The Devil’s in the Details

Unpacking the Hidden History and Modern Influence of Best Friends Animal Society

When Advocacy Turns Intimidating

On a quiet afternoon in Danville, Virginia, animal shelter director Paulette Dean received a message that would mark the beginning of a campaign of intimidation. After she and her staff declined to implement Best Friends Animal Society’s “managed intake” policies, Dean recalls a representative warning her, “Paulette Dean needs to remember that Best Friends has more money to fight her than she has to fight Best Friends.”

In the weeks that followed, staff members reported trespassers at their homes, frightened employees left their jobs, and misinformation about the shelter spread throughout the community. “The emotional toll was significant,” Dean later told Animal Politics. “One of our staff members… was so frightened, she quit her job.”

This episode is not isolated. Across the country, shelter professionals, volunteers, and local officials have described similar experiences when resisting the policies or public messaging of Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS). Critics and investigative journalists have documented a pattern: when communities push back, they are sometimes met with public shaming, divisive rhetoric, and orchestrated campaigns that create a climate of fear and silence dissent.

From Apocalyptic Theology to Animal Welfare

Why does this matter? To understand the present, it helps to look at the past. BFAS’ roots trace back to the 1960s, when its founders established the Process Church of the Final Judgment—a group known for its apocalyptic theology and for incorporating both Christian and satanic elements, explicitly venerating Jehovah, Lucifer, Satan, and Christ as aspects of divinity.

The Church’s practices were marked by strict internal discipline and the use of fear and isolation as means of control. While today’s BFAS is a mainstream animal welfare nonprofit, some former employees and observers see echoes of its origins in its modern practices: the aggressive promotion of organizational doctrine, intolerance of dissent, and the use of pressure tactics to enforce compliance.

If the fruit is rotten, you must examine the root.

Reinventing the Message: From Foundation to Fundraising

As the group shifted its focus from religious commune to animal welfare in the 1980s, its communication strategy evolved as well. The founders transitioned their original publication, Foundation magazine-which in the 1970s had featured provocative content, including an infamous interview with Charles Manson—into what would become Best Friends magazine.

By 1992, this new magazine was dedicated to “all the good news about animals, wildlife, and the earth,” offering uplifting stories and a polished image that contrasted sharply with the Sanctuary’s early struggles. Distributed free to members, Best Friends magazine quickly grew to over 200,000 subscribers and became a powerful tool for advocacy and fundraising, helping propel the organization’s national expansion and influence.

The recent passing of Gregory Castle, BFAS co-founder and longtime CEO, marks a symbolic moment in the organization's evolution. Castle was instrumental in the group’s transition from its fringe religious roots into a national animal welfare nonprofit, helping position BFAS as a prevention-forward organization in its earlier years.

Initiatives like the “No More Homeless Pets” campaign, once centered on spay/neuter and grassroots coalition-building, reflected his belief in systemic, community-based solutions. Since his departure from leadership, however, critics argue that BFAS has increasingly deprioritized those prevention strategies in favor of narrative-driven branding and national influence.

Castle’s death comes at a time of growing scrutiny over whether the current BFAS model remains true to its original mission—or has shifted toward more centralized control, media management, and reactive crisis navigation.

Absorbing Expertise: Building Credibility

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, BFAS expanded its influence by hosting national conferences and, crucially, by absorbing outside experts into its ranks. This was not a minor detail: none of the original BFAS founders, staff, or volunteers had any formal animal welfare experience.

The founders came from a variety of backgrounds—art, architecture, engineering, acting, and business—but lacked expertise in animal sheltering or veterinary science. To gain credibility and operational know-how, BFAS actively recruited and incorporated respected figures from the animal welfare field, often after first inviting them to speak at their events or consult on sanctuary operations.

This process of “absorbing experts” allowed BFAS to rapidly professionalize, adopt best practices, and present itself as a leader in the field. However, many of these outside experts did not stay long, sometimes moving on after brief tenures as BFAS consolidated its own brand of expertise and authority. This newly acquired expertise emboldened BFAS to launch an embed program.

The Embed Program: Missionary Work by Another Name

The embed program placed staff directly into municipal shelters and functioned much like a missionary venture: BFAS “experts” were dispatched to communities across the country, not only to share best practices but to actively convert local shelter operations to the BFAS model. In some communities-such as Rhea County, Tennessee, and Palm Valley Animal Society in Texas—the program is credited by BFAS with measurable improvements in save rates and staff morale.

In others, as documented in Animal Politics, PETA, and multiple whistleblower accounts, it led to disastrous outcomes—overwhelmed local resources, surges in stray populations, and a climate of fear among staff.

