The Hijacking of No-Kill: How a Movement of Compassion Became a Machine of Risk and Revenue

Best Friends’ no-kill model has become a runaway train—fueled by intake suppression, mass transport, and data control—now veering into lawsuits, insurance collapse, and public harm.

Jul 15, 2025

The promise was simple and stirring. Save them all.

For more than a decade, Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) and a consortium of national animal organizations have championed the “no-kill” movement, urging shelters across America to adopt policies aimed at ensuring that 90 percent of pets leave alive. It was a rallying cry, a fundraising juggernaut, and a metric by which cities and shelters measured their compassion.

But beneath the slogans and success metrics, a different story was unfolding. Critics argue that the no-kill movement has been hijacked—its compassion repurposed into a system that prioritizes branding over safety.

The very strategies Best Friends promotes—managed intake, community sheltering, and mass transports—are now implicated in a growing wave of federal wrongful death lawsuits and a cascading collapse in shelter insurance. By deprioritizing spay/neuter, dismantling animal control, and suppressing risk disclosure, these policies haven’t just failed to save lives—they’ve endangered them.

They didn’t just change how shelters operate. They rewrote the rules of risk, accountability, and truth itself—sending the no-kill movement hurtling toward catastrophe.

Hijacked at Full Speed: The No-Kill Movement Was Derailed by Branding, Risk, and Revenue. The BFAS agenda turned a compassionate cause into a runaway train—leaving behind lawsuits, shattered communities, and the wreckage of public trust.

From Rescue to Risk: When Philosophy Overrides Public Safety

The introduction of managed intake, community sheltering, and mass transport—cornerstone policies long promoted by BFAS—marked a decisive shift in American sheltering. While marketed as innovations, these strategies limit the number of animals entering shelters and push more into unsupervised public spaces, fueling widespread concern.

Under mounting pressure to meet the 90% live-release benchmark—a threshold explicitly championed and popularized by BFAS—shelters across the country reengineered their operations. Intake was restricted. Owner surrenders and strays were increasingly turned away and relabeled as “community animals,” left to fend for themselves on the streets.

Adoption and transfer processes were streamlined and accelerated, often omitting or downplaying known behavioral risks. In tandem, enforcement of dangerous dog laws was discouraged as incompatible with live-release goals. The shift wasn’t just logistical—it was philosophical. A system once grounded in prevention and public safety pivoted to one centered on marketing, optics, and compliance with a national narrative.

When Policy Becomes Liability: Human Tragedy and Legal Fallout Follow

The consequences have been devastating.

In Detroit, Harold Phillips was killed by three dogs with documented aggression histories. In San Antonio, 81-year-old Ramon Najera was fatally mauled after aggressive dogs—previously flagged for dangerous behavior—were returned to their owner in the name of preserving live-release metrics. In Pharr, Texas, Estela Manteca, 91, was killed by roaming dogs the city had failed to impound, allegedly due to managed intake policies.

A wave of federal lawsuits is now putting these philosophies on trial. In Detroit, the suit specifically names Best Friends Animal Society as a contributing party, alleging their influence shaped policies that enabled the fatal attack. In San Antonio and Pharr, the lawsuits target municipal systems that mirror the “no-kill” template promoted by BFAS and its national partners. In each case, plaintiffs allege that statistical benchmarks were prioritized over known risks, with fatal consequences.

Los Angeles, perhaps BFAS’s most visible stage, offers one of the clearest examples of influence meeting fallout. With deep ties to the city’s celebrity and entertainment ecosystems, BFAS transformed LA into a fundraising centerpiece and “no-kill” prototype, marked by aggressive rehoming targets and a powerful PR apparatus.

That influence was on full display in one of the city’s most high-profile mauling cases. A volunteer at the Mission Hills shelter—operated under BFAS management—suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries after being attacked by a dog whose documented aggression was concealed. The case resulted in a $6.8 million jury award and revealed a broader pattern: mislabeling breeds, downplaying risk, and withholding critical behavioral histories from adopters and volunteers alike.

Between 2016 and 2019, at least seven lawsuits were filed against BFAS in Los Angeles for personal injury or wrongful death linked to adopted dogs. The City of LA has paid out individual settlements as high as $7.5 million for shelter dog attacks where bite histories were not disclosed—violating legal principles requiring the communication of known risks.

These cases offer more than tragic anecdotes. They expose how fundraising optics and aggressive live-release targets have eroded hard-won safety standards, replacing them with a branding strategy where liability is obscured and the public absorbs the risk.

The Insurance Crisis: An Industry in Retreat

As lawsuits continue to mount, the insurance industry is stepping back—fast. Shelters and rescues across the country are reporting canceled policies, skyrocketing premiums, and a growing reluctance among carriers to offer coverage at all.

