It would be nice if "The Federal Lawsuits That Could Shatter America’s No-Kill Dogma" really do, but reality is that animal care & control agencies taking bad advice from the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, et al have for many years now been routinely losing multi-million-dollar lawsuits for rehoming pit bulls & other dangerous dogs who kill people, for not euthanizing dogs with considerable bite history, & for not impounding dogs with bite history left to run at large. Among landmark examples, Los Angeles County Animal Care & Control in 2019 paid $1.1 million to survivors of Pamela Devitt, for failing to impound four pit bulls who routinely ran at large. Finding Los Angeles Animal Services guilty of gross negligence, a Los Angeles jury on May 31, 2023 awarded $6.8 million to German shepherd mix attack victim and former shelter volunteer Kelly Kaneko, 36. The Montgomery County, Ohio board of commissioners in March 2020 approved a $3.5 million settlement with survivors of Klonda Richey, 57. Richey was on February 7, 2014 fatally mauled by her next door neighbors’ two dogs, variously identified in court documents as “large-breed pit bulls, mastiffs, or Cane Corsos,” whom Montgomery County Animal Services had repeatedly failed to impound. Multi-million-dollar liability verdicts alone are clearly not enough to effect the reforms that are urgently needed, short of a RICO case that could bring to justice the national organizations passing out dangerously bad advice, as well as the local agencies whose directors are stupid enough to take it. Criminal convictions that actually send people to prison for rehoming dangerous dogs might also help. There have now been quite a few dog attack fatalities & disfigurements involving rehomed pit bulls in particular that would have sent people to prison if a gun rather than a dog had been sold to the owners––and a gun at least does not fire itself if kept in an unsafe manner.
Thanks, Merritt. You're absolutely right—multi-million-dollar civil verdicts have been happening for years without fundamentally shifting the sheltering model. What makes these three federal cases different is that they challenge systemic failures under national law, not just local negligence. If successful, they could establish legal precedent that affects not just individual agencies, but the entire infrastructure shaped by national organizations like Best Friends and ASPCA. That’s a level of accountability we haven’t seen before—and why these lawsuits matter so much.
Indeed, with such excellent reporting and the policies of BF and consortium obviously disastrous. for shelters and communities, it seems the facade is collapsing.
A small local rescue registers for Hassen (BF doctrines advocate), BF et al newsletters and seminars for monitoring and forwarded to me. A topic Hassen promotes is the "Big Dog Superhighway" as shelters, and communities nationwide are swamped with big dogs that are difficult to adopt for a variety of reasons including affordability and needing space. Apparently BF main legislative accomplishment is prohibiting landlord breed restrictions.
Hassen emphasizes improved marketing as solution and alarmingly advocates deceptive descriptions of large dogs with behavioral history.
Such as: dogs that react negatively to men, instead suggest "must be introduced" to men. From experience, many abused dogs never recover trust no matter how well subsequently treated and thus can be easily triggered. Our local shelter with previous Best Friends director marketed "unicorn" dogs---mostly pit bulls prone to killing other animals and had to be the only animal in the house--a very fraught long term situation.
Maddies Fund, BFAS, et al, have deliberately deprioritized/defunded population prevention because their business model is overpopulation and shelter overcapacity for merchandising, monetizing services and enormously lucrative proprietary software database mining. Distressed homeless pets are fundraising gold and transports where animals are disappeared into undisclosed locations and outcomes is the new fundraising gold rush.
They have installed this agenda in our local municipal shelter thru grants that direct the exclusive priority to adoptions with an unnecessary satellite adoption center that must then be staffed and maintained vs the numerous no overhead adoption events citywide for great exposure for adoptable animals.
That same grant money used for s/n/clinic outreach in outlying source areas of most litters, strays, distemper etc could reduce intake perhaps as quickly as one breeding season.
Thanks, Juliana. Yes—the legal pressure is long overdue, and it’s encouraging to see real accountability starting to emerge. We’ll be watching closely too and continuing to report as these cases unfold.
There is a case currently here in San Angelo - grand jury indictment - Maria Elena Ponce - dog attack on animal services officer. MULTIPLE call outs to same address over years preceding attack. watching watching watching watching.
As an aggression expert in austin, I cannot begin to say how many dogs are adopted out repeatedly with serious bite histories and the new adopters are never told. I just saw one dog for the third time, with a third adopter, whom now has over 20 bites on its history with these 3 adopters. It’s ridiculous that public safety has not been addressed here. I have been fighting against the lying about dangerous dogs since 2008. No one listens. Hopefully a hit to their bank accounts will make someone listen now.
The No Kill norm is to get dogs out quick and fast, and make their numbers (especially that 10% behavior category). They don’t think about how many people they crush emotionally by leaving it to them to decide to euthanize a dangerous dog instead. 70% tell me they won’t adopt again after their experience.
Thank you for sharing this, Tara. Your firsthand experience is powerful—and unfortunately far too common. What you described helped inspire an upcoming article focused specifically on the emotional and financial toll this system takes on adopters, especially when they're left to make impossible decisions. I’m grateful for your voice in this fight—it’s time more people started listening.
Me too, SfS. Realistically, we're probably looking at mid 2026 to late 2027 before any final outcomes are likely—unless one settles earlier or a judge issues a pivotal ruling that changes the legal landscape. In the meantime, it would be helpful if BFAS and other Consortium members went on the record regarding these cases.
