San Diego Humane Society Weaponizes Compassion to Protect Power

As SDHS warns of dogs in the streets and gutted enforcement, critics reveal a nonprofit empire built on fear, bloated salaries, and a war against transparency

A looming $3.5 million cut to the San Diego Humane Society's (SDHS) city contract threatens public safety and animal welfare. But emerging evidence suggests this crisis stems less from fiscal necessity and more from deep-seated mismanagement, misplaced priorities, and a troubling lack of transparency.

Mayor Todd Gloria’s proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget aims to close a $258 million deficit by slashing funding across public services—libraries, arts programs, and animal care included. SDHS' contract would drop from $16.8 million to $13.3 million, a 20% reduction. In response, SDHS leadership warns of immediate service reductions in humane law enforcement and spay/neuter access. Yet whistleblower reports, court findings, and SDHS' own public messaging reveal a far more complex and troubling picture.

Behind a no-kill brand and emotionally charged rhetoric, SDHS has built a carefully curated public image. Critics allege that while it promotes compassion publicly, the organization has failed to deliver core services, suppressed criticism, and shielded executive perks. From a court finding of illegal cat abandonment and allegations of misallocated state funds to generous executive compensation and troubling animal transport incidents, SDHS faces growing scrutiny. This is not just a funding debate—it’s a reckoning with what some critics describe as a nonprofit more concerned with self-preservation than public accountability.

Funding Cuts Expose Deeper Failings at SDHS

Illegal Cat Abandonment:

A December 2024 Superior Court ruling found SDHS in violation of state law for releasing adoptable cats into the streets under its Community Cat Program. Internal emails expressed fears of public backlash should the policy come to light—highlighting a willful lack of transparency. Despite the ruling, SDHS continues to fight the court injunction, demonstrating a continued disregard for legal and ethical standards in animal care. While SDHS now frames its budget battle as a matter of "public safety," it simultaneously defends in court its right to abandon tame cats into unprepared neighborhoods—a practice ruled illegal and inherently unsafe.

Transport Scandal:

According to whistleblower reports and third-party accounts, SDHS has also been linked to a disturbing incident involving the transport and subsequent death of small animals—including rabbits and pocket pets—allegedly frozen and fed to reptiles in Arizona. While the partner agency’s CEO was fired, no action was taken against Weitzman. Requests for related internal records, including from city contract partner San Marcos, were reportedly denied.

Misuse of State Funds:

SDHS received $727,182 from California's $50 million "For All Animals" initiative, yet allocated little of it to spay/neuter services. Meanwhile, less wealthy agencies were denied funding. With only 19% of spay/neuter grant requests fulfilled statewide, SDHS’ outsized share raises serious equity and efficacy concerns.

Executive Compensation:

Public records show CEO Gary Weitzman earning more than $38,000 a month—nearly twice the salary of the mayor of San Diego—while SDHS retains an estimated dozen overpaid vice presidents with bloated salaries. IRS Form 990 also shows $30,769 in “other reportable compensation” paid to William Ganley, the organization’s Sacramento-based Vice President of Humane Law Enforcement. This appears to confirm whistleblower allegations that SDHS was using donor or taxpayer funds to cover commuting and lodging expenses. These expenses raise red flags as frontline services face cuts.

Untapped Reserves:

Despite amassing nearly $125 million in assets and approaching a $250 million fundraising goal, SDHS claims it cannot absorb a temporary $3.5 million reduction. Weitzman recently admitted in a donor appeal that SDHS uses charitable donations to subsidize city contracts. Yet much of that fundraising is arguably made possible by the visibility, credibility, and operational scale the city contract provides. If SDHS can leverage public work to solicit private dollars, why aren’t those reserves being used to bridge shortfalls—especially instead of threatening core services?

Broken Promises to Cities:

Weitzman has signed contracts with over a dozen municipalities across San Diego County, allegedly promising services—including adoption centers for lost animals—that never materialized. These commitments remain unfulfilled, leaving taxpayers and local governments holding the bag.

Token Spay/Neuter Access:

San Diego's public voucher program, administered by SDHS, offers only 20 slots monthly—grossly insufficient. Yet SDHS frames potential cuts to this underperforming program as catastrophic. Notably, SDHS itself proposed eliminating the spay/neuter voucher program during budget negotiations—further evidence that prevention is not a genuine priority.

Lavish Spending and Lobbying:

Whistleblowers allege that SDHS executives routinely use donor and taxpayer dollars for travel, hotel stays, and entertainment—while simultaneously lobbying in Sacramento against animal welfare reforms. This includes opposition to transparency legislation such as AB 2265, which SDHS claimed would subject it to "bullying”. SDHS even recruited dozens of veterinarians to argue—falsely, according to critics—that there aren't enough vets to meet spay/neuter demand.

