When you see CEO’s of “non-profits” like Weitzman at San Diego Humane Society pulling in a $40,000 a month salary, or Best Friends (aka Foundation Faith of the Millennium/Church of the Final Judgement) their cult CEO Julie Castle pulling in $45,000 A MONTH, or Michael Arms at Helen Woodward grabbing $40,000 a month- from donations!
The word GRIFTER comes to mind.
I, along with most donors don’t want my money that I donated to help animals - used to used to pay these misguided CEO’s who have absolutely no interest in solving this problem, or any other for that matter.
They are actually busy creating regressive policies, pretending to be the experts, failed leaders banding together to consolidate power in organizations like Cal Animals here in California. These CEO’s seem to have ZERO interest in spay/neuter. Guess it’s just not sexy enough to market for more donations.
SO HAPPY THEY ARE BEING EXPOSED! Donors need to donate to small local rescue organizations.
Agree, funds should be kept locally or in one’s state so that you can fully understand the impact. Too many large organizations fall into the trap mentioned above, with ego ruling their game and lack of transparency.
Very interesting re: funding. The excuse I always hear for the months long waiting lists for feral cats is that there is a shortage of veterinarians, which seems to be true, but also not even close to the full picture. When wait lists are that long, it creates a barrier for community members that want to fix the feral cats they care for but can’t do it fast enough to get the population under control. High volume spay/neuter practices are so effective, we just need more available at low cost.
Amy, you’ve hit the nail on the head! While the veterinarian shortage is a challenge, it’s not the whole story. Long waitlists can be discouraging. Expanding access to high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter services would make a huge difference in controlling populations and supporting those who care for community cats. Here's hoping more resources get directed to this critical need!
San Diego Humane Society received $727,182.00 from the Cal for All Animals Sniptember grant, yet the first sentence on their website spay/neuter page is "Our Community Spay/Neuter Program offers a limited number of spay and neuter appointments . . . "
Jennifer, that's a great question! It’s concerning to see such a substantial grant paired with limited appointment availability. Transparency about how these funds are being used is important, especially for building trust with the community. Hopefully, SDHS can clarify how they’re addressing spay/neuter needs with this grant—it’s such a vital service!
Thank you, Ed, for pointing out that affordable spaying and neutering has to be a constant, steady, ongoing process in order to be effective. There is no quick, one-time fix for pet-overpopulation.
Unfortunately, big funders want to publicize a problem, then throw a bunch of money at it, and call it done and publicize their success. This is not how spay/neuter (or any other birth control method) works. It needs to be consistent and ongoing, which is why many of us feel that it should be funded as part of government animal control budgets rather than through one-time grants.
It is highly irresponsible of anyone to weaken any commitment to spaying and neutering companion animals. This must be the priority if the populations of at-risk and unwanted animals is to be reduced. Thank you for calling this out!
National organizations can't be lumped together as if all of them are and were singularly focused on only the welfare of cats and dogs. Best Friends is an organization dedicated to the welfare of dogs and cats. Historically, the ASPCA was founded for the protection of draft animals and horses, but later shifted to their animal shelter in New York and has in recent years, branched out into other areas of humane concern. The HSUS was not founded to address only issues concerning dogs and cats, even though the root of its founding, was the issue of pound seizure. The HSUS has stood at the forefront on issues like cockfighting, dog fighting, the use of animals in research institutions, puppy mills and protections of endangered species, for example. These issues are beyond the scope of local shelters to address. I suggest that we should support our local shelters, support local spay/neuter programs, and for those of us who care for the suffering of other animals as well as dogs and cats, support nationals that are working on those problems.
Thank you, Clova, for sharing this thoughtful perspective! I agree that national organizations have diverse missions and histories, and it's important to recognize the breadth of their work beyond just cats and dogs. The 3 primary organizations I mentioned historically supported spay/neuter initiatives, but all, at around the same time, curiously decided to suddenly stop supporting these lifesaving efforts just as we were closing in on solving the pet overpopulation problem. Indeed, supporting local shelters and spay/neuter programs is crucial for community-level impact, while also acknowledging the role some national groups may play in addressing broader issues like animal fighting, research practices, and wildlife protection. Your point about finding ways to support both local and national efforts is well taken and each of us needs to do our due diligence to ensure our donations are used as intended—there's room for all of us to make a difference in the areas we care about most.
When I looked into this, it turned out to be cheaper for the kill shelter to euthanize than to spay/neuter and adopt. They held the Covid restrictions in place for way too long adding to the problem by keeping their doors closed to the community except for an inefficient reservation system to see just 1 dog. If you wanted to meet another dog you had to fill out another reservation. Crazy!
