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.
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.
Thank you, Bob—your thoughtful reflections add important depth to the conversation. You're absolutely right: the pitch is easy, the consequences are not. As you point out, when optics take precedence over ethics, the most vulnerable—animals turned away, neglected, or warehoused—pay the price. Grateful for your insight and experience.
That comparison is as startling as it is sobering—and unfortunately, not hyperbolic. When shelter policies are shaped more by PR than public safety, the consequences are real, devastating, and far too often ignored. Thank you, Merritt and Beth, for continuing to track what too many in the industry would rather not face. The data doesn’t lie—and it’s long past time we reckon with it.
Best Friends Animal Society is a joke. Their glossy, rah-rah magazine gets tossed into recycling as soon as it arrives at our house. As anyone interested in the welfare of dogs and cats can attest, there is no such thing as a “community animal.” They are STRAYS, cared for by no one and left to fend for themselves. This leads to situations where dangerous, aggressive animals will (and have) harmed both people on the street and adopters unaware of an animal’s aggressive tendencies.
BFAS relies on feel-good stories to promote an untenable philosophy. Best to expose the failure of so-called community responsibility (where no one is really in charge) before it causes more harm.
Thank you, Joan. You summed up the issue with clarity and conviction. The “community animal” label may sound compassionate, but in practice, it often means abandonment—both of the animals and of responsibility. I appreciate your voice in this conversation.
Thank you for your continued reporting. After adopting an aggressive Livestock Guardian Breed from Best Friends—transported from rural New Mexico to Los Angeles—I’ve been forever changed. He bit a man while I was trying to train him on a walk. I’ve always been a passionate advocate for rescue, but now I’m afraid. Afraid to adopt. Afraid to walk near dogs.
This movement has turned many people to breeders, because people are now afraid to adopt—knowing that aggressive dogs are not being put down. As heartbreaking as it is, some dogs are simply not safe to place.
The push for “no euthanasia” is backfiring. It’s leading to worse outcomes—like people dumping dogs in the desert because shelters won’t take them for fear of harming their “no-kill” metrics.
Best Friends should be held accountable. Donors and corporate partners need to stop donating to them. They keep mailing me their ridiculous magazine, and it turns my stomach every time. I will not support Disney or any of their corporate sponsors. Ever.
Thank you, Bev. I’m so sorry to hear what you went through—and sadly, you’re not alone. I’ve heard from many others who share your fear and frustration. You’re absolutely right: when shelters prioritize optics over safety, it puts both people and animals at risk. Your story underscores what this article is really about—accountability. The movement needs a reset, grounded in truth, transparency, and prevention—not PR. Thank you again for speaking out.
I appreciate the attention to serious concerns in the sheltering world. That said, as I have commented before, I urge more precision in how the term “No Kill” is being applied here. Best Friends Animal Society is not synonymous with the No Kill Movement—it’s one organization among many, and its interpretation of “No Kill” is not synonymous with the No Kill movement that I have been a part of for over a decade.
The No Kill Movement, as grounded in the No Kill Equation, is about saving every healthy and treatable pet, not just hitting statistical targets. It's built on transparency, open admission, and a deep commitment to 11 programs and services that save lives. When any shelter uses the “No Kill” label without upholding those core principles, its ok to call them out. I do. But not because they abused the name for their own purposes. because they are failing to save healthy and treatable lives.
But leading people to think the movement is the issue and not an organization, that’s on you. By the way you position it.
Let’s hold all shelters accountable, we should. Let’s also be careful not to conflate an entire grassroots movement with the actions of one organization. The No Kill Movement is a broad and principled push for change, and it’s helped transform communities nationwide and internationally. You should celebrate that, as you have commented before, you are a supporter of No Kill. Stop mischaracterizing it by conflating the ownership of No Kill by Best Friends. They don’t own it. No Kill shelters, rescue, volunteers, staff, and advocates nationwide, often with no organization affiliation, own it. And they are out there saving lives every day. It's disrespectful.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Davyd. I agree—no single organization owns No Kill, and I’ve long supported the movement’s true foundational principles: prevention, transparency, accountability, and a commitment to saving every healthy and treatable animal.