Conditional Commitment:

In his recent letter to donors, Weitzman implies that SDHS may withdraw from providing animal services altogether if the city does not meet funding demands. This posture raises questions about the organization's true commitment to public service and its willingness to leverage animals and public safety as bargaining chips. In a recent radio interview, he claimed all humane law enforcement officers would lose their jobs and warned of dogs running wild in the streets with no response. Critics contend that this fear-based messaging may be aimed at pressuring city officials and maintaining funding, while deflecting scrutiny from SDHS’s financial choices and substantial reserves.

A National Pattern of Neglect and Spin

San Diego’s situation mirrors a wider national trend. Groups like SDHS and Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) promote themselves as "no-kill" leaders, though critics contend that some of their policies, particularly community release and managed intake, prioritize optics over outcomes and may actually perpetuate ongoing pet overpopulation.

Abandonment Rebranded:

By reclassifying adoptable animals as "community animals" and releasing them to fend for themselves, SDHS and its peers bypass the burden of care. A California court has now called this what it is: illegal abandonment.

Prevention Discarded:

High-quality, high-volume (HQHV) spay/neuter has long proven effective at reducing shelter intake. Yet SDHS and BFAS have diverted resources and attention away from prevention, favoring adoption campaigns and transport programs that treat symptoms, not causes.

Metrics Over Mission:

The pursuit of high "live release" rates has led to managed intake and community release policies that inflate success on paper but fail animals and neighborhoods in reality.

Outsourcing Without Oversight

The SDHS controversy reveals a crucial risk: when cities outsource animal care to private contractors, they remain legally and financially liable. If a contractor like SDHS breaks the law or mismanages funds, municipalities—and taxpayers—face the fallout.

Despite its significant financial resources, SDHS has been sharply criticized for prioritizing cost-cutting measures over humane solutions like expanded spay/neuter programs and meaningful adoption initiatives. Instead, it chose to defend these controversial practices by retaining the powerhouse international law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP to argue in court for its right to abandon adoptable cats outdoors.

While it remains unclear whether the firm donated its services or was compensated, the optics remain troubling: SDHS aligned itself with elite legal counsel to defend cost-cutting measures, even while citing financial strain. Critics argue the decision raises fundamental questions about whether the organization’s financial choices reflect its stated mission to protect vulnerable animals.

Beyond legal exposure, there is a deeper political risk: contractors can hold cities hostage by rallying public opinion through emotional appeals and fear-based messaging. As seen in SDHS’ recent campaign—and consistent with tactics employed by Best Friends Animal Society in other jurisdictions—organizations may mobilize donors and supporters to pressure elected officials, threatening service withdrawal, public safety crises, or reputational harm to gain leverage in contract negotiations. San Diego must implement stringent audits, enforce compliance, and demand clear reporting to ensure legal and ethical standards are met.

Restoring Trust Through Prevention and Oversight

True no-kill success requires more than marketing. It demands transparency, accountability, and a commitment to prevention. San Diego’s leaders must require SDHS to align its strategies with humane outcomes, not PR metrics.

Recommendations:

• Demand Transparency: Require SDHS to disclose line-item budgets, including executive salaries, travel expenses, and reserve allocations before approving contracts.

• Redirect Funds to Prevention: Prioritize robust HQHV spay/neuter programs that reduce intake and long-term costs.

• Leverage Reserves: SDHS should tap into its substantial assets to absorb temporary cuts without sacrificing public safety or animal care.

• Establish Independent Oversight: Form a task force to audit SDHS’ legal compliance, fiscal responsibility, and program performance.

A Moral and Fiscal Imperative

Animal welfare isn’t discretionary spending—it’s a reflection of our compassion and fiscal foresight. Failing to fund it wisely results in more suffering, higher costs, and legal risk.

San Diego has an opportunity to lead by holding SDHS accountable. The public comment period on the budget is open until June. Now is the time for San Diegans to demand reform—not just to protect animals, but to uphold transparency, ethics, and trust in public governance.

Make Your Voice Heard

San Diegans concerned about the future of animal welfare, public safety, and government transparency should speak out. Contact your city leaders and demand that public funds be used responsibly, with full transparency and accountability from SDHS.

• Mayor Todd Gloria
  Phone: (619) 236-6330
  Email: mayortoddgloria@sandiego.gov

• San Diego City Council
  Public Comment Portal: sandiegov/boards-and-commissions/publiccomment
  Budget Review Committee Hearing: May 5, 6:00 PM
  City Council Meeting: May 19, 6:00 PM

Let city officials know that San Diego deserves animal services rooted in compassion, prevention, and public trust—not fear campaigns and donor-driven lobbying.

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.

Stay Informed

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