It would be nice if "The Federal Lawsuits That Could Shatter America’s No-Kill Dogma" really do, but reality is that animal care & control agencies taking bad advice from the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, et al have for many years now been routinely losing multi-million-dollar lawsuits for rehoming pit bulls & other dangerous dogs who kill people, for not euthanizing dogs with considerable bite history, & for not impounding dogs with bite history left to run at large. Among landmark examples, Los Angeles County Animal Care & Control in 2019 paid $1.1 million to survivors of Pamela Devitt, for failing to impound four pit bulls who routinely ran at large. Finding Los Angeles Animal Services guilty of gross negligence, a Los Angeles jury on May 31, 2023 awarded $6.8 million to German shepherd mix attack victim and former shelter volunteer Kelly Kaneko, 36. The Montgomery County, Ohio board of commissioners in March 2020 approved a $3.5 million settlement with survivors of Klonda Richey, 57. Richey was on February 7, 2014 fatally mauled by her next door neighbors’ two dogs, variously identified in court documents as “large-breed pit bulls, mastiffs, or Cane Corsos,” whom Montgomery County Animal Services had repeatedly failed to impound. Multi-million-dollar liability verdicts alone are clearly not enough to effect the reforms that are urgently needed, short of a RICO case that could bring to justice the national organizations passing out dangerously bad advice, as well as the local agencies whose directors are stupid enough to take it. Criminal convictions that actually send people to prison for rehoming dangerous dogs might also help. There have now been quite a few dog attack fatalities & disfigurements involving rehomed pit bulls in particular that would have sent people to prison if a gun rather than a dog had been sold to the owners––and a gun at least does not fire itself if kept in an unsafe manner.
Thanks, Merritt. You're absolutely right—multi-million-dollar civil verdicts have been happening for years without fundamentally shifting the sheltering model. What makes these three federal cases different is that they challenge systemic failures under national law, not just local negligence. If successful, they could establish legal precedent that affects not just individual agencies, but the entire infrastructure shaped by national organizations like Best Friends and ASPCA. That’s a level of accountability we haven’t seen before—and why these lawsuits matter so much.
Indeed, with such excellent reporting and the policies of BF and consortium obviously disastrous. for shelters and communities, it seems the facade is collapsing.
A small local rescue registers for Hassen (BF doctrines advocate), BF et al newsletters and seminars for monitoring and forwarded to me. A topic Hassen promotes is the "Big Dog Superhighway" as shelters, and communities nationwide are swamped with big dogs that are difficult to adopt for a variety of reasons including affordability and needing space. Apparently BF main legislative accomplishment is prohibiting landlord breed restrictions.
Hassen emphasizes improved marketing as solution and alarmingly advocates deceptive descriptions of large dogs with behavioral history.
Such as: dogs that react negatively to men, instead suggest "must be introduced" to men. From experience, many abused dogs never recover trust no matter how well subsequently treated and thus can be easily triggered. Our local shelter with previous Best Friends director marketed "unicorn" dogs---mostly pit bulls prone to killing other animals and had to be the only animal in the house--a very fraught long term situation.
Maddies Fund, BFAS, et al, have deliberately deprioritized/defunded population prevention because their business model is overpopulation and shelter overcapacity for merchandising, monetizing services and enormously lucrative proprietary software database mining. Distressed homeless pets are fundraising gold and transports where animals are disappeared into undisclosed locations and outcomes is the new fundraising gold rush.
They have installed this agenda in our local municipal shelter thru grants that direct the exclusive priority to adoptions with an unnecessary satellite adoption center that must then be staffed and maintained vs the numerous no overhead adoption events citywide for great exposure for adoptable animals.
That same grant money used for s/n/clinic outreach in outlying source areas of most litters, strays, distemper etc could reduce intake perhaps as quickly as one breeding season.
Heartening to hear of widening cracks in BF & the consortium, and legal pursuit - so deserved by the victims, both human and animal. Watching closely.
Thanks, Juliana. Yes—the legal pressure is long overdue, and it’s encouraging to see real accountability starting to emerge. We’ll be watching closely too and continuing to report as these cases unfold.
There is a case currently here in San Angelo - grand jury indictment - Maria Elena Ponce - dog attack on animal services officer. MULTIPLE call outs to same address over years preceding attack. watching watching watching watching.
As an aggression expert in austin, I cannot begin to say how many dogs are adopted out repeatedly with serious bite histories and the new adopters are never told. I just saw one dog for the third time, with a third adopter, whom now has over 20 bites on its history with these 3 adopters. It’s ridiculous that public safety has not been addressed here. I have been fighting against the lying about dangerous dogs since 2008. No one listens. Hopefully a hit to their bank accounts will make someone listen now.
The No Kill norm is to get dogs out quick and fast, and make their numbers (especially that 10% behavior category). They don’t think about how many people they crush emotionally by leaving it to them to decide to euthanize a dangerous dog instead. 70% tell me they won’t adopt again after their experience.
Thank you for sharing this, Tara. Your firsthand experience is powerful—and unfortunately far too common. What you described helped inspire an upcoming article focused specifically on the emotional and financial toll this system takes on adopters, especially when they're left to make impossible decisions. I’m grateful for your voice in this fight—it’s time more people started listening.
I will stay tuned.
Me too, SfS. Realistically, we're probably looking at mid 2026 to late 2027 before any final outcomes are likely—unless one settles earlier or a judge issues a pivotal ruling that changes the legal landscape. In the meantime, it would be helpful if BFAS and other Consortium members went on the record regarding these cases.