The Consortium: A Closed Loop of Influence

As backlash grew, BFAS’ strategy shifted again. Rather than relying solely on embedded staff, the organization and its consulting network—the Consortium—began to shape shelter policy and culture by influencing the selection of executive directors and senior leaders at both municipal and nonprofit shelters. This approach appeared to allow BFAS to maintain a “hands off” appearance while still exerting significant influence. The appointments of BFAS-affiliated leaders to Riverside County Department of Animal Services, the Humane Society of Southern Arizona, and Los Angeles Animal Services exemplify this shift.

Consortium figures like Kristen Hassen and Dr. Gary Weitzman played key roles in vetting and endorsing candidates. Hassen’s connections to BFAS run especially deep: her former boss at Fairfax County Animal Shelter, Tawny Hammond, is now Director of No-Kill Advancement at Best Friends Animal Society, and Hassen herself has been a prominent advocate for BFAS-aligned sheltering philosophies across the country.

Gary Weitzman, president and CEO of San Diego Humane Society, has likewise advanced Consortium priorities through both his leadership and public advocacy. When Weitzman’s controversial “community cat” policy was challenged in court, he relied on Dr. Kate Hurley, director of the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, as his expert witness.

The Koret program, heavily funded by Maddie’s Fund-another core Consortium member-has been instrumental in promoting “managed intake”, “return-to-field,” and other policies that critics argue perpetuate the very shelter crisis they claim to solve. The close professional and financial relationships among these leaders and organizations underscore how Consortium policies are developed, defended, and implemented nationwide, often with little independent oversight or accountability.

These relationships form what critics describe as a “closed loop of influence” within animal welfare. Organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, Maddie’s Fund, the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, and others appear to be informally aligned around a set of policies that, to many observers, seem strangely unintuitive and, in practice, help sustain the ongoing crisis in animal sheltering-along with the fundraising opportunities that such a crisis enables.

When National Doctrine Meets Local Reality

Humane Society of Southern Arizona

The impact of this influence is felt most acutely at the local level. At HSSA, executive director Kristen Barney and her team appear deeply aligned with BFAS doctrine, prioritizing rapid live-release and transport strategies over prevention and transparency. While Barney’s leadership has brought a new focus on rapid placement, critics note that this approach has deprioritized spay/neuter and prevention, contributing to operational crises and a decline in community trust. The result has been increased pressure on staff, a drop in lifesaving rates, and significant donor attrition-raising questions about the long-term sustainability of HSSA’s current direction.

Los Angeles Animal Services

In Los Angeles, Staycee Dains was selected as general manager of LA Animal Services following a nationwide search in 2023—a choice widely viewed as influenced by Consortium priorities and philosophies. Despite initial praise for her experience and vision, Dains’s tenure quickly became mired in crisis. Reports described a culture of fear and intimidation, with some employees alleging that Dains created an uncomfortable atmosphere and failed to address the department’s longstanding challenges. Her administration ultimately ended in resignation after a period of paid leave, leaving the agency in continued turmoil.

Given these outcomes, municipalities should exercise caution when considering executive recommendations from the Consortium or its affiliates. The pattern of importing leaders steeped in a single doctrine, without regard for local context or stakeholder input, has too often resulted in worsening conditions and organizational instability.

Riverside County Animal Services: Off Brand, On Mission?

Yet there is still hope for free agency and local innovation. In Riverside County, Mary Martin*—a former BFAS employee whose appointment was shaped by Consortium influence—has nonetheless signaled a more independent approach: expanding spay/neuter assistance, partnering with the BISSELL Pet Foundation, among others, to invest in long-term preventative solutions, and expressing a willingness “to work with anyone who will help us save lives.”

Martin herself is quick to deflect credit, emphasizing that “Outcomes for Pets deserve all the credit for increased spay/neuter [working with] Animal Balance.” She describes her first weeks on the job as a period of deep listening and outreach: “I’ve spent the last eight weeks talking to everybody and going everywhere to get up to speed and to understand what the community wants and needs. However, spay/neuter is top of mind for EVERYONE I’ve talked to so I’m seeking opportunities.”

However, Martin’s mention of “Outcomes for Pets” is likely to raise the hackles of some local critics, given the intense scrutiny and ongoing lawsuit surrounding Kristen Hassen’s $2.5 million consulting contract—particularly the controversial managed intake and community animal policies associated with Outcomes for Pets Consulting. For many advocates and community members, the association with Hassen’s brand and methodology remains a point of contention and a source of skepticism about whether real, lasting change is possible in Riverside County.

Still, Martin’s pragmatic, community-focused approach stands in marked contrast to the dogmatic, top-down BFAS strategies seen elsewhere. Notably, her leadership has won the support of Alan Woodruff, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Riverside County, who recently withdrew his support for the litigation, calling it counter-productive at this point in time. For now, her early actions offer the community hope that a more balanced, responsive model of shelter leadership is possible.

