The public is also unaware that the SD Humane society Zero Euthanasia status is a joke! They do euthanize animals but they get away with it as labeling them with a U/U at intake. It means Unhealthy/ Untreatable. By labeling U/U they have the ability to euthanize them and still claiming to be a zero euthanasia shelter. All kittens under 8 weeks old are labeled U/U as soon as they enter the shelter and I’m sure same policy applies to any domestic animals under 8 weeks old in their care. The amount of kittens that were euthanized just because they didn’t have space is disturbing. These are kittens that had no medical concerns or had recovered from an illness and could have been adopted but instead were killed to make space for more and get more money! Unfortunately as long as they use the U/U labeling they will continue to dispose of them as they please. And yes they do dump friendly cats on the street because they claim their “behavior department” assessed them and declares them feral. Also a lie! This report is from 2021/2022 https://secure.sdhumane.org/site/DocServer/SDHS_Asilomar_FY_21-22.pdf
Sam, thank you for sharing this detailed insight! The information about the U/U labeling is deeply troubling and highlights yet another layer of concern regarding SDHS’ practices. It’s especially disturbing to learn how this classification may be used to manipulate euthanasia statistics while undermining the public perception of a "zero euthanasia" status. The report you linked is an important piece of evidence, and I appreciate you bringing it to light. Transparency and accountability are critical, and voices like yours play a vital role in exposing these issues. Thank you for contributing to this important conversation!
What stands out to me the most is the U/U behavior for a rabbit and coup of U/U for others. It would be interesting to know what animals the others were. I can’t see needing to put down a rabbit for behavior as it is not like it will attach like a dog and kill someone. Rabbits are temperamental to begin with and don’t like being picked up or sometimes even pet. I have suspected for over a year now that they are euthanizing far more than reporting and provoking animals into the U/U behavior category. I have heard it from 4 credible sources, one being a former employee who shared the freezer door had been left open and there was a pile of 40 or so dogs. Another former employee, a humane law enforcement officer, shared a story of picking up kittens who were not that old and upon arrival they were sent straight to euthanasia. Too many stories being told by credible people. Most recently, they have killed guinea pigs taken from a hoarding situation by spay/neutering them. It’s a risk to spay/ neuter guinea pigs to begin with let alone ones who likely have some level of scurvy from not being properly cared for and some likely pregnant from being hosted with males. The local small animal rescue was asked why they did not spay and neuter the 121 guinea pigs they took in from a hoarding situation and they stated the above about it being too high risk due to lack of previous care and pregnancy possibilities. If a small rescue has this knowledge and gets little to no funding, it’s alarming that the humane society who gets tens of millions lacks this knowledge. Perhaps they should spend money on CEUS for vets and not on lectures from Kate Hurley preaching her unscientific doctrine about the wonders of community cats? However, this is very similar to what they did in 2014 or so with the hundreds of chinchillas they got when the late Dam Simone bought the chinchilla ranch with PETA and SDHS made a spectacle of it and refused a world renown exotic vet’s offer for consultation regarding spay/neuter. They killed a lot of the chinchillas in their inexperienced attempts at the surgeries while refusing true expert advice.
Thank you, Kelly, you’ve highlighted some critical issues, particularly around the classification of animals as "Unhealthy/Untreatable" (U/U) and the transparency of euthanasia practices. The examples you provided underscore the need for more consistent protocols and better accountability in how shelters handle vulnerable animals. It’s especially troubling to hear about credible reports of questionable practices, as well as the risks associated with spay/neuter procedures for small animals without proper expertise or consultation.
Your point about transparency is spot on—shelters must provide clear, accessible data and adhere to best practices to maintain public trust. Thank you for raising these important issues and contributing to this vital conversation!
The “Others” are any domestic animals. Not sure why they don’t list the actual species. Those could be, Hamsters, Rats, Birds, reptiles and farm animals, are some that come to mind. Project Wildlife which has merged with the sd humane society has their own separate euthanasia list and criteria and the numbers are not included in the humane society report.
I know Guinea pigs and chinchilla are also in that category. I wish they would list the species. For example, if it was a snake for behavior, biting is pretty par the course. Or if it is a guinea pig, they bite when scared at times but will not harm you. Just trying to conceptualize dangerous behavior of an “other animal” because it seems absurd, if not more so than the rabbit
There are many examples of obfuscation in the animal world. For example, the many different names they give to the HASS model- community centric sheltering, limited intake, community cats and dogs, foster based sheltering, etc. They also do that with animals names at SDHS. They name dozens of consecutive cat intakes the exact name. A lot of small rescues will not name an animal the same name they used before to reduce confusion. Just in one month they named at least 10 cats with “other” outcomes Luna at SDHS. One has to ask why?
