Thanks for raising that, Tom. The experience of that volunteer is an important part of this story, and you’re right that it raises real questions about how institutions respond when people inside the system sound alarms. I’m continuing to gather and verify information on that piece of the timeline, and I appreciate you putting it on the record here.
Knowing Susan Davis personally, not only as former employee but as a member of her family, this is the tip of her evil iceberg. I would love for her to pay for her crimes and more to play a part in it. Anyone that wants help or info please reach out.
Of the countless harms that can befall an sentient animal surely victimizing them for pleasure or the entertainment of other dysfunctional people for personal financial gain has to rise to the top. . Such wilful cruelty is a stain on humanity and one can only trust that the culpable individuals are convicted and pay for their crimes with substantial penalties and are never allowed to have animals in their lives under any circumstances again. They should also be required to have psychological counselling. Admittedly, 'hard to place' dogs are a quandry to any compassionate entity, but one that is opaque and out of state, should scream BEWARE! You state the challenges of making such a choice with the usual clarity, but apparently these warnings were not considered dire enough to negatively address it by Heigl. Naive? Blatantly foolish - Indeed! The stamp of approval by C.of L.V Animal Control prove debatable and odd considering the subsequent court proceedings and possible convictions. Obviously, a follow up was needed. Again, your plea for structure, clear standards et al., is critical and a failure to do so is the proof of its necessity. AGAIN, the entire model of outsourcing 'high-risk dogs' proves as broken as is the current Animal Shelter system. This is yet another loud call ,if not insistence ,to returning to a reputable, uniform, capable, transparent PREVENTION model..the sooner the better! This is the only reasonable solution.
Elaine, thank you for this powerful, beautifully argued comment. You’ve captured both the moral horror of what was done to these dogs and the structural failure that made it possible, and I’m glad the piece helped underline your central point: without a reputable, transparent prevention model, we will keep recreating the same cruelty under new names.
With all due respect, Ms. Heigl's foundation was made aware of multiple concerns and allegations about their partner group long before this outcome; and they continually defended WDN rather than trying to substantiate some of those concerns. I'm glad they're stepping up now to identify whether any of their dogs are sitting at the shelter. What about all the other dogs they sent to WDN? Have they requested updates as to their outcomes?
Too often, when a rescue or other animal charity is suspected of unethical or downright illegal activities, their peers circle the wagon and defend them without confirming whether or not the allegations are true. Those of us who attempt to reveal and report their questionable activities are maligned rather than respected and supported for what we should ALL be doing: advocating for, and protecting, those who have no defenses.
With regard to the failure of animal protection agencies to follow through, oftentimes, it may be due to difficulties posed by the protocols they have to follow which restrict them in doing their jobs. That's when involvement by the local police department can help step up efforts. And sometimes, agencies do fail to do their jobs for no explainable reason.
This article so aptly covers these issues, including the caveat that we need to be aware and informed about where animals are going, what is happening to them, who are the organizations that we are supporting and relying upon to handle these animals, and who are the people behind them. We don't know unless we ask important questions and animals don't have time for us to simply assume that all is well. While we go about our days, satisfied with unproven assurances, those animals could be suffering or worse. No reputable rescue, shelter, or animal welfare organization would resist providing responses to reasonable questions from the public, especially if they rely upon donations and taxpayer funding.
Annoula, I appreciate this thoughtful and candid comment.
You’re right that concerns about WDN were raised long before this, and that too many peers default to circling the wagons instead of vetting allegations and demanding documentation. Your point about what happens to all the animals moved through a partnership, not just the ones who surface in a crisis, is the kind of accountability gap I’m trying to spotlight.
Thank you for continuing to ask the hard questions and for staying focused on the only thing that really matters here: what actually happens to the animals, not the assurances we’re given about them.
Why any foundation or private donor would pour money into "unadoptable" dogs is beyond infuriating as so many dogs across the country are euthanized for something treatable like heartworms, ringworm and mange and behaviorally sound dogs are euthanized because municipal facilities are simply out of room, time and resources. This seems like a mind boggling waste of funds. Keep shining a light on this, it's happening all over the country.