In Detroit, Friends of Detroit Animal Care and Control lost its liability insurance merely for being named in the Harold Phillips lawsuit—even though the dogs involved had never been in their care. The fallout was immediate: adoption events, community outreach, and foster programs were suspended, paralyzing efforts to help more than 300 dogs.

The financial repercussions are staggering. According to the Insurance Information Institute, U.S. insurers paid out approximately $1.6 billion in dog-related injury claims in 2024. The average cost per claim soared to $69,272 —an 86% increase over the past decade. In California alone, the average settlement exceeded $68,000 in 2023.

Shelters—especially private rescues without municipal self-insurance—are now facing existential threats. Some report annual premiums that have tripled; others have been dropped outright, forced to shutter programs or close their doors entirely.

These rising costs are not occurring in a vacuum. Industry data shows that payouts have increased 131% over the past decade, a timeline that coincides precisely with BFAS’s growing national influence and the widespread adoption of high-risk “no-kill” policies—including reduced enforcement, managed intake, and the rehoming of dangerous dogs.

Because insurance risk is pooled across the sheltering sector, lawsuits against individual organizations—public or nonprofit—raise premiums and liability exposure for everyone. What began as a campaign to increase live-release rates has become a sector-wide reckoning. Every shelter now inherits the liability generated by BFAS’s most reckless affiliates—whether they follow those policies or not.

As insurers recoil, BFAS has responded not by recalibrating, but by consolidating control over the narrative.

Data Control as Damage Control

As the fallout mounts, BFAS has not pulled back—it has tightened its grip on the public narrative. The creation of the Shelter Pet Data Alliance effectively gives BFAS editorial control over how national sheltering data is collected, framed, and released.

Critics argue this move is less about modernization than damage control. It allows BFAS to contain liability, accountability, and dissent—all under the guise of centralized reporting—with no meaningful public oversight.

As open-access data platforms are quietly sidelined, donors, journalists, policymakers, and communities are forced to rely on dashboards curated by the very organizations most invested in projecting success. Without independent verification, it becomes nearly impossible to track intake suppression, failed adoptions, or rising euthanasia rates disguised through definitional loopholes.

For critics, this marks a decisive shift: from transparency to messaging, from public accountability to public relations.

The Human Cost: Trauma, Silence, and Retaliation

Yet the numbers tell only part of the story. The emotional toll is harder to quantify but no less real.

A canine behavior specialist familiar with shelter placements, granted anonymity due to professional concern, has seen the fallout firsthand. They described one case in which the same dangerous dog was adopted out to three different families—accumulating multiple serious bites in the process. Each time, the new adopters were unaware of the dog’s history.

According to the specialist, 70 percent of adopters they worked with vow never to adopt again. For years, they watched shelters rush to place high-risk dogs in homes to meet internal targets. In their view, only financial consequences will force real change.

This story is not an anomaly. Reports from across the country show a recurring pattern: dogs with known aggression histories cycled through homes, bite histories concealed, adopters blindsided—often physically scarred—by the truth. When tragedy strikes, the trauma reverberates far beyond the immediate victims.

The dream of saving a life too often turns into a nightmare.

A Reckoning Ahead: Accountability or Collapse

The sheltering industry stands at a breaking point. The lawsuits and insurance crisis have exposed deep ethical and operational fault lines in a movement that, for years, prioritized metrics over mission, branding over transparency, and fundraising over accountability. Professionals who sounded early alarms were silenced or pushed out. Now, it is federal courts—not curated dashboards—deciding the cost of a movement engineered for optics.

Some advocates are now calling on insurers to deny coverage to shelters that adopt high-risk policies endorsed by BFAS. While not yet industry standard, this shift reflects growing awareness: risk is no longer theoretical—it’s actuarial.

If even one of the federal lawsuits succeeds, or if insurance pressure continues to mount, it could trigger a long-overdue realignment. Shelters may be forced to disclose bite histories, return to public safety enforcement, and abandon the riskiest interpretations of no-kill. Municipalities and funders could reconsider their alliances. States may move to ban policies that put communities at risk.

A City Begins to Break Away

In at least one Texas city, the reckoning has already begun. According to two sources with direct knowledge of internal proceedings, the City of San Angelo formally rejected the no-kill model promoted by BFAS and its national allies. The city removed its Animal Services Manager—an advocate of BFAS, HASS (Human Animal Support Services), and APA (Austin Pets Alive)-aligned strategies—after what one official described as “a dreadful situation.”

City leadership instructed its attorney to sever ties with BFAS and requested removal from the group’s national partner list. An independent task force was assembled—composed of a judge, an attorney, a veterinarian, a data analyst, a spay/neuter expert, and a wildlife rescuer—to reassess local sheltering practices. Among their recommendations: reopen shelter intake and recruit new leadership.

But cutting branding ties is easier than undoing operational influence.

