Best Friends’ 63% claim rests on selective data, machine-learning estimates, and a sample that may represent fewer than 9% of U.S. brick-and-mortar shelters.
Thanks for this Ed. In my area, Upstate, NY, all the larger shelters are mostly full service. They honestly claim that they do not euthanize for space, but how hard is it to find another reason? OR to reject the dog at the front door altogether. Many rescues also euthanize for behavior. But the good news is that all of them are holding onto dogs and giving them a much longer chance for adoption. That's what they have internalized from NO KILL, which turns out to be a PR movement. Beats just killing them.
Thanks, Ballad, for your thoughtful note. You're absolutely right—the culture shift toward giving animals more time is real, and meaningful. But as you point out, without honest intake and outcome reporting, it’s hard to know what’s really happening behind the numbers. Holding onto dogs longer is a good step—but we need transparency and targeted spay/neuter programs alongside compassion. I appreciate you sharing what’s happening in Upstate NY.
I’ve been waiting almost a year for a public record request from LA Animal Services…. Requesting intake/outcome data. All I’ve heard is that they’re ‘working on it.’
There is no excuse for that. When I was GM at LAAS we posted comprehensive statistic reports every month that included every month for the past five years. This allowed us to follow and report on trends. This can easily be done.
As we say in the pharmaceutical industry, garbage in = garbage out! Their data is fraudulent, bias, and self-serving. Everyone knows they’re liars except for the uninformed Animal Lover, which is who they prey on. The Attorney General should be notified!! Are they defrauding the public? YES! Are they misappropriating donor and taxpayer money? YES! The Attorney General says this is illegal. What they are doing is illegal!
The most reeking aspect of the Best Friends litterbox survey is that depending on the survey sample used, 63% of 668 shelters operating in 1995, at the time of the first No Kill Conference, could also have been proclaimed "no kill." The very first No Kill Directory, published in 1995, included more than 150 organizations; the third, published in 1997, included more than 600, and most of those had been in existence for more than three years.
Yes, Tracy and Merritt, I also agree BFAS statistical presentation is outright fraud and should be treated as such by authorities and donors.
It seems the entire edifice of fraudulent companion animal welfare orgs is becoming more desperate with schemes like mass transports (disappearance) and "community animals" (strays) to sustain the illusion of "no kill" without population prevention.
It's interesting that the recieving shelters on BFAS Transport Connection Map I checked had extremely restrictive (up front exam fees and additional fees pending acceptance) intake requirements and in some cases were not accepting intake yet listed on BFAS Transport Connection Map as recipient of transports or 21-30 animals.
One of BFAS transporters with "fleets" of vehicles is yet another software exec creating another proprietary database. Seems the propriety software and databases for all aspects of companion animals is seen as a gold rush, much like Duffield's Maddie's Fund worth 13 billion as software "Peoplesoft" and other database programs. I don't believe for a second he started Maddie's Fund as a tribute to his schnauzer.
Thanks for this Ed. In my area, Upstate, NY, all the larger shelters are mostly full service. They honestly claim that they do not euthanize for space, but how hard is it to find another reason? OR to reject the dog at the front door altogether. Many rescues also euthanize for behavior. But the good news is that all of them are holding onto dogs and giving them a much longer chance for adoption. That's what they have internalized from NO KILL, which turns out to be a PR movement. Beats just killing them.
Thanks, Ballad, for your thoughtful note. You're absolutely right—the culture shift toward giving animals more time is real, and meaningful. But as you point out, without honest intake and outcome reporting, it’s hard to know what’s really happening behind the numbers. Holding onto dogs longer is a good step—but we need transparency and targeted spay/neuter programs alongside compassion. I appreciate you sharing what’s happening in Upstate NY.
I’ve been waiting almost a year for a public record request from LA Animal Services…. Requesting intake/outcome data. All I’ve heard is that they’re ‘working on it.’
There is no excuse for that. When I was GM at LAAS we posted comprehensive statistic reports every month that included every month for the past five years. This allowed us to follow and report on trends. This can easily be done.
Great article, Ed. Just recently started reading you. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much, Steve—really glad to have you reading along. I appreciate the kind words and look forward to hearing your thoughts on future pieces!
As we say in the pharmaceutical industry, garbage in = garbage out! Their data is fraudulent, bias, and self-serving. Everyone knows they’re liars except for the uninformed Animal Lover, which is who they prey on. The Attorney General should be notified!! Are they defrauding the public? YES! Are they misappropriating donor and taxpayer money? YES! The Attorney General says this is illegal. What they are doing is illegal!
The most reeking aspect of the Best Friends litterbox survey is that depending on the survey sample used, 63% of 668 shelters operating in 1995, at the time of the first No Kill Conference, could also have been proclaimed "no kill." The very first No Kill Directory, published in 1995, included more than 150 organizations; the third, published in 1997, included more than 600, and most of those had been in existence for more than three years.
Yes, Tracy and Merritt, I also agree BFAS statistical presentation is outright fraud and should be treated as such by authorities and donors.
It seems the entire edifice of fraudulent companion animal welfare orgs is becoming more desperate with schemes like mass transports (disappearance) and "community animals" (strays) to sustain the illusion of "no kill" without population prevention.
It's interesting that the recieving shelters on BFAS Transport Connection Map I checked had extremely restrictive (up front exam fees and additional fees pending acceptance) intake requirements and in some cases were not accepting intake yet listed on BFAS Transport Connection Map as recipient of transports or 21-30 animals.
One of BFAS transporters with "fleets" of vehicles is yet another software exec creating another proprietary database. Seems the propriety software and databases for all aspects of companion animals is seen as a gold rush, much like Duffield's Maddie's Fund worth 13 billion as software "Peoplesoft" and other database programs. I don't believe for a second he started Maddie's Fund as a tribute to his schnauzer.