This article doesn’t criticize No Kill as a philosophy—it exposes how it’s been hijacked. The concern isn’t just with one organization, but with a consortium of the most influential players in the industry who have rebranded No Kill into something unrecognizable: a system driven by optics, metrics, and risk deflection. That counterfeit model is doing real harm—to adopters, communities, shelter workers, and the very animals we’re all trying to protect.
If we want to preserve the true spirit of No Kill, we have to call out what’s masquerading in its name.
Thanks for the reply, and I agree No Kill should not be based on a single metric. I've written about this myself many times. And no animal organizations should place metrics or optics over meaningful lifesaving.
Where I diverge is on the idea that the movement has been “hijacked.” That framing, unintentionally or not, erases the countless advocates, rescuers, shelter workers, and communities who are still doing the hard work—every day—to implement the No Kill Equation, reform broken systems, and save the lives of healthy and treatable pets.
Just as we can’t judge the entire sheltering field by the actions of one regressive facility—say, PETA's shelter in Virginia, which kills the vast majority of animals it takes in—we can’t paint No Kill for the shortcomings of one high-profile organization. If any organization strays from the philosophy and principles, that should be called out clearly, with the understanding that there are hundreds or thousands of other organizations doing it right.
The No Kill Movement remains a compassionate, effective, thriving movement. It continues to improve shelters, reduce killing, and inspire systemic reform across the country. That progress is real, and it's thanks to a broad, grassroots coalition that refuses to accept killing as a “necessary evil.” If anything, the misappropriation of the label only reinforces why we must keep defending what No Kill actually means—and supporting those who are truly living it.
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.
Thank you, Bob—your thoughtful reflections add important depth to the conversation. You're absolutely right: the pitch is easy, the consequences are not. As you point out, when optics take precedence over ethics, the most vulnerable—animals turned away, neglected, or warehoused—pay the price. Grateful for your insight and experience.
There have been 27 murders thus far in the 21st century linked to the traditional Italian-American Mafia.
There have been 57 deaths since 2007 linked to the shelter dog handling & adoption policies promulgated by the Best Friends Animal Society.
That comparison is as startling as it is sobering—and unfortunately, not hyperbolic. When shelter policies are shaped more by PR than public safety, the consequences are real, devastating, and far too often ignored. Thank you, Merritt and Beth, for continuing to track what too many in the industry would rather not face. The data doesn’t lie—and it’s long past time we reckon with it.
Best Friends Animal Society is a joke. Their glossy, rah-rah magazine gets tossed into recycling as soon as it arrives at our house. As anyone interested in the welfare of dogs and cats can attest, there is no such thing as a “community animal.” They are STRAYS, cared for by no one and left to fend for themselves. This leads to situations where dangerous, aggressive animals will (and have) harmed both people on the street and adopters unaware of an animal’s aggressive tendencies.
BFAS relies on feel-good stories to promote an untenable philosophy. Best to expose the failure of so-called community responsibility (where no one is really in charge) before it causes more harm.
Thank you, Joan. You summed up the issue with clarity and conviction. The “community animal” label may sound compassionate, but in practice, it often means abandonment—both of the animals and of responsibility. I appreciate your voice in this conversation.
Thank you for your continued reporting. After adopting an aggressive Livestock Guardian Breed from Best Friends—transported from rural New Mexico to Los Angeles—I’ve been forever changed. He bit a man while I was trying to train him on a walk. I’ve always been a passionate advocate for rescue, but now I’m afraid. Afraid to adopt. Afraid to walk near dogs.
This movement has turned many people to breeders, because people are now afraid to adopt—knowing that aggressive dogs are not being put down. As heartbreaking as it is, some dogs are simply not safe to place.