A photo dated July 10, 2025, shows senior San Angelo officials coordinating with a BFAS representative during a live animal transport operation. The animals were funneled through Concho Valley PAWS, a nonprofit with an exclusive city contract—functionally mirroring the Detroit model, where Friends of Detroit Animal Care & Control allegedly facilitated policies promoted by BFAS, which is now a named party in the Harold Phillips federal lawsuit.

Morgan Chegwidden, Acting Director, Family & Neighborhood Services COSA, Angela Bloss, Acting Assistant Director, COSA, and Leah Long of Best Friends Animal Society load animals to be transported via Concho Valley Paws. (07/10/2025)

That moment, captured on camera, underscores a deeper reality: despite severing formal ties, San Angelo’s operational infrastructure remains steeped in the very doctrines it sought to escape. One source described the “setup” with Concho Valley PAWS as “structurally identical” to the Detroit arrangement with a 501c3 and warned the city remains legally exposed. That concern may already be materializing. A pending case in San Angelo—referred to locally as the “Ponce case”—involves a known dangerous dog that attacked an animal control officer. Records allegedly show the owners attempted to surrender the dog in both 2023 and 2024, but the shelter refused intake.

San Angelo shows how easily a city can believe it has severed ties with BFAS doctrine—while deeper entrenchment persists. Contracts, personnel, and private partners continue to advance BFAS-aligned practices—often without formal agreements. Exclusive arrangements with third-party nonprofits like Concho Valley PAWS, insulate operations from scrutiny. Meanwhile, staff trained under BFAS doctrine continue to enforce managed intake, transport, and deferred placement policies. Despite cutting official ties, the city’s infrastructure, workflows, and data systems remain tethered to a philosophy it claims to have rejected.

This isn’t just a contract problem—it’s a cultural one.

Embedded Influence: When Cities Lose Control

What’s unfolding in San Angelo illustrates how municipal control can be eroded—not just through policy, but through infrastructure designed to perpetuate misguided no-kill doctrine, even after formal ties are severed. A similar pattern has emerged in San Diego, where reform has proven elusive despite growing controversy.

There, the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) holds an exclusive municipal contract to operate animal services, exercising broad discretion over intake, enforcement, and disposition—with minimal oversight from city officials. Like Concho Valley PAWS, SDHS functions as a de facto policymaker, advancing a sheltering agenda insulated from public accountability.

Despite mounting criticism over dangerous dog placements and diminished enforcement, the city remains bound by its own agreement.

In both cases, BFAS is not formally in charge—but its philosophy persists. Proxy organizations and aligned personnel sustain policies that cities have tried to repudiate. The result is a governance blind spot: influence without accountability, risk without recourse.

These structurally insulated partnerships reveal just how embedded high-risk sheltering models have become. Dismantling them isn’t just a matter of contract termination—it requires confronting an entire ecosystem of incentives, affiliations, and habits.

Conclusion

What began as a promise to “save them all” has become a runaway train—driven by metrics, steered by marketing, and barreling past ethical guardrails. In the hands of its most zealous architects, the no-kill movement has mutated into a machine that monetizes risk, silences dissent, and outsources accountability.

The lawsuits and insurance crisis now unfolding are not unfortunate side effects—they are the predictable outcome of policies designed to prioritize optics over outcomes, and metrics over safety. Cities that embraced the brand are now grappling with broken systems, legal exposure, and public harm. Worse, many find themselves unable to course-correct—held hostage by embedded contracts, proxy nonprofits, and a sheltering philosophy hardwired into their infrastructure.

This isn’t a movement that lost its way. It’s one that was hijacked—its moral engine gutted, its name repurposed, and its original mission replaced with a business model. The result is the wreckage of betrayed communities, disillusioned adopters, and animals failed by the very system meant to protect them.

It’s time to admit the no-kill movement has gone off the rails. Getting it back on track will take more than courage—it will take a conscience.

Stay Informed

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

Bob Marotto

Reflecting on your major points made me recall that part of the problem is that the no-kill concept can be pitched easily and successfully to elected officials and municipal and county administrators. This has become even easier as no-kill practitioners have marginalized others in the field of animal welfare.

It should also be underscored that no kill practices can and do have inhumane consequences. In the early years of the movement that was most apparent in the warehousing and inadequate care of sheltered animals. Anyone with experience in the world of sheltering is aware of situations in which dog crates were used to house cats as well as dogs with deteriorating affects on the physical and emotional health of animals themselves.

Of late these inhumane consequences are probably more related to managed intake programs when their primary raison d'etre is to avoid the euthanasia of animals to cope with crowding. The actual results of turning animals away--in sharp contrast to the historic mission of so-called open admission shelters--no doubt include abandonment, neglect and no doubt death by gunshot and drowning.

Yet the number of these animals and their fate largely continues to be outside the scope of understanding of forms of shelter management shaped by no kill principles and practices.

Expand full comment

1 reply by Ed Boks