Additionally, recent media coverage underscores the community's cautious optimism regarding Martin's leadership. In an exclusive interview with NBC Palm Springs, reporter Mary Strong described Martin as "a refreshing change" for Riverside County Animal Services, emphasizing the importance of giving her a chance to implement reforms. News anchor Fred Roggin, while still skeptical, acknowledged the potential for positive change under Martin's direction during their discussion on The Roggin Report.

But as many advocates and observers have noted, only time will tell whether she can sustain this independence and deliver the substantive, lasting reform Riverside so urgently needs.

When the wind of change blows, some build walls, others build windmills. - Chinese proverb

How to Tell the Difference: Cultural Health Check

Communities influenced by Best Friends Animal Society and the Consortium often grapple with a fundamental question: Is the culture in their local shelter healthy, or has it taken on the rigid, dogmatic traits that trace back to BFAS’ religious origins? The legacy of the Process Church—a group defined by charismatic leadership, strict internal discipline, and a worldview rooted in fear and absolute loyalty—can still be discerned in the way some shelters operate today under BFAS’ influence.

In healthy organizations, staff and volunteers are encouraged to speak openly, share concerns, and offer new ideas without fear of reprisal. Leadership is transparent, decisions are made collaboratively, and the mission is advanced through genuine community engagement and a spirit of inclusivity. These organizations adapt to local needs, invest in prevention, and see dissent as a sign of engagement rather than a threat to authority. Staff well-being is prioritized, turnover is low, and the focus remains on sustainable progress for both people and animals.

By contrast, in shelters where BFAS influence runs deep, a different pattern often emerges—one that mirrors the high-control, insular culture of its origins. Here, questioning leadership or established doctrine is discouraged, sometimes even punished. Dissenters may find themselves marginalized, while those who fully embrace the prevailing ideology are rewarded. Decisions are made behind closed doors, often with little input from those on the front lines or from the broader community.

The focus shifts from meaningful outcomes—like robust spay/neuter programs and long-term animal welfare—to hitting numerical targets or maintaining a particular public image. Staff report high turnover, a climate of fear, and a sense that their voices do not matter. As one BFAS whistleblower put it, “It’s like the Mafia”—a telling reflection of how deeply the organization’s culture of control and intimidation can run.

This is not simply a matter of management style; it is the difference between an organization that empowers its people and one that seeks to control them. The echoes of BFAS’ dogmatic, fear-based origins can be seen in its persistent use of slogans like 'Save Them All,' internal mantras such as 'the community is the shelter,' and what former staff describe as coded language—like 'stay mission-aligned' or 'be solutions-oriented'—that subtly discourages dissent and enforces conformity.

These patterns are reinforced by documented smear campaigns and personal attacks against shelter staff and their families in communities such as Houston, Fort Wayne, and Little Rock when local leaders resisted BFAS’ policies. In some cases, shelters have been pressured to reclassify or abandon animals to inflate statistics, or have faced bullying and intimidation for refusing to adopt BFAS’s model. When these patterns take hold, the organization risks becoming more about self-preservation and fundraising than about genuine, community-driven animal welfare.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

A healthy organizational culture is essential for effective, ethical animal welfare work. It fosters innovation, accountability, and sustainability, while protecting both animals and people. In contrast, a high-control or toxic culture can undermine the very mission it claims to serve, leading to burnout, poor outcomes for animals, and loss of public trust.

By demanding greater transparency, independent oversight, and genuine community input, the animal welfare movement can address the troubling patterns documented in Best Friends Animal Society’s evolution from religious commune to national animal welfare powerhouse.

The evidence suggests a concerning continuity between the organization’s high-control origins and its present-day tactics. Moving forward, shelters and communities would benefit from a more diverse, evidence-based approach to animal welfare—one that balances immediate lifesaving with sustainable prevention, respects local expertise, and prioritizes substantive outcomes over marketing narratives. Only then can progress truly serve the animals and communities who need it most.

Disclosure of Outreach

Animal Politics extended two invitations for comment to Best Friends Animal Society over the past year: one by email to the organization’s senior attorney and one to CEO Julie Castle via her deputy executive director. The invitation to Castle specifically offered an open interview, allowing her the freedom to address or respond to any issue raised in Animal Politics’ coverage. As of publication, no response has been received.

Author Disclosure

The author previously mentored Mary Martin during their time in Maricopa County and New York City over twenty years ago. They have not communicated since until after her recent appointment at RCDAS. The author is retired, has no professional or financial interest in the agency or in Martin’s current role, but does have a personal interest in any organization’s success and in seeing effective animal welfare leadership. Regardless, the analysis and opinions presented here reflect the author’s independent judgment and commitment to calling it as he sees it, based on the evidence.

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.