Thank you Sam for providing further evidence in addition to what many advocates have been alerting for YEARS. The SCAM of national animal welfare orgs using pets as disposable fundraising props amassing billions. Now we see the unavoidable results of Best Friends et al doctrine, unattainable cult psychology motto "save them all" rallying donations while dismissing funding of nationwide accessible volume spay-neuter (the foundation of "No Kill"). Then to cover-up their failure promoting "managed intake" statistical manipulation as you've just illuminated and bait and switch --shifting responsibility to "community animals" ...public acceptance stray dogs and domestic cats free-roaming. Just like a cult psychology "bait and switch". Making extraordinary promises (save the all)) for fundraising, then shifting responsibility to more fundraising, more volunteers as they practice statistical manipulation and covert disposal.
Thank you for exposing yet ANOTHER level of deceit from San Diego Humane Society. This is so well written and easy to understand. I’ve forwarded to the attorneys at PeaseLaw.org who brought the lawsuit against San Diego Humane Society. I think they will appreciate your efforts to raise awareness shine a light on the seedy underbelly of this organization. Their deception, greed, cruelty and arrogance of this organization has been exposed. It is very clear, their CEO Gary Weitzman who sanctioned the dumping of thousands of domesticated, friendly cats to their deaths in my county - is a failed leader by any metric.
Thank you, Christine, for your kind words and for sharing the article. It’s encouraging to hear that our efforts to bring these issues to light are resonating with those working to hold organizations accountable. Your description of the situation truly underscores the gravity of what’s at stake—not just for the animals, but for public trust and leadership integrity. I’m grateful for your support in amplifying this message, and hope it continues to spark meaningful action.
So what is next for CEO Weitzman? What is he getting a salary for now and why is the city continuing to pay him that huge salary when he should be fired? Fines...jail? I'm curious as to what recourse the city has for his defiance of the law. I'm just appalled by his arrogance.
Sallie, Gary Weitzman’s defiance of the court ruling raises serious issues about leadership accountability, and it’s understandable to feel appalled by his stance. While the city doesn’t directly pay his salary—since SDHS is a nonprofit organization funded through contracts and donations—city officials do have recourse if they find that SDHS has violated its agreements or state laws. This could include renegotiating contracts, imposing penalties, or even terminating agreements if breaches are confirmed. Your curiosity about potential fines or legal consequences is valid, and it will ultimately depend on how city officials and legal authorities choose to address this situation. Thank you for staying engaged in this important issue!
Thank you so much for your response. I didn't understand how the legal and financial end of this situation worked so your explanation helped me a lot. Much appreciated.
When the small animals transported from San Diego HS to Tucson's Southern Arizona HS (HSSA) for adoption were discovered diverted to a Phoenix area reptile food processor, neighboring Cochise County advocates repeatedly asked for outcome documentation what happened to specifically 218 dogs (a few cats) transported from their high-kill shelter to HSSA for adoption opportunity and billed to Cochise County. HSSA refused to provide any credible documentation. Evidence indicates, the audacity of sending a highly publicized transport of 323 animals for reptile food instead of adoption is because such shelters under the umbrellas of Maddies Fund, Cal Animals, HASS, Best Friends, etc, have been "disappearing" animals ILLIGALLY and/or FRAUDULENTLY and without performing contracted services for a very long time without repercussions or public awareness. It has been all too easy for them to dispose of animals instead of sheltering and adoption and bill communities as though services were performed. I should also add, despite Gary Weitzman's cries about being duped by HSSA in the reptile food fate of small animals, it was only the determined advocate investigators in collaboration with Tucson investigative journalist KVOA Chorus Nylander that broke the story. SDHS high-powered law firm's investigator hired for PR damage control did no meaningful investigation and prior to transporting the animals, SDHS never confirmed there was shelter accommodation for 323 small animals or in local rescues. There ISNT any accommodation for that number (not even close) and no local small animal rescues (except one with little capacity). With Weitzman's and SDHS exec exorbitant compensations, wouldn't a few minutes of Google search or phone call what local accommodations were available for 323 animals "the largest transport in their history" be essential but was never done? It would be interesting for the San Diego county communities that have been billed by SDHS for animal services to demand outcome documentation and forensically examined to spot fraud. When media began asking questions, it's documented HSSA tried to fraudulently create adoption records for the small animals transported from SDHS prior to discovery of their fate.
