The Forgotten Pets of San Diego’s Safe Lots: When Compassion Falls Short

Neglected, Abused, and Abandoned—How the San Diego Humane Society's Inaction is Failing the City's Most Vulnerable Animals

In the heart of San Diego, a crisis is unfolding at the city's Safe Lots, temporary havens for over 400 unhoused individuals and their pets. These lots, designed to provide a secure place for people living in vehicles, have become a stark reminder of the challenges faced by those on the margins of society. While Safe Lots offer a semblance of stability, the reality is far more complex. Pets, often the only source of comfort for their owners, are frequently neglected, abused, or abandoned. Despite the critical role of the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) in addressing animal welfare issues, their response to these crises has been woefully inadequate.

A Pattern of Neglect

The crisis at the Safe Lots is not an isolated failure. SDHS has faced similar criticism for its Community Cat Program, which was ruled illegal by a California court for releasing adoptable cats into the community without proper care. While Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs can play a vital role in controlling feral cat populations, SDHS' mismanagement of adoptable cats suggests an organizational culture that values optics—particularly high live release rates—over the well-being of animals.

SDHS has also been implicated in other troubling practices, such as transferring small pets to a reptile breeder in Arizona—raising concerns about the fate of those animals—and misleading the public about shelter overcrowding while a whistleblower found its facility nearly empty of cats. The organization’s history of defying court rulings and neglecting its duty paints a disturbing picture of systemic failures.

These policies mirror the influence of Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS), whose emphasis on live release rates has reshaped shelter practices nationwide. While the partnership between SDHS and BFAS is framed as lifesaving, critics argue that it incentivizes SDHS to obscure neglect and abuse in marginalized communities rather than confront the root causes of animal suffering.

“These animals suffer in plain sight, and there’s no system in place to protect them.”

Case in Point: Life at the Safe Lot

Behind the chain-link fences of the Safe Lots, pets endure harsh conditions. Staff members report witnessing neglect and abuse daily—animals left without food or water, tethered for hours in the sweltering sun, or confined to vehicles without ventilation. One staff member described the reality: "Most pets are not properly cared for. Because I work here eight hours a day, I see firsthand how animals are often treated more like objects than living, breathing beings."

Another volunteer echoed these frustrations: “Too often, these animals are suffering in plain sight, and there’s no real system in place to protect them.” Despite their efforts, staff feel unsupported by SDHS. As one program coordinator explained: “I initially believed SDHS would be a resource for these animals, but they mostly redirect cases back to us instead of taking action. Safe Lot staff, who are already overwhelmed, are left to handle these cases alone.”

These firsthand accounts paint a troubling picture—not just of individual neglect but of systemic failure. During summer months, tent temperatures can soar past 120 degrees Fahrenheit inside. Pets are left unattended in these dangerously hot conditions without food or water, risking dehydration or heat exhaustion. In one particularly harrowing case, a German Shepherd puppy was thrown against a dirt bank by its owner before being stomped on repeatedly as it cried out in pain. Another incident involved a Pomeranian visibly impaired after ingesting drugs—a situation dismissed by its owner with casual indifference: “Oh, she got into some drugs... Don’t worry—this isn’t the first time.”

Safe Lot Access Restrictions Prevent Help

One of the biggest barriers to addressing pet neglect in Safe Lots is restriction on access for outside animal welfare advocates. Many Good Samaritans, including experienced rescuers and nonprofit organizations, have been prevented from entering these lots to assess animal conditions or provide necessary care. Bureaucratic red tape and liability concerns have created a system where suffering animals remain out of reach to those who could help them.

Even in cases where an outside rescuer is willing to take in an abused or neglected animal, Safe Lot policies make intervention nearly impossible. Without an official complaint accepted by SDHS—an agency with a track record of dismissing concerns—rescues are often powerless to intervene. As a result, compassionate individuals who want to provide relief are forced to navigate a maze of obstacles, while animals continue to languish in unsafe conditions.

In one recent case, a staff member attempted to find placement for an abandoned puppy. A reputable local rescue agreed to take the animal, but only from SDHS. When the staff member contacted SDHS in December, they were told the puppy couldn’t be taken in until March—three months away—despite the immediate availability of a rescue partner. The delay left the puppy in limbo, exposed to the very neglect that warranted intervention in the first place.

These kinds of bureaucratic bottlenecks are not isolated incidents. By making it nearly impossible for rescues to act quickly, SDHS effectively ensures that many animals in need remain trapped in dangerous conditions, waiting for help that may never come.

SDHS: Delayed and Inadequate Response

Staff members who report cases of abuse or neglect often find themselves at the mercy of SDHS' sluggish and inconsistent response. Reports are frequently dismissed, with officers demanding video proof—an unreasonable request given the Safe Lots' no-photo policy. Even when action is taken, it can take weeks, allowing suffering to continue. "Whenever I report concerns," one staff member noted, "I'm often met with responses like 'That's not abuse' or 'Sorry, we can't send an officer for that.'"

SDHS' policies, while likely intended to avoid discrimination, have inadvertently created a double standard. In wealthier neighborhoods, complaints of animal neglect often prompt immediate action. Yet in the Safe Lots, where unhoused pet owners struggle with poverty and addiction, the same standards do not apply. This hesitancy to intervene—out of fear of appearing discriminatory—has enabled cycles of severe neglect and abuse.

Missed Opportunities for Prevention

Despite requests from staff and advocates, SDHS has failed to take proactive measures to support Safe Lot residents and their pets. Basic interventions like distributing pet food, providing education on proper care, or establishing regular veterinary visits have been neglected. The organization's Community Vet Care Program, touted as a lifeline for underserved communities, rarely visits the Safe Lots—leaving pets without critical medical attention.

Furthermore, SDHS has resisted implementing safeguards to prevent known abusers from adopting pets again. Without such protections, repeat offenders continue to access vulnerable animals, perpetuating a cycle of suffering.

The Path Forward

The situation at the Safe Lots demands urgent reform. SDHS must prioritize animal welfare over bureaucratic barriers and statistical performance. Immediate steps should include:

• Deploying mobile veterinary clinics to Safe Lots on a regular schedule.

• Establishing a dedicated team to respond to abuse reports from unhoused communities.

• Providing basic pet care supplies and educational materials to residents.

• Implementing a registry to prevent known abusers from adopting pets.

• Partnering with local rescues better equipped to provide on-the-ground support.

Redirecting funding toward community-based rescues and proactive services would not only alleviate suffering but help restore public trust in SDHS' mission.

Conclusion

The animals of San Diego's Safe Lots are among the city's most voiceless victims. While SDHS presents itself as a leader in animal welfare, its failure to intervene in the suffering of these pets exposes a troubling gap between mission and action. Protecting animals should never be contingent on social status or fear of public perception.

As one volunteer put it, "It appears that SDHS staff are trained to refer responsibilities back to the community rather than taking direct action to help, leaving Safe Lot staff overwhelmed and unsupported in addressing the urgent needs of these animals."

The time has come to hold SDHS leadership accountable. The public must demand transparency, stronger policies, and a renewed commitment to the animals who depend on them. Without accountability, SDHS will continue to fail the very creatures it claims to protect. San Diego’s pets—and the people who care for them—deserve 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.