Excellent post….I would love nothing more than to make Best Friends explain why they have moved away from putting dollars toward and helping shelters to implement spay/neuter programs. It makes zero sense!
Thank you, Yvonne! The lack of investment in spay/neuter programs is perplexing given their proven effectiveness in reducing shelter intake and euthanasia rates. One possible explanation could be that Best Friends benefits from maintaining a crisis narrative to sustain donor engagement and fundraising momentum. If that’s not the case, it becomes even more critical for them to provide transparency about why they’ve shifted focus away from such foundational solutions. Their 2024 National Impact Report leaves many unanswered questions about their role in addressing root causes like overpopulation. Transparency would help donors and stakeholders better understand how their contributions are being used to drive systemic change.
We need a complete and total moratorium on animal breeding for say 25 years. A closure of all pet stores as they sell inferior left over stock from breeders and puppy farms, and inappropriate animals for pets. That would bring down existing populations. Then breeding can start again w a license only.
Paul, thank you for sharing your perspective! The idea of a moratorium on breeding and stricter regulations on pet stores certainly highlights the urgency of addressing overpopulation and ensuring the welfare of animals. While such measures might seem extreme to some, they do emphasize the importance of tackling root causes like irresponsible breeding and the sale of pets from unethical sources.
In the meantime, focusing on promoting adoption, spay/neuter programs, and community education can also make a significant impact on reducing shelter populations and improving animal welfare. It’s a complex issue, but discussions like this help bring attention to solutions that could create lasting change for animals in need. Thank you for being so passionate about this important cause!
The first point to realize about any organization's "national impact report" or more modestly titled "annual report" to donors is that it is essentially sales literature, not actually meant to measure or assess anything but the depth of donors' wallets & gullibility.
The first point to realize about the Best Friends Animal Society's "national impact report" is that it is colossally dishonest in claiming credit for 40 years of progress in which Best Friends for nearly half of that time had no national visibility and even regionally was barely even a player. By the time the first Best Friends "No More Homeless Pets" conference was held, U.S. shelter killing had already dropped from 17.8 million animals in 1984 to 4.9 million, chiefly through the advent of low-cost, high-volume spay/neuter, the advancement of which Best Friends had little or nothing to do with.
Incidentally, Shelter Animals Count calls dead animals "non-alive outcomes." That sort of euphemistic hogwash is among the major smiley-faced BS contributions of Best Friends to discussion of animal sheltering issues, rapidly emulated by much of the rest of the animal sheltering community, to the detriment of accurate discussion of such issues as dangerous dogs and cat abandonment, the major portion of which these days appears to be done by shelters using the Best Friends/Maddie's Fund playbook in the name of "Return to Field."
Thank you for sharing these detailed insights, Merritt! You raise some critical points regarding the pivotal role that low-cost, high-volume spay/neuter programs played in reducing shelter euthanasia long before Best Friends became a prominent player. Also, the discrepancies in their reported euthanasia numbers, as well as the euphemistic language used in sheltering discussions deserve closer scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability. Your perspective adds valuable depth to the conversation, and I appreciate your commitment to fostering accurate and honest dialogue on these critical issues. Thank you for contributing!
Carmen, "sleight of mind" is a brilliant way to put it! Claiming others' achievements as their own does seem to be part of the playbook, and it’s a tactic that seems specifically designed to mislead donors. Thanks for sharing your sharp insight!
I appreciate your sharing these perspectives, Ed. I worked for Best Friend for 14 years, nearly half of my 30-year animal career, and left in May of 2023, primarily because of the misguided direction and priorities that you describe in this piece. When I left, I walked away from an $82K salary (and haven't had a full-time job since) because I knew I could no longer be part of what had become a massive fundraising machine that had lost its focus on the animals and actual solutions.
I had been involved with Best Friends/No More Homeless Pets in Utah (later No-Kill Utah) since 1999, and still cannot believe they turned their back on proven solutions like spay/neuter. I was on the front lines through this whole, mindblowing evolution. From the Big Fix mobile clinic, and Hooters for Neuters, to free/discount vouchers, and multiple low-cost clinics, then to virtual silence on spay/neuter and only supporting TNR and spay/neuter on the Navajo Nation. From 2021 to 2023, when I left, I tried to push multiple people to bring spay/neuter back to the forefront, and was told at least five different reasons why it was no longer a priority. (None of which were valid, in my opinion.) For the last seven months I was there, I moved to a different role, where I was supposedly the "owner" of thought leadership, and for a moment I thought I could make a difference. I had a whole list of topics for media outreach that I thought could begin to get people talking about the right issues and solutions, post-pandemic, but everything was shot down. It was traumatic and heartbreaking to walk away, but I knew I had to and I know I made the right decision. The more I hear others seeing and saying the things that hurt my heart for the last few years I was there, the more I know I didn't imagine any of it.
