack of space, disease, etc.) than live a life outside? How very PETA of them. And realisticially, no shelter is following up with the cats adopted from them either, long term. I mean, we send emails after adoption, we hear from some adopters for a few months or whatever, but after that, who knows??
Thank you, Kerryann, for sharing your thoughts! You’re right that San Diego’s weather is ideal compared to many other places, but the “harsh conditions” referred to in this case go beyond climate. Outdoor cats in San Diego face significant dangers, including predators like coyotes, traffic hazards, and even cruelty from people. These risks are compounded for friendly, adoptable cats who may lack the survival instincts of feral cats.
As for the broader implications of this case, it’s not just about San Diego—it could set a precedent for how shelters across the country handle free-roaming cats. A ruling in favor of the defense might reinforce the use of programs like SDHS’s Community Cat Program nationwide.
You also raise a great point about follow-up care. While it’s true that long-term monitoring isn’t always feasible for adopted pets, releasing cats outdoors without confirmed caretakers or follow-up creates a unique set of risks. This case highlights the need for transparency and accountability in shelter practices to ensure all animals are treated humanely.
Thanks again for contributing to this important discussion!
Thank you, Christine, for your thoughtful and passionate response! You’ve highlighted some critical points that deserve attention. While San Diego’s weather may be mild, the dangers faced by outdoor cats in the region are anything but. Predators, traffic accidents, dehydration during hot summers, and even cruel acts by humans. These risks are especially concerning for friendly, adoptable cats who are often unprepared for life on the streets.
Your observation about SDHS’s funding and internal decisions adds another layer to this discussion. As SDHS is receiving millions in taxpayer dollars and donations to care for homeless animals, it raises serious questions about their responsibility to provide safe outcomes for all cats. The allegations of secrecy and the lack of follow-up or accountability for released cats are deeply troubling, especially when paired with reports of dead or injured cats turning up in neighborhoods.
Beyond San Diego, this case has national implications. A ruling in favor of SDHS could set a precedent for shelters across the country to adopt similar practices, potentially leaving countless adoptable cats at risk.
Thank you again for sharing your insights and for being such a strong advocate for animal welfare. This is a critical issue that deserves continued attention!
So true! At the 2024 Fur Ball, donors yelled at protesters, "Liars!" We were protesting the Community Cat dumping program and driving 318 small animals for a snake breeder in Arizona to feed to his reptiles. The TV news showed the people eating and drinking at the Fur Ball in their evening wear. There was a shot of the protesters. Then a spokeswoman for the Humane Society gave a long sob story about how sad the SDHS was about the rabbits and guinea pigs that were fed to snakes. They were duped! They had no idea! They were cleared of wrong doing by their own investigators! Not a very balanced piece. And there was nothing in the San Diego Union Tribune about the protest. They publish puff pieces about the SDHS. Ugh.
I am struck by CA's Fourth Estate's consistent unwillingness to report accurately on these issues. They lazily rely on the pablum dished out by the spokesperson of any wealthy foundation rather than asking an on-the-ground, in-the-trenches volunteer about what they know and see every day. That, I hope, is the gap Animal Politics can help fill.
Hi Christine, the issues you’ve highlighted with SD Humane’s lack of transparency and questionable practices are deeply concerning. It’s was shocking to hear about the transport of small animals to Arizona and the lobbying against the shelter transparency bill—actions that seem to contradict their mission of animal welfare.
The points you raised about their CEO’s salary, refusal to provide records, and the closure of the cat adoption center underscore the need for greater accountability and transparency in nonprofit organizations, especially those receiving taxpayer dollars. These are critical issues that deserve more attention, and platforms like "Justice for 318" are invaluable in exposing these practices and advocating for change.
It’s heartening to connect with people like you who are speaking out and holding organizations accountable. Thank you for being a voice for the animals who cannot speak for themselves. I hope this recent court ruling serves as a step toward shedding light on these injustices and ensuring that shelters prioritize the well-being of the animals they are entrusted to care for.