It’s hard to watch scarce dollars and kennel space go to highly marketed “unadoptable” cases while treatable, behaviorally sound dogs are being killed for lack of basic medical care or room. You’ve summed up the opportunity cost really well, and it’s why I want to keep pulling the camera back to show how these choices play out system‑wide.
Thank you for saying it so plainly and for encouraging more light on what’s happening in so many communities.
In Oregon we have the Asher House. A hairy chested self-proclaimed 'wee-wee' savior of dogs that women fawn over but no proof of typical rescue documentation and a multi-million dollar multi-property owner who is always asking for donations. Those of us who have been in rescue for any length of time can call BS but Multnomah and Tacoma HS give him dogs like candy because they like notoriety - as do CA rescues.
Anne, I do mention Asher House briefly in Part II, but only in passing and not in the depth it probably deserves yet.
Your description captures the dynamic I’m worried about: a charismatic “savior,” light on transparent records, getting a steady stream of dogs because shelters and rescues like the glow of association more than they like hard questions.
Thanks for flagging what you’re seeing in Oregon, it’s a good reminder that this pattern isn’t limited to one state or one organization.
Thanks Ed. Those of us who have been active in rescue for years are dismissed because his followers are star struck. We question the missing dogs, the euthanized dogs, the medical dogs we never hear about, the wolf dogs he 'rescued' and seeing how he handles dogs off rescue transport completely inappropriately... his Patreon account that is vulgar... it's rather disgusting. While small rescues are trying so hard to make a difference, he is literally gaslighting and women soak it up. Thanks for all you do to bring awareness.
This story reminds me of what happened at the Spindletop Refuge outside Houston in 2013. Hyped as a place for "problem" pit bulls, it was a nightmare. And enabled by what you aptly call "sentimental rescue narratives." If solving what to do with difficult animals were that easy, it would have been done.
Carol, you’re right, the pattern is eerily similar: a “miracle” solution for hard‑to‑place dogs, wrapped in emotional narratives that make people feel better without asking hard questions about capacity, standards, or oversight. As you say, if solving the problem of truly difficult animals were that easy, we’d have solved it long ago; pretending otherwise just hides the suffering until the next crisis breaks.
I sincerely hope that the Heigl Foundation, and others, will take a lesson from this and shift their resources to prevention. Investing in spay/neuter, quite literally, prevents the suffering of countless numbers of animals, and without robust affordable spay/neuter programs, we will never "Save Them All."
The Heigl Foundation is not alone in needing that pivot, but it’s a powerful example because they already have visibility, funding, and a stated commitment to animals. If even a fraction of what’s going into high‑profile rescue and transport were redirected into robust, targeted spay/neuter, we’d prevent more suffering than any one rescue headline ever could.
You’ve put it perfectly: without serious, affordable prevention, “Save Them All” is just a slogan.
Devastated for all the dogs, all the volunteers and networkers that ever relied on this lifeline (like myself), and for the horrible state of animal welfare in this country.
Thank you for staying with this, Lauren, even though it’s painful. I share your grief for the dogs and for everyone who believed they were sending animals to a lifeline. The hope is that by putting light on this “corner,” we can push institutions toward something better than quiet despair.
What is really devastating is that this is not the only unscrupulous rescue. There are others, because pulling on heartstrings of kind-hearted individuals can be quite lucrative, and because there is little to no oversight of these operations. It is absolutely essential that any shelter or foundation sending animals to one of these operations make it very clear that they will follow up on the outcomes of the animals, and then actually do so.
Thank you for this important post and your framing of the ongoing issue of animal rescue groups that receive minimal oversight and devolve into a fate worse than euthanasia for at risk animals.
Thank you, eah, for your note. That “fate worse than euthanasia” space is exactly what this series is trying to illuminate, and it means a lot to know the framing is resonating with people who see the same risks on the ground.
What about the volunteer that was terminated months ago for raising many of these very same questions?
With a shelter system seemingly looking the other way and punishing them at what they believed was the request of the Heigel foundation?
