Setting the Record Straight—On San Diego Humane Society's Misleading Claims
A Response to SDHS' Deflections and Omissions
San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) recently issued an anonymous response to my article, The Forgotten Pets of San Diego’s Safe Lots: When Compassion Falls Short, challenging its accuracy and intent. If you haven’t read the original article yet, I encourage you to do so for full context. Their full response, called Setting the Record Straight, can be found in the comments section at the end of the article. The anonymity of their response itself raises concerns about transparency and accountability.
As an advocate for transparency and accountability in animal welfare, I welcome this opportunity to engage in open dialogue. Let’s examine SDHS’ assertions point by point, clarifying the facts and addressing their concerns—both legally and ethically.
Community Cat Program: Legal and Ethical Questions
SDHS Assertion: The claim that our Community Cat Program was "ruled illegal" is misleading. The court issued a tentative ruling, but no final decision has been made.
Animal Politics Response: While SDHS correctly notes that the ruling is tentative, the program was indeed found to violate state law as it pertains to releasing adoptable cats into the community without proper care. The court's preliminary injunction underscores that SDHS' previous protocols required legal intervention to ensure compliance. This is not a matter of semantics; it is a matter of public trust. SDHS should explain why legal intervention was necessary to force compliance and what concrete steps it is taking to prevent further violations.
Capacity Issues: Misleading Public Messaging
SDHS Assertion: Claims that we misled the public about overcrowding are false. Our capacity crisis pertains to dogs, not cats.
Animal Politics Response: The distinction between cats and dogs does not absolve SDHS of misleading public messaging. Whistleblower accounts reveal discrepancies between SDHS' public statements about overcrowding and the actual conditions within its facilities. Reports suggest that during periods when SDHS claimed overcrowding, certain shelter areas remained underutilized—raising questions about resource allocation and transparency.
Furthermore, why did SDHS cite overcrowding as a justification for its Community Cat Program before the court? This raises concerns about whether “overcrowding” is selectively invoked when convenient to support certain policies while failing to provide clarity to the public.
Transparency is critical in maintaining public trust—especially for an organization tasked with protecting vulnerable animals. To address these concerns, SDHS must commit to clear and accurate reporting on capacity challenges across all species and ensure that messaging aligns with operational realities.
Pet Transfers: Accountability for Partner Organizations
SDHS Assertion: The claim that we transferred small pets to a reptile breeder is false. A trusted partner breached our trust by transferring animals without authorization.
Animal Politics Response: While SDHS may not have directly transferred animals to a reptile breeder, it bears responsibility for ensuring its partners uphold ethical standards. This incident raises serious questions about SDHS' vetting and oversight processes for partner organizations. Transparency demands that SDHS disclose what corrective actions have been taken to prevent such breaches in the future.
Emphasis on Live Release Rates: Optics Over Welfare?
SDHS Assertion: Our focus on saving animal lives has nothing to do with Best Friends Animal Society or live release rates.
Animal Politics Response: While SDHS denies prioritizing live release rates, its policies suggest otherwise. The influence of Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) on shelter practices nationwide is well-documented, and critics argue that this emphasis often leads to unintended consequences, such as neglect in marginalized communities. For example, SDHS’ refusal to implement safeguards against repeat cruelty offenders adopting pets demonstrates a troubling prioritization of adoption metrics over animal welfare.
Safe Lots: Legal Barriers or Systemic Inaction?
SDHS Assertion: Pets in Safe Lots belong to their owners under California law, and we cannot seize them without clear evidence of abuse or neglect.
Animal Politics Response: No one disputes the legal complexities surrounding pet ownership. However, eyewitness accounts from Safe Lot staff reveal systemic failures in how SDHS handles reports of abuse and neglect. Delayed responses—sometimes taking weeks or months—allow suffering to escalate unnecessarily. Requiring video proof of abuse creates an unreasonable barrier for staff already working under challenging conditions. While the law may set minimum standards for intervention, SDHS should be setting a higher bar for animal welfare, not using legal technicalities to justify inaction.
Commitment to Helping Pets and People: A Closer Look
SDHS Assertion: We provided 2 million free pet meals, 49,000 low-cost vaccinations, and 4,800 veterinary clinic visits last year.
Animal Politics Response: These numbers are commendable but do not address the specific failures at Safe Lots. Staff report that SDHS rarely visits these locations despite repeated requests for support. Basic interventions—such as distributing pet supplies or providing education on proper care—are conspicuously absent. Moreover, when staff sought vaccines to contain a parvovirus outbreak at one lot, they were forced to rely on outside organizations after SDHS failed to act promptly.
Moving Forward: Collaboration or Deflection?
SDHS Assertion: Making San Diego more humane requires partnership, not division.
Animal Politics Response: Partnership requires accountability, transparency, and action—not deflection or dismissal of valid concerns. My article was not intended to divide but to highlight systemic issues that demand urgent reform. If SDHS truly values collaboration, it must engage meaningfully with stakeholders like Safe Lot staff and advocates who are on the front lines of this crisis.
A Call for Transparency and Reform
SDHS’ response underscores the complexity of animal welfare work but fails to address the core issues raised in my article:
Why are reports of abuse and neglect at Safe Lots met with delays or dismissed outright?
Why does SDHS require video proof of abuse when such evidence is often impossible to obtain and eye witnesses abound?
Why has SDHS resisted implementing safeguards against repeat cruelty offenders adopting pets?
What proactive measures will SDHS take to support Safe Lot residents and their pets moving forward?
These questions remain unanswered.
Animal welfare is not just about meeting legal requirements; it is about fulfilling a moral obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I urge SDHS leadership to engage in open dialogue with all stakeholders—including Safe Lot staff, volunteers, advocates, and the broader community—to develop actionable solutions that prioritize animal welfare over bureaucratic barriers.
SDHS leadership must choose: meaningful action and accountability or continued deflection and public mistrust. The animals of San Diego’s Safe Lots, and those who fight for them, deserve far better.
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.
Responding defensively, rather than accepting responsibility and holding themselves accountable, is never a good sign. Nor is it a professional, ethical way to address the problems which they have created for themselves and the animals whom they are failing. I will also reach out to them.
The thought of me sitting in an airconditioned room - with an animal boiling inside a hot tent down the street does not sit well with me. I sent an email to SDHS. Is there anything else I can do to make sure these animals in these lots are kept safe?