I still hope to make a difference by changing the dialogue. Thanks for all you do.
Temma, thank you for sharing your story and for your years of dedication to animal welfare. It takes incredible courage to walk away from a role and organization you were so deeply committed to, especially when it meant standing up for what you believe in.
Your firsthand experience and insights into the shift in priorities at Best Friends are invaluable, and it’s clear how much you care about real, lasting solutions like spay/neuter programs. The work you’ve done over your career has undoubtedly made a difference, and your continued voice in changing the dialogue is inspiring.
Thank you for your honesty, passion, and commitment to making a meaningful impact for the animals. Keep pushing forward—you’re making a difference!
Best Friends, and the shelters under their influence, love to boast about their great adoption numbers. Generally, these are accomplished by reducing adoption requirements and adoption fees. But these numbers are meaningless without follow-up to determine how many of these animals are still in their adoptive homes after 6 months, 1 year, etc. How many of these adopted animals are returned to the shelters, and how many are turned away due to the selective intake policies promoted by Best Friends?
Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing your perspective! You’re right that adoption numbers alone don’t tell the full story. Metrics like how many adopted pets remain in their homes after six months or a year, as well as the impact of selective intake policies, are critical for assessing the true success of these programs. It’s an important point that raises questions about transparency and accountability in how shelters and organizations measure their progress. Thank you for bringing this up—it’s such a vital part of the conversation about meaningful, lasting change in animal welfare!
Watching Best Friends become involved in our city shelter and seeing first hand the down right scary tactics they are being convinced to implement leaves me holding my breath for the tragedy that is inevitable. Managed intake helps no one, it's an out of sight, out of mind mentality and just because they weren't humanely euthanized in a shelter doesn't mean they are living a good life elsewhere.
Excellent post….I would love nothing more than to make Best Friends explain why they have moved away from putting dollars toward and helping shelters to implement spay/neuter programs. It makes zero sense!
Thank you, Yvonne! The lack of investment in spay/neuter programs is perplexing given their proven effectiveness in reducing shelter intake and euthanasia rates. One possible explanation could be that Best Friends benefits from maintaining a crisis narrative to sustain donor engagement and fundraising momentum. If that’s not the case, it becomes even more critical for them to provide transparency about why they’ve shifted focus away from such foundational solutions. Their 2024 National Impact Report leaves many unanswered questions about their role in addressing root causes like overpopulation. Transparency would help donors and stakeholders better understand how their contributions are being used to drive systemic change.
We need a complete and total moratorium on animal breeding for say 25 years. A closure of all pet stores as they sell inferior left over stock from breeders and puppy farms, and inappropriate animals for pets. That would bring down existing populations. Then breeding can start again w a license only.
Paul, thank you for sharing your perspective! The idea of a moratorium on breeding and stricter regulations on pet stores certainly highlights the urgency of addressing overpopulation and ensuring the welfare of animals. While such measures might seem extreme to some, they do emphasize the importance of tackling root causes like irresponsible breeding and the sale of pets from unethical sources.
In the meantime, focusing on promoting adoption, spay/neuter programs, and community education can also make a significant impact on reducing shelter populations and improving animal welfare. It’s a complex issue, but discussions like this help bring attention to solutions that could create lasting change for animals in need. Thank you for being so passionate about this important cause!
I agree. My idea, which I've had for a long time is draconian, but seems prudent to stop inflow when ourtflow is overtopping. Just a dream.
The first point to realize about any organization's "national impact report" or more modestly titled "annual report" to donors is that it is essentially sales literature, not actually meant to measure or assess anything but the depth of donors' wallets & gullibility.
The first point to realize about the Best Friends Animal Society's "national impact report" is that it is colossally dishonest in claiming credit for 40 years of progress in which Best Friends for nearly half of that time had no national visibility and even regionally was barely even a player. By the time the first Best Friends "No More Homeless Pets" conference was held, U.S. shelter killing had already dropped from 17.8 million animals in 1984 to 4.9 million, chiefly through the advent of low-cost, high-volume spay/neuter, the advancement of which Best Friends had little or nothing to do with.