Question written by an individual in my own individual capacity protected by the first amendment.
Thanks for raising that, Tom. The experience of that volunteer is an important part of this story, and you’re right that it raises real questions about how institutions respond when people inside the system sound alarms. I’m continuing to gather and verify information on that piece of the timeline, and I appreciate you putting it on the record here.
Knowing Susan Davis personally, not only as former employee but as a member of her family, this is the tip of her evil iceberg. I would love for her to pay for her crimes and more to play a part in it. Anyone that wants help or info please reach out.
Of the countless harms that can befall an sentient animal surely victimizing them for pleasure or the entertainment of other dysfunctional people for personal financial gain has to rise to the top. . Such wilful cruelty is a stain on humanity and one can only trust that the culpable individuals are convicted and pay for their crimes with substantial penalties and are never allowed to have animals in their lives under any circumstances again. They should also be required to have psychological counselling. Admittedly, 'hard to place' dogs are a quandry to any compassionate entity, but one that is opaque and out of state, should scream BEWARE! You state the challenges of making such a choice with the usual clarity, but apparently these warnings were not considered dire enough to negatively address it by Heigl. Naive? Blatantly foolish - Indeed! The stamp of approval by C.of L.V Animal Control prove debatable and odd considering the subsequent court proceedings and possible convictions. Obviously, a follow up was needed. Again, your plea for structure, clear standards et al., is critical and a failure to do so is the proof of its necessity. AGAIN, the entire model of outsourcing 'high-risk dogs' proves as broken as is the current Animal Shelter system. This is yet another loud call ,if not insistence ,to returning to a reputable, uniform, capable, transparent PREVENTION model..the sooner the better! This is the only reasonable solution.
Elaine, thank you for this powerful, beautifully argued comment. You’ve captured both the moral horror of what was done to these dogs and the structural failure that made it possible, and I’m glad the piece helped underline your central point: without a reputable, transparent prevention model, we will keep recreating the same cruelty under new names.
With all due respect, Ms. Heigl's foundation was made aware of multiple concerns and allegations about their partner group long before this outcome; and they continually defended WDN rather than trying to substantiate some of those concerns. I'm glad they're stepping up now to identify whether any of their dogs are sitting at the shelter. What about all the other dogs they sent to WDN? Have they requested updates as to their outcomes?
Too often, when a rescue or other animal charity is suspected of unethical or downright illegal activities, their peers circle the wagon and defend them without confirming whether or not the allegations are true. Those of us who attempt to reveal and report their questionable activities are maligned rather than respected and supported for what we should ALL be doing: advocating for, and protecting, those who have no defenses.
With regard to the failure of animal protection agencies to follow through, oftentimes, it may be due to difficulties posed by the protocols they have to follow which restrict them in doing their jobs. That's when involvement by the local police department can help step up efforts. And sometimes, agencies do fail to do their jobs for no explainable reason.
This article so aptly covers these issues, including the caveat that we need to be aware and informed about where animals are going, what is happening to them, who are the organizations that we are supporting and relying upon to handle these animals, and who are the people behind them. We don't know unless we ask important questions and animals don't have time for us to simply assume that all is well. While we go about our days, satisfied with unproven assurances, those animals could be suffering or worse. No reputable rescue, shelter, or animal welfare organization would resist providing responses to reasonable questions from the public, especially if they rely upon donations and taxpayer funding.
Annoula, I appreciate this thoughtful and candid comment.
You’re right that concerns about WDN were raised long before this, and that too many peers default to circling the wagons instead of vetting allegations and demanding documentation. Your point about what happens to all the animals moved through a partnership, not just the ones who surface in a crisis, is the kind of accountability gap I’m trying to spotlight.
Thank you for continuing to ask the hard questions and for staying focused on the only thing that really matters here: what actually happens to the animals, not the assurances we’re given about them.
Why any foundation or private donor would pour money into "unadoptable" dogs is beyond infuriating as so many dogs across the country are euthanized for something treatable like heartworms, ringworm and mange and behaviorally sound dogs are euthanized because municipal facilities are simply out of room, time and resources. This seems like a mind boggling waste of funds. Keep shining a light on this, it's happening all over the country.
