Michelson Found Animals Foundation: Separating Allies from Adversaries in Animal Welfare
Unlike The Consortium, MFA Is Funding Real Solutions to End Shelter Killing—Not Just Marketing Empty Promises
After careful investigation, I must correct the record: Michelson Found Animals Foundation (MFA) does not belong in "The Consortium"—the group of organizations that have actively opposed meaningful shelter reform. Unlike Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA, MFA is taking concrete steps to reduce shelter killing, investing in direct interventions rather than just marketing empty commitments. Their funding of high-volume spay/neuter clinics in Los Angeles demonstrates a fundamentally different approach to addressing California’s shelter crisis.
The Revelations That Changed the Equation
Two key revelations distinguish MFA from groups like Best Friends and the ASPCA, both of which actively fought against legislation that would have required shelters to provide public notice before euthanizing animals.
First, there is no evidence that Michelson Found Animals opposed this legislation. While Best Friends and the ASPCA worked aggressively to block its transparency provisions, MFA did not take a public stance against the bill.
More importantly, MFA is directly funding efforts to relieve shelter overcrowding—the very crisis that drives euthanasia decisions. According to Emma Clifford, Founder and Director of Animal Balance, “Michelson Found Animals has generously funded six clinics, one per month, which started in December 2024, and our HQHVSN teams are able to perform a minimum of 200 surgeries each clinic” across Los Angeles Animal Services facilities. That means approximately 1,200 high-quality, high-volume surgeries were performed specifically to reduce the shelter backlog.
Real Action vs. Empty Rhetoric
MFA’s investment in spay/neuter services is not symbolic—it is a targeted effort to address one of the primary causes of shelter overcrowding. By prioritizing shelter animals awaiting adoption, they are tackling the very conditions that force euthanasia decisions based on space rather than adoptability.
“As soon as the shelter backlogs are cleared,” Clifford notes, “if MFA funds us again… we would like to open up the spay/neuter/vaccine service to the community.” This strategy reflects an understanding of both the immediate crisis and the long-term solutions needed to prevent shelter overcrowding from recurring.
A Stark Contrast to Consortium Tactics
MFA’s approach stands in stark contrast to organizations that market themselves as leaders in the no-kill movement while actively undermining transparency and lifesaving reforms. Best Friends and the ASPCA’s opposition to the original Bowie’s Law raises serious questions about their true priorities.
A troubling pattern has emerged among groups within The Consortium: they appear to benefit from the very crisis they claim to be solving. Their business models and fundraising appeals rely on the continued existence of shelter overcrowding and euthanasia—yet they resist transparency measures that would allow grassroots rescues to step in and save animals.
MFA, by contrast, is investing in real solutions. Rather than merely branding themselves as problem-solvers, they are funding tangible prevention programs with measurable outcomes.
Why This Correction Matters
Accuracy matters—not just for the sake of setting the record straight, but because animal welfare donors and advocates deserve to know which organizations are truly committed to ending needless shelter killing.
When I first included Michelson Found Animals in the Consortium list, it was due to their institutional connections. However, their significant investment in spay/neuter programs—particularly at a time when Los Angeles shelters are in crisis—proves they are operating from a different playbook.
Looking Ahead: A Call for Meaningful Reform
As California again considers Bowie's Law (now AB 1482), I encourage all animal welfare organizations to follow Michelson Found Animals' example by investing in both prevention and transparency. Their support for high-volume spay/neuter services addresses the root causes of shelter overcrowding while respecting the importance of community-based solutions.
For organizations truly committed to ending euthanasia, the path forward is clear: fund prevention services, support transparency measures, and prioritize animal lives over institutional interests. Those who continue to oppose even modest reforms while failing to invest in real solutions deserve continued scrutiny.
Michelson Found Animals has made it clear where they stand. Their name will be removed from the Consortium list, as their actions demonstrate a commitment to reducing shelter killing through real, measurable change. In the complex world of animal welfare, distinguishing between true allies and those merely profiting from the crisis is essential for real progress.
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.
I appreciate the correction. That is why I trust your analysis
Glad you separated Michelson out, they put up funding for a second CAMP clinic. We need 10 more. One more game changer that is doable with some political will..always in short supply…is a minimal, relatively painless requirement as part of a business license for vet clinics and/or vets. It would exclude non-profit clinics and solely owned clinics. It would apply to any business that has two or more clinics and/or the vets working in them. Many times vets are working as independent contractors in clinics and carry their own insurance and business licenses. The requirement of the mostly venture capital (VC) owned chains would require they perform XXX number of low cost, voucher surgeries. There are approximately 800 clinics and hospitals in LA and my gut tells me 50-60 percent are VC chains. If the requirement was only 10 per clinic per month it has a minimal impact on individual businesses, a significant impact on animals in the street. The VC backed chains: VCA/Banfield, Thrive, Blue Pearl, VNA, are groups at the heart of this problem because they have driven costs through the roof and that, of course, drives even the mom and pop shops to raise prices. Wall Street understands that people will spend money on their pets when they wouldn’t spend it on themselves. The Street understands that the highest spend per capita are, amazingly, 20 somethings. Why? They are not having kids. So what a beautiful demo they are because they have a 70 year life span in front of them. Long term consumers. If my horrible math serves me well that plan yields about 50,000 animals a year. No tax payer dollars, no donor dollars, just groups who are part of the problem transforming into part of the solution.