I have heavily dove into this research. The research Hurley is using to support her statements is fraudulent in my opinion. Her main paper, “ Rethinking the Animal Shelter's Role in Free-Roaming Cat Management” is the cumulative basis for her position and it has significant flaws. First, she does not report a conflict of interest nor monetary influence, yet UC Davis Koret shelter medicine, which is her employer who is funded by Maddie’s Fund gives millions to support her million pet challenge and research. As you are aware I’m sure, Maddie’s also created and funds shelter animal counts database and changed their focus many times on how to get to no kill, which was then adopted and promoted by best friends who Maddie’s Fund also supports with millions each year. Second, the part of the research about the effectiveness and greatness of the CCP in the paper is sparsely cited and the citation that are listed are either from other researchers that Maddie’s fund gives money to, or Wolfe who is at Best Friends which is also funded by Maddie’s Fund. Thirdly, at least two of the citations used to quote statistics do not even have the statistic quoted in the original citation. It seems as if the percentage was made up in thin air because even looking at results data rawly one cannot come up with that statistic. Fourthly, she picked and chooses research that supported her position. Several studies out of the UK show that socialization level can be determined and that disease prevalence in a shelter drops if you provide cat rooms instead of cages. Hurley’s own research shows the disease prevalence is decreased if the cats are housed properly. Fifthly, she cites the national animal care and control association position paper which she was the sole contributor to, the ASV guidelines which her and Julie Levy penned (of note Levy is director of aU of Florida shelter medicine which Maddie’s fund gives millions to), and they use the data from shelter animal counts which as noted above Maddie’s Fund also gives millions too. The relationships are incestuous and is it really research or just smoke and mirrors. From someone with a doctorate who went through a problem based learning program where I had to rely on research and critically look at the methodology to learn, I would say this research is lower than a single case study which is bottom of the barrel in terms of evidence to show anything.
If anything, I would hope judge Bacal can see through all the “research” and see that it is nothing more than printed doctrine used to control the narrative.
Thank you, Kelly, for your thoughtful and detailed comment! You’ve clearly invested significant time and effort into researching this topic, and your insights are incredibly valuable. The points you raise about potential conflicts of interest and the methodology behind Dr. Hurley’s research are critical to consider, especially in a case with such far-reaching implications for animal welfare practices.
Your critique of the interconnected funding relationships and citation practices raises an important question about transparency and credibility in research used to justify programs like SDHS’s Community Cat Program. It’s essential that research supporting such initiatives is held to the highest standards of rigor and impartiality. The concerns you’ve outlined about selective use of data, unverified statistics, and self-referential citations are certainly worth further scrutiny.
I also appreciate your point about the need for judges to critically evaluate the evidence presented, particularly when it comes to research that may shape public policy. Cases like this underscore the importance of ensuring that decisions are based on sound science rather than narratives shaped by funding or institutional agendas.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective—it adds an important layer to this discussion. I’ll continue to follow this case closely and will keep your observations in mind as we await Judge Bacal’s ruling.
Is this the same San Diego shelter that sent a huge transport of rabbits and guinea pigs to a rescue that was actually a reptile breeder? This is really sad.
Yikes. Hope someone is able to figure out what is going on there because San Diego is an easier place to adopt out an animal than most places even in the current crisis. They definitely have the funding, maybe that's the problem.
Not to say it's easy to adopt out hundreds of animals in a bad economy but pushing them off on the community or collecting donations to quietly and inhumanely euthanize them is not the solution.
I listened to Kate Hurley's testimony online. She told so many outright lies while being questioned by the Humane Society's lawyer. Ugh. She claimed cats who live outside live longer than indoor cats and that 90% of outdoor cats have excellent body composition scores. The judge turned off the online link for the cross examination; I was really looking forward to seeing Bryan Pease call her out on her lies and the "data" she claimed to have, despite not tracking any of the dumped cats. My neighbor feeds the abandoned cats in the neighborhood. They are around for a year or less before they "disappear". Before "disappearing" they eat the lizards and birds in my yard. We live near a large canyon/park with lots of coyotes, hawks, foxes, owls, raccoons, etc. The streets are narrow and jam packed with cars that drive over the speed limit. My indoor cats lived 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 years. My indoor/outdoor cats lived 7 and 12 years. Not a statistical sampling, but mimics reality. There needs to be more spay/neuter programs by the San Diego Humane Society and less administrators making GIANT salaries.