These well documented articles are initiating conversation and awareness. National Animal Welfare orgs and pet merchandise corporation's shift from spay-neuter to rescue is a cynically deliberate business model based on pet overpopulation. Desperate pleas for distressed homeless animals is emotional blackmail fundraising gold for Best Friends, ASPCA, HSUS et al and more rescues and fosters are a boon for the big box stores.
Spay/neuter is such an obvious way to address the problem of overpopulation of uncared for companion animals. Sad and maddening that shelters and all to many animal welfare organizations do not prioritize it. It seems like some access to care strategies could easily be partnered with it. Create a partnership with underserved people, streamline care sources, and find ways to cut costs and provide decent services.
Job security anyone?
When you see CEO’s of “non-profits” like Weitzman at San Diego Humane Society pulling in a $40,000 a month salary, or Best Friends (aka Foundation Faith of the Millennium/Church of the Final Judgement) their cult CEO Julie Castle pulling in $45,000 A MONTH, or Michael Arms at Helen Woodward grabbing $40,000 a month- from donations!
The word GRIFTER comes to mind.
I, along with most donors don’t want my money that I donated to help animals - used to used to pay these misguided CEO’s who have absolutely no interest in solving this problem, or any other for that matter.
They are actually busy creating regressive policies, pretending to be the experts, failed leaders banding together to consolidate power in organizations like Cal Animals here in California. These CEO’s seem to have ZERO interest in spay/neuter. Guess it’s just not sexy enough to market for more donations.
SO HAPPY THEY ARE BEING EXPOSED! Donors need to donate to small local rescue organizations.
Agree, funds should be kept locally or in one’s state so that you can fully understand the impact. Too many large organizations fall into the trap mentioned above, with ego ruling their game and lack of transparency.
Amen! https://animalpolitics.substack.com/p/animal-politics-think-globally-give?utm_source=publication-search
I was just thinking the same thing - there's more job security in being reactive rather than preventive.
Now we just need to make the public understand.
Very interesting re: funding. The excuse I always hear for the months long waiting lists for feral cats is that there is a shortage of veterinarians, which seems to be true, but also not even close to the full picture. When wait lists are that long, it creates a barrier for community members that want to fix the feral cats they care for but can’t do it fast enough to get the population under control. High volume spay/neuter practices are so effective, we just need more available at low cost.
Amy, you’ve hit the nail on the head! While the veterinarian shortage is a challenge, it’s not the whole story. Long waitlists can be discouraging. Expanding access to high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter services would make a huge difference in controlling populations and supporting those who care for community cats. Here's hoping more resources get directed to this critical need!
San Diego Humane Society received $727,182.00 from the Cal for All Animals Sniptember grant, yet the first sentence on their website spay/neuter page is "Our Community Spay/Neuter Program offers a limited number of spay and neuter appointments . . . "
What gives, San Diego?
Jennifer, that's a great question! It’s concerning to see such a substantial grant paired with limited appointment availability. Transparency about how these funds are being used is important, especially for building trust with the community. Hopefully, SDHS can clarify how they’re addressing spay/neuter needs with this grant—it’s such a vital service!
Thank you, Ed, for pointing out that affordable spaying and neutering has to be a constant, steady, ongoing process in order to be effective. There is no quick, one-time fix for pet-overpopulation.
Unfortunately, big funders want to publicize a problem, then throw a bunch of money at it, and call it done and publicize their success. This is not how spay/neuter (or any other birth control method) works. It needs to be consistent and ongoing, which is why many of us feel that it should be funded as part of government animal control budgets rather than through one-time grants.
spay/neuter services must be as ubiquitous as shelters themselves!
It is highly irresponsible of anyone to weaken any commitment to spaying and neutering companion animals. This must be the priority if the populations of at-risk and unwanted animals is to be reduced. Thank you for calling this out!
National organizations can't be lumped together as if all of them are and were singularly focused on only the welfare of cats and dogs. Best Friends is an organization dedicated to the welfare of dogs and cats. Historically, the ASPCA was founded for the protection of draft animals and horses, but later shifted to their animal shelter in New York and has in recent years, branched out into other areas of humane concern. The HSUS was not founded to address only issues concerning dogs and cats, even though the root of its founding, was the issue of pound seizure. The HSUS has stood at the forefront on issues like cockfighting, dog fighting, the use of animals in research institutions, puppy mills and protections of endangered species, for example. These issues are beyond the scope of local shelters to address. I suggest that we should support our local shelters, support local spay/neuter programs, and for those of us who care for the suffering of other animals as well as dogs and cats, support nationals that are working on those problems.
Thank you, Clova, for sharing this thoughtful perspective! I agree that national organizations have diverse missions and histories, and it's important to recognize the breadth of their work beyond just cats and dogs. The 3