I share your frustration, Sarah.
It’s hard to watch scarce dollars and kennel space go to highly marketed “unadoptable” cases while treatable, behaviorally sound dogs are being killed for lack of basic medical care or room. You’ve summed up the opportunity cost really well, and it’s why I want to keep pulling the camera back to show how these choices play out system‑wide.
Thank you for saying it so plainly and for encouraging more light on what’s happening in so many communities.
In Oregon we have the Asher House. A hairy chested self-proclaimed 'wee-wee' savior of dogs that women fawn over but no proof of typical rescue documentation and a multi-million dollar multi-property owner who is always asking for donations. Those of us who have been in rescue for any length of time can call BS but Multnomah and Tacoma HS give him dogs like candy because they like notoriety - as do CA rescues.
Anne, I do mention Asher House briefly in Part II, but only in passing and not in the depth it probably deserves yet.
Your description captures the dynamic I’m worried about: a charismatic “savior,” light on transparent records, getting a steady stream of dogs because shelters and rescues like the glow of association more than they like hard questions.
Thanks for flagging what you’re seeing in Oregon, it’s a good reminder that this pattern isn’t limited to one state or one organization.
Thanks Ed. Those of us who have been active in rescue for years are dismissed because his followers are star struck. We question the missing dogs, the euthanized dogs, the medical dogs we never hear about, the wolf dogs he 'rescued' and seeing how he handles dogs off rescue transport completely inappropriately... his Patreon account that is vulgar... it's rather disgusting. While small rescues are trying so hard to make a difference, he is literally gaslighting and women soak it up. Thanks for all you do to bring awareness.
This story reminds me of what happened at the Spindletop Refuge outside Houston in 2013. Hyped as a place for "problem" pit bulls, it was a nightmare. And enabled by what you aptly call "sentimental rescue narratives." If solving what to do with difficult animals were that easy, it would have been done.
Carol, you’re right, the pattern is eerily similar: a “miracle” solution for hard‑to‑place dogs, wrapped in emotional narratives that make people feel better without asking hard questions about capacity, standards, or oversight. As you say, if solving the problem of truly difficult animals were that easy, we’d have solved it long ago; pretending otherwise just hides the suffering until the next crisis breaks.
I sincerely hope that the Heigl Foundation, and others, will take a lesson from this and shift their resources to prevention. Investing in spay/neuter, quite literally, prevents the suffering of countless numbers of animals, and without robust affordable spay/neuter programs, we will never "Save Them All."
I’m completely with you on that, Jennifer!
The Heigl Foundation is not alone in needing that pivot, but it’s a powerful example because they already have visibility, funding, and a stated commitment to animals. If even a fraction of what’s going into high‑profile rescue and transport were redirected into robust, targeted spay/neuter, we’d prevent more suffering than any one rescue headline ever could.
You’ve put it perfectly: without serious, affordable prevention, “Save Them All” is just a slogan.
Following this.
Devastated for all the dogs, all the volunteers and networkers that ever relied on this lifeline (like myself), and for the horrible state of animal welfare in this country.
What an awful corner of (in)humanity
Thank you for staying with this, Lauren, even though it’s painful. I share your grief for the dogs and for everyone who believed they were sending animals to a lifeline. The hope is that by putting light on this “corner,” we can push institutions toward something better than quiet despair.
What is really devastating is that this is not the only unscrupulous rescue. There are others, because pulling on heartstrings of kind-hearted individuals can be quite lucrative, and because there is little to no oversight of these operations. It is absolutely essential that any shelter or foundation sending animals to one of these operations make it very clear that they will follow up on the outcomes of the animals, and then actually do so.
Thank you for this important post and your framing of the ongoing issue of animal rescue groups that receive minimal oversight and devolve into a fate worse than euthanasia for at risk animals.
Thank you, eah, for your note. That “fate worse than euthanasia” space is exactly what this series is trying to illuminate, and it means a lot to know the framing is resonating with people who see the same risks on the ground.