Beyond that, the Best Friends claim of "only" 415,000 shelter animals euthanized in 2023 is substantially less than the toll of 689,000 reported by Shelter Animals Count, the most credible organization currently collecting & evaluating shelter data: https://www.shelteranimalscount.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Full-Year-2023-Report.pdf
Further, Shelter Animals Count found 369,000 shelter animals were euthanized in just the first half of 2024: https://www.shelteranimalscount.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Mid-Year-2024-Report-6.pdf
Incidentally, Shelter Animals Count calls dead animals "non-alive outcomes." That sort of euphemistic hogwash is among the major smiley-faced BS contributions of Best Friends to discussion of animal sheltering issues, rapidly emulated by much of the rest of the animal sheltering community, to the detriment of accurate discussion of such issues as dangerous dogs and cat abandonment, the major portion of which these days appears to be done by shelters using the Best Friends/Maddie's Fund playbook in the name of "Return to Field."
Thank you for sharing these detailed insights, Merritt! You raise some critical points regarding the pivotal role that low-cost, high-volume spay/neuter programs played in reducing shelter euthanasia long before Best Friends became a prominent player. Also, the discrepancies in their reported euthanasia numbers, as well as the euphemistic language used in sheltering discussions deserve closer scrutiny to ensure transparency and accountability. Your perspective adds valuable depth to the conversation, and I appreciate your commitment to fostering accurate and honest dialogue on these critical issues. Thank you for contributing!
Best Friends strategy is claiming the achievements of others as their own. I call it "sleight of mind".
Carmen, "sleight of mind" is a brilliant way to put it! Claiming others' achievements as their own does seem to be part of the playbook, and it’s a tactic that seems specifically designed to mislead donors. Thanks for sharing your sharp insight!
I appreciate your sharing these perspectives, Ed. I worked for Best Friend for 14 years, nearly half of my 30-year animal career, and left in May of 2023, primarily because of the misguided direction and priorities that you describe in this piece. When I left, I walked away from an $82K salary (and haven't had a full-time job since) because I knew I could no longer be part of what had become a massive fundraising machine that had lost its focus on the animals and actual solutions.
I had been involved with Best Friends/No More Homeless Pets in Utah (later No-Kill Utah) since 1999, and still cannot believe they turned their back on proven solutions like spay/neuter. I was on the front lines through this whole, mindblowing evolution. From the Big Fix mobile clinic, and Hooters for Neuters, to free/discount vouchers, and multiple low-cost clinics, then to virtual silence on spay/neuter and only supporting TNR and spay/neuter on the Navajo Nation. From 2021 to 2023, when I left, I tried to push multiple people to bring spay/neuter back to the forefront, and was told at least five different reasons why it was no longer a priority. (None of which were valid, in my opinion.) For the last seven months I was there, I moved to a different role, where I was supposedly the "owner" of thought leadership, and for a moment I thought I could make a difference. I had a whole list of topics for media outreach that I thought could begin to get people talking about the right issues and solutions, post-pandemic, but everything was shot down. It was traumatic and heartbreaking to walk away, but I knew I had to and I know I made the right decision. The more I hear others seeing and saying the things that hurt my heart for the last few years I was there, the more I know I didn't imagine any of it.
I still hope to make a difference by changing the dialogue. Thanks for all you do.
Temma, thank you for sharing your story and for your years of dedication to animal welfare. It takes incredible courage to walk away from a role and organization you were so deeply committed to, especially when it meant standing up for what you believe in.
Your firsthand experience and insights into the shift in priorities at Best Friends are invaluable, and it’s clear how much you care about real, lasting solutions like spay/neuter programs. The work you’ve done over your career has undoubtedly made a difference, and your continued voice in changing the dialogue is inspiring.
Thank you for your honesty, passion, and commitment to making a meaningful impact for the animals. Keep pushing forward—you’re making a difference!
Best Friends, and the shelters under their influence, love to boast about their great adoption numbers. Generally, these are accomplished by reducing adoption requirements and adoption fees. But these numbers are meaningless without follow-up to determine how many of these animals are still in their adoptive homes after 6 months, 1 year, etc. How many of these adopted animals are returned to the shelters, and how many are turned away due to the selective intake policies promoted by Best Friends?
Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing your perspective! You’re right that adoption numbers alone don’t tell the full story. Metrics like how many adopted pets remain in their homes after six months or a year, as well as the impact of selective intake policies, are critical for assessing the true success of these programs. It’s an important point that raises questions about transparency and accountability in how shelters and organizations measure their progress. Thank you for bringing this up—it’s such a vital part of the conversation about meaningful, lasting change in animal welfare!
Watching Best Friends become involved in our city shelter and seeing first hand the down right scary tactics they are being convinced to implement leaves me holding my breath for the tragedy that is inevitable. Managed intake helps no one, it's an out of sight, out of mind mentality and just because they weren't humanely euthanized in a shelter doesn't mean they are living a good life elsewhere.