The push for “no euthanasia” is backfiring. It’s leading to worse outcomes—like people dumping dogs in the desert because shelters won’t take them for fear of harming their “no-kill” metrics.
Best Friends should be held accountable. Donors and corporate partners need to stop donating to them. They keep mailing me their ridiculous magazine, and it turns my stomach every time. I will not support Disney or any of their corporate sponsors. Ever.
Thank you, Bev. I’m so sorry to hear what you went through—and sadly, you’re not alone. I’ve heard from many others who share your fear and frustration. You’re absolutely right: when shelters prioritize optics over safety, it puts both people and animals at risk. Your story underscores what this article is really about—accountability. The movement needs a reset, grounded in truth, transparency, and prevention—not PR. Thank you again for speaking out.
I appreciate the attention to serious concerns in the sheltering world. That said, as I have commented before, I urge more precision in how the term “No Kill” is being applied here. Best Friends Animal Society is not synonymous with the No Kill Movement—it’s one organization among many, and its interpretation of “No Kill” is not synonymous with the No Kill movement that I have been a part of for over a decade.
The No Kill Movement, as grounded in the No Kill Equation, is about saving every healthy and treatable pet, not just hitting statistical targets. It's built on transparency, open admission, and a deep commitment to 11 programs and services that save lives. When any shelter uses the “No Kill” label without upholding those core principles, its ok to call them out. I do. But not because they abused the name for their own purposes. because they are failing to save healthy and treatable lives.
But leading people to think the movement is the issue and not an organization, that’s on you. By the way you position it.
Let’s hold all shelters accountable, we should. Let’s also be careful not to conflate an entire grassroots movement with the actions of one organization. The No Kill Movement is a broad and principled push for change, and it’s helped transform communities nationwide and internationally. You should celebrate that, as you have commented before, you are a supporter of No Kill. Stop mischaracterizing it by conflating the ownership of No Kill by Best Friends. They don’t own it. No Kill shelters, rescue, volunteers, staff, and advocates nationwide, often with no organization affiliation, own it. And they are out there saving lives every day. It's disrespectful.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Davyd. I agree—no single organization owns No Kill, and I’ve long supported the movement’s true foundational principles: prevention, transparency, accountability, and a commitment to saving every healthy and treatable animal.
This article doesn’t criticize No Kill as a philosophy—it exposes how it’s been hijacked. The concern isn’t just with one organization, but with a consortium of the most influential players in the industry who have rebranded No Kill into something unrecognizable: a system driven by optics, metrics, and risk deflection. That counterfeit model is doing real harm—to adopters, communities, shelter workers, and the very animals we’re all trying to protect.
If we want to preserve the true spirit of No Kill, we have to call out what’s masquerading in its name.
Thanks for the reply, and I agree No Kill should not be based on a single metric. I've written about this myself many times. And no animal organizations should place metrics or optics over meaningful lifesaving.
Where I diverge is on the idea that the movement has been “hijacked.” That framing, unintentionally or not, erases the countless advocates, rescuers, shelter workers, and communities who are still doing the hard work—every day—to implement the No Kill Equation, reform broken systems, and save the lives of healthy and treatable pets.
Just as we can’t judge the entire sheltering field by the actions of one regressive facility—say, PETA's shelter in Virginia, which kills the vast majority of animals it takes in—we can’t paint No Kill for the shortcomings of one high-profile organization. If any organization strays from the philosophy and principles, that should be called out clearly, with the understanding that there are hundreds or thousands of other organizations doing it right.
The No Kill Movement remains a compassionate, effective, thriving movement. It continues to improve shelters, reduce killing, and inspire systemic reform across the country. That progress is real, and it's thanks to a broad, grassroots coalition that refuses to accept killing as a “necessary evil.” If anything, the misappropriation of the label only reinforces why we must keep defending what No Kill actually means—and supporting those who are truly living it.
Amen: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/animal-politics-in-defense-of-the
You should hyperlink that every time you use the term No Kill to make it clear you are a proponent. ;)
Thank you, very informative.