Thank you, Sam, for sharing this post! It’s heartbreaking to read about situations like this, where a vulnerable animal is released back into unsafe conditions due to oversights or inadequate protocols. Stories like these highlight the critical need for shelters to prioritize thorough assessments and humane outcomes, especially for animals that cannot survive outdoors.
This also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in shelter operations. Ensuring that every animal’s unique needs are properly addressed is essential to building public trust and improving outcomes. Thank you for bringing this to my attention—it’s a powerful reminder of the work that still needs to be done!
Thank you! I attended a CCP training by Best Friends and felt like the odd person out on how I conducted SNR. This makes sense now. Also, why the deprioritization of spay/ neuter? That's the one sure way to decrease cat (and dog) populations...
Jenn- This inhumane scheme was formalized of all places at UC Davis Vet School.
Easy to Google “Million Cat Challenge UC Davis”. You’ll also see Maddie’s Fund and Best Friends sanctioned this illegal cat dumping scheme. 🙀
Kate Hurley, who works for UC Davis is a heartless, misguided vet claims to have invented this scheme. She pays herself a insane salary from taxpayer $$$ to travel the country telling shelters to dump THEIR tame, friendly cats on the streets after altering them. (Collecting $5 million bucks for one of her “studies”.) I saw Kate Hurley boast in court on the witness stand in the lawsuit that found this practice ILLEGAL- how she’s dumped over a million cats to their deaths across the country. I am so happy these monsters are being exposed for who they really are. I personally contacted the Dean and Associate Dean at UC Vet school about the lawsuit and how their program is inhumane, cruel and has been ruled ILLEGAL. So far Crickets.
The public is also unaware that the SD Humane society Zero Euthanasia status is a joke! They do euthanize animals but they get away with it as labeling them with a U/U at intake. It means Unhealthy/ Untreatable. By labeling U/U they have the ability to euthanize them and still claiming to be a zero euthanasia shelter. All kittens under 8 weeks old are labeled U/U as soon as they enter the shelter and I’m sure same policy applies to any domestic animals under 8 weeks old in their care. The amount of kittens that were euthanized just because they didn’t have space is disturbing. These are kittens that had no medical concerns or had recovered from an illness and could have been adopted but instead were killed to make space for more and get more money! Unfortunately as long as they use the U/U labeling they will continue to dispose of them as they please. And yes they do dump friendly cats on the street because they claim their “behavior department” assessed them and declares them feral. Also a lie! This report is from 2021/2022 https://secure.sdhumane.org/site/DocServer/SDHS_Asilomar_FY_21-22.pdf
Sam, thank you for sharing this detailed insight! The information about the U/U labeling is deeply troubling and highlights yet another layer of concern regarding SDHS’ practices. It’s especially disturbing to learn how this classification may be used to manipulate euthanasia statistics while undermining the public perception of a "zero euthanasia" status. The report you linked is an important piece of evidence, and I appreciate you bringing it to light. Transparency and accountability are critical, and voices like yours play a vital role in exposing these issues. Thank you for contributing to this important conversation!
What stands out to me the most is the U/U behavior for a rabbit and coup of U/U for others. It would be interesting to know what animals the others were. I can’t see needing to put down a rabbit for behavior as it is not like it will attach like a dog and kill someone. Rabbits are temperamental to begin with and don’t like being picked up or sometimes even pet. I have suspected for over a year now that they are euthanizing far more than reporting and provoking animals into the U/U behavior category. I have heard it from 4 credible sources, one being a former employee who shared the freezer door had been left open and there was a pile of 40 or so dogs. Another former employee, a humane law enforcement officer, shared a story of picking up kittens who were not that old and upon arrival they were sent straight to euthanasia. Too many stories being told by credible people. Most recently, they have killed guinea pigs taken from a hoarding situation by spay/neutering them. It’s a risk to spay/ neuter guinea pigs to begin with let alone ones who likely have some level of scurvy from not being properly cared for and some likely pregnant from being hosted with males. The local small animal rescue was asked why they did not spay and neuter the 121 guinea pigs they took in from a hoarding situation and they stated the above about it being too high risk due to lack of previous care and pregnancy possibilities. If a small rescue has this knowledge and gets little to no funding, it’s alarming that the humane society who gets tens of millions lacks this knowledge. Perhaps they should spend money on CEUS for vets and not on lectures from Kate Hurley preaching her unscientific doctrine about the wonders of community cats? However, this is very similar to what they did in 2014 or so with the hundreds of chinchillas they got when the late Dam Simone bought the chinchilla ranch with PETA and SDHS made a spectacle of it and refused a world renown exotic vet’s offer for consultation regarding spay/neuter. They killed a lot of the chinchillas in their inexperienced attempts at the surgeries while refusing true expert advice.