We in the animal welfare industry have been telling cat owners for decades that outdoor cats live about 1/3rd the lifespan of indoor cats, and during that time they are dealing with traffic, wildlife, poisons, and hateful humans. Outdoor cats live horrific lives and SDHS' attempt to turn this well known knowledge on its head is borderline criminal.
I don't live in the US so my opinion may be somewhat skewed.
I believe, in fact I know, both dogs and cats can live happy, healthy lives independently (I despise both the terms 'street' and 'stray'). I know there are dangers and pitfalls of all kinds but I believe they need to be addressed separately and even home-living animals are not immune to some of these threats.
However, I live in Bulgaria and the situation here is somewhat different. Nonetheless, it would be wonderful if all cats and dogs had great homes - but where are they? World over, this problem exists, too many dogs, cats (and you can probably add horses to this) and not enough homes. With the way the world is right now, this isn't going to change anytime soon.
I believe we must opperate on the 'doing the very best we can' approach. This doesn't mean turning cats loose to simply fend for themselves, but after neutering, releasing where they can be fed, provide shelter, monitor health etc. It is a far more acceptable solution, to me, than euthanasia.
Remanon, thank you so much for sharing your perspective! I completely understand where you're coming from, especially given the different circumstances in Bulgaria. You're absolutely right—there are many places in the world where animals, particularly cats and dogs, can live independently and still have fulfilling lives. I also agree that the terms "street" and "stray" can carry negative connotations.
The global issue of too many animals and not enough homes is indeed a challenge we all face, and I appreciate your thoughtful approach of "doing the very best we can." Neutering, providing food, shelter, and monitoring their health is a compassionate solution that balances their well-being with the realities of overpopulation. It's certainly a more humane alternative to euthanasia, and if this were the approach taken in San Diego, I would endorse it - but these cats are just being released with no assurance of food/water/shelter or security from predation. I think many of us in animal welfare share your hope for better solutions as we continue to navigate these complex issues.
Thanks again for your thoughtful input—it’s always helpful to hear perspectives from different parts of the world!
I agree that it is completely wrong to not support these cats, it's no different than taking someone raised in the city and dropping them in the bush and expecting them to survive! Actually, not even the bush, just in the countryside without fast food and flushing toilets!!
I have heavily dove into this research. The research Hurley is using to support her statements is fraudulent in my opinion. Her main paper, “ Rethinking the Animal Shelter's Role in Free-Roaming Cat Management” is the cumulative basis for her position and it has significant flaws. First, she does not report a conflict of interest nor monetary influence, yet UC Davis Koret shelter medicine, which is her employer who is funded by Maddie’s Fund gives millions to support her million pet challenge and research. As you are aware I’m sure, Maddie’s also created and funds shelter animal counts database and changed their focus many times on how to get to no kill, which was then adopted and promoted by best friends who Maddie’s Fund also supports with millions each year. Second, the part of the research about the effectiveness and greatness of the CCP in the paper is sparsely cited and the citation that are listed are either from other researchers that Maddie’s fund gives money to, or Wolfe who is at Best Friends which is also funded by Maddie’s Fund. Thirdly, at least two of the citations used to quote statistics do not even have the statistic quoted in the original citation. It seems as if the percentage was made up in thin air because even looking at results data rawly one cannot come up with that statistic. Fourthly, she picked and chooses research that supported her position. Several studies out of the UK show that socialization level can be determined and that disease prevalence in a shelter drops if you provide cat rooms instead of cages. Hurley’s own research shows the disease prevalence is decreased if the cats are housed properly. Fifthly, she cites the national animal care and control association position paper which she was the sole contributor to, the ASV guidelines which her and Julie Levy penned (of note Levy is director of aU of Florida shelter medicine which Maddie’s fund gives millions to), and they use the data from shelter animal counts which as noted above Maddie’s Fund also gives millions too. The relationships are incestuous and is it really research or just smoke and mirrors. From someone with a doctorate who went through a problem based learning program where I had to rely on research and critically look at the methodology to learn, I would say this research is lower than a single case study which is bottom of the barrel in terms of evidence to show anything.
If anything, I would hope judge Bacal can see through all the “research” and see that it is nothing more than printed doctrine used to control the narrative.
Thank you, Kelly, for your thoughtful and detailed comment! You’ve clearly invested significant time and effort into researching this topic, and your insights are incredibly valuable. The points you raise about potential conflicts of interest and the methodology behind Dr. Hurley’s research are critical to consider, especially in a case with such far-reaching implications for animal welfare practices.