Thank you, Kelly, you’ve highlighted some critical issues, particularly around the classification of animals as "Unhealthy/Untreatable" (U/U) and the transparency of euthanasia practices. The examples you provided underscore the need for more consistent protocols and better accountability in how shelters handle vulnerable animals. It’s especially troubling to hear about credible reports of questionable practices, as well as the risks associated with spay/neuter procedures for small animals without proper expertise or consultation.
Your point about transparency is spot on—shelters must provide clear, accessible data and adhere to best practices to maintain public trust. Thank you for raising these important issues and contributing to this vital conversation!
The “Others” are any domestic animals. Not sure why they don’t list the actual species. Those could be, Hamsters, Rats, Birds, reptiles and farm animals, are some that come to mind. Project Wildlife which has merged with the sd humane society has their own separate euthanasia list and criteria and the numbers are not included in the humane society report.
I know Guinea pigs and chinchilla are also in that category. I wish they would list the species. For example, if it was a snake for behavior, biting is pretty par the course. Or if it is a guinea pig, they bite when scared at times but will not harm you. Just trying to conceptualize dangerous behavior of an “other animal” because it seems absurd, if not more so than the rabbit
Transparency would answer all our questions and help guide us towards solutions. The obfuscation the animal welfare industry relies on must end.
There are many examples of obfuscation in the animal world. For example, the many different names they give to the HASS model- community centric sheltering, limited intake, community cats and dogs, foster based sheltering, etc. They also do that with animals names at SDHS. They name dozens of consecutive cat intakes the exact name. A lot of small rescues will not name an animal the same name they used before to reduce confusion. Just in one month they named at least 10 cats with “other” outcomes Luna at SDHS. One has to ask why?
It riles them to believe you perceive the web they weave... (I think you just gave me an idea for an upcoming article ;-)
Thank you Sam for providing further evidence in addition to what many advocates have been alerting for YEARS. The SCAM of national animal welfare orgs using pets as disposable fundraising props amassing billions. Now we see the unavoidable results of Best Friends et al doctrine, unattainable cult psychology motto "save them all" rallying donations while dismissing funding of nationwide accessible volume spay-neuter (the foundation of "No Kill"). Then to cover-up their failure promoting "managed intake" statistical manipulation as you've just illuminated and bait and switch --shifting responsibility to "community animals" ...public acceptance stray dogs and domestic cats free-roaming. Just like a cult psychology "bait and switch". Making extraordinary promises (save the all)) for fundraising, then shifting responsibility to more fundraising, more volunteers as they practice statistical manipulation and covert disposal.
Thank you for exposing yet ANOTHER level of deceit from San Diego Humane Society. This is so well written and easy to understand. I’ve forwarded to the attorneys at PeaseLaw.org who brought the lawsuit against San Diego Humane Society. I think they will appreciate your efforts to raise awareness shine a light on the seedy underbelly of this organization. Their deception, greed, cruelty and arrogance of this organization has been exposed. It is very clear, their CEO Gary Weitzman who sanctioned the dumping of thousands of domesticated, friendly cats to their deaths in my county - is a failed leader by any metric.
Thank you, Christine, for your kind words and for sharing the article. It’s encouraging to hear that our efforts to bring these issues to light are resonating with those working to hold organizations accountable. Your description of the situation truly underscores the gravity of what’s at stake—not just for the animals, but for public trust and leadership integrity. I’m grateful for your support in amplifying this message, and hope it continues to spark meaningful action.
So what is next for CEO Weitzman? What is he getting a salary for now and why is the city continuing to pay him that huge salary when he should be fired? Fines...jail? I'm curious as to what recourse the city has for his defiance of the law. I'm just appalled by his arrogance.
Sallie, Gary Weitzman’s defiance of the court ruling raises serious issues about leadership accountability, and it’s understandable to feel appalled by his stance. While the city doesn’t directly pay his salary—since SDHS is a nonprofit organization funded through contracts and donations—city officials do have recourse if they find that SDHS has violated its agreements or state laws. This could include renegotiating contracts, imposing penalties, or even terminating agreements if breaches are confirmed. Your curiosity about potential fines or legal consequences is valid, and it will ultimately depend on how city officials and legal authorities choose to address this situation. Thank you for staying engaged in this important issue!
Thank you so much for your response. I didn't understand how the legal and financial end of this situation worked so your explanation helped me a lot. Much appreciated.
When the small animals transported from San Diego HS to Tucson's Southern Arizona HS (HSSA) for adoption were discovered diverted to a Phoenix area reptile food processor, neighboring Cochise County advocates repeatedly asked for outcome documentation what happened to specifically 218 dogs (a few cats) transported from their high-kill shelter to HSSA for adoption opportunity and billed to Cochise County. HSSA refused to provide any credible documentation. Evidence indicates, the audacity of sending a highly publicized transport of 323 animals for reptile food instead of adoption is because such shelters under the umbrellas of Maddies Fund, Cal Animals, HASS, Best Friends, etc, have been "disappearing" animals ILLIGALLY and/or FRAUDULENTLY and without performing contracted services for a very long time without repercussions or public awareness. It has been all too easy for them to dispose of animals instead of sheltering and adoption and bill communities as though services were performed. I should also add, despite Gary Weitzman's cries about being duped by HSSA in the reptile food fate of small animals, it was only the determined advocate investigators in collaboration with Tucson investigative journalist KVOA Chorus Nylander that broke the story. SDHS high-powered law firm's investigator hired for PR damage control did no meaningful investigation and prior to transporting the animals, SDHS never confirmed there was shelter accommodation for 323 small animals or in local rescues. There ISNT any accommodation for that number (not even close) and no local small animal rescues (except one with little capacity). With Weitzman's and SDHS exec exorbitant compensations, wouldn't a few minutes of Google search or phone call what local accommodations were available for 323 animals "the largest transport in their history" be essential but was never done? It would be interesting for the San Diego county communities that have been billed by SDHS for animal services to demand outcome documentation and forensically examined to spot fraud. When media began asking questions, it's documented HSSA tried to fraudulently create adoption records for the small animals transported from SDHS prior to discovery of their fate.
This was just posted :
https://www.facebook.com/joannesfurryfriends/posts/pfbid0P7wh2giWxuNbTKcNJjY9bHPWi2apUKz853ubb4fdXXynQ1RNwFouCHCVy223Xffbl
Thank you, Sam, for sharing this post! It’s heartbreaking to read about situations like this, where a vulnerable animal is released back into unsafe conditions due to oversights or inadequate protocols. Stories like these highlight the critical need for shelters to prioritize thorough assessments and humane outcomes, especially for animals that cannot survive outdoors.
This also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in shelter operations. Ensuring that every animal’s unique needs are properly addressed is essential to building public trust and improving outcomes. Thank you for bringing this to my attention—it’s a powerful reminder of the work that still needs to be done!
Do you know where or how SDHS got their "best solutions" for their CCP?
Jenn, this is where that rabbit hole seems to lead: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/the-hidden-agenda-how-maddies-fund
Thank you! I attended a CCP training by Best Friends and felt like the odd person out on how I conducted SNR. This makes sense now. Also, why the deprioritization of spay/ neuter? That's the one sure way to decrease cat (and dog) populations...
I address that question in this article: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/demanding-answers-why-los-angeles
Jenn- This inhumane scheme was formalized of all places at UC Davis Vet School.
Easy to Google “Million Cat Challenge UC Davis”. You’ll also see Maddie’s Fund and Best Friends sanctioned this illegal cat dumping scheme. 🙀
Kate Hurley, who works for UC Davis is a heartless, misguided vet claims to have invented this scheme. She pays herself a insane salary from taxpayer $$$ to travel the country telling shelters to dump THEIR tame, friendly cats on the streets after altering them. (Collecting $5 million bucks for one of her “studies”.) I saw Kate Hurley boast in court on the witness stand in the lawsuit that found this practice ILLEGAL- how she’s dumped over a million cats to their deaths across the country. I am so happy these monsters are being exposed for who they really are. I personally contacted the Dean and Associate Dean at UC Vet school about the lawsuit and how their program is inhumane, cruel and has been ruled ILLEGAL. So far Crickets.