Your critique of the interconnected funding relationships and citation practices raises an important question about transparency and credibility in research used to justify programs like SDHS’s Community Cat Program. It’s essential that research supporting such initiatives is held to the highest standards of rigor and impartiality. The concerns you’ve outlined about selective use of data, unverified statistics, and self-referential citations are certainly worth further scrutiny.
I also appreciate your point about the need for judges to critically evaluate the evidence presented, particularly when it comes to research that may shape public policy. Cases like this underscore the importance of ensuring that decisions are based on sound science rather than narratives shaped by funding or institutional agendas.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective—it adds an important layer to this discussion. I’ll continue to follow this case closely and will keep your observations in mind as we await Judge Bacal’s ruling.
Is this the same San Diego shelter that sent a huge transport of rabbits and guinea pigs to a rescue that was actually a reptile breeder? This is really sad.
It is.
Yikes. Hope someone is able to figure out what is going on there because San Diego is an easier place to adopt out an animal than most places even in the current crisis. They definitely have the funding, maybe that's the problem.
Not to say it's easy to adopt out hundreds of animals in a bad economy but pushing them off on the community or collecting donations to quietly and inhumanely euthanize them is not the solution.
Thank you! Please post updates whenever you can.
I listened to Kate Hurley's testimony online. She told so many outright lies while being questioned by the Humane Society's lawyer. Ugh. She claimed cats who live outside live longer than indoor cats and that 90% of outdoor cats have excellent body composition scores. The judge turned off the online link for the cross examination; I was really looking forward to seeing Bryan Pease call her out on her lies and the "data" she claimed to have, despite not tracking any of the dumped cats. My neighbor feeds the abandoned cats in the neighborhood. They are around for a year or less before they "disappear". Before "disappearing" they eat the lizards and birds in my yard. We live near a large canyon/park with lots of coyotes, hawks, foxes, owls, raccoons, etc. The streets are narrow and jam packed with cars that drive over the speed limit. My indoor cats lived 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 years. My indoor/outdoor cats lived 7 and 12 years. Not a statistical sampling, but mimics reality. There needs to be more spay/neuter programs by the San Diego Humane Society and less administrators making GIANT salaries.
We in the animal welfare industry have been telling cat owners for decades that outdoor cats live about 1/3rd the lifespan of indoor cats, and during that time they are dealing with traffic, wildlife, poisons, and hateful humans. Outdoor cats live horrific lives and SDHS' attempt to turn this well known knowledge on its head is borderline criminal.
I don't live in the US so my opinion may be somewhat skewed.
I believe, in fact I know, both dogs and cats can live happy, healthy lives independently (I despise both the terms 'street' and 'stray'). I know there are dangers and pitfalls of all kinds but I believe they need to be addressed separately and even home-living animals are not immune to some of these threats.
However, I live in Bulgaria and the situation here is somewhat different. Nonetheless, it would be wonderful if all cats and dogs had great homes - but where are they? World over, this problem exists, too many dogs, cats (and you can probably add horses to this) and not enough homes. With the way the world is right now, this isn't going to change anytime soon.
I believe we must opperate on the 'doing the very best we can' approach. This doesn't mean turning cats loose to simply fend for themselves, but after neutering, releasing where they can be fed, provide shelter, monitor health etc. It is a far more acceptable solution, to me, than euthanasia.
Remanon, thank you so much for sharing your perspective! I completely understand where you're coming from, especially given the different circumstances in Bulgaria. You're absolutely right—there are many places in the world where animals, particularly cats and dogs, can live independently and still have fulfilling lives. I also agree that the terms "street" and "stray" can carry negative connotations.
The global issue of too many animals and not enough homes is indeed a challenge we all face, and I appreciate your thoughtful approach of "doing the very best we can." Neutering, providing food, shelter, and monitoring their health is a compassionate solution that balances their well-being with the realities of overpopulation. It's certainly a more humane alternative to euthanasia, and if this were the approach taken in San Diego, I would endorse it - but these cats are just being released with no assurance of food/water/shelter or security from predation. I think many of us in animal welfare share your hope for better solutions as we continue to navigate these complex issues.
Thanks again for your thoughtful input—it’s always helpful to hear perspectives from different parts of the world!
I agree that it is completely wrong to not support these cats, it's no different than taking someone raised in the city and dropping them in the bush and expecting them to survive! Actually, not even the bush, just in the countryside without fast food and flushing toilets!!
We will find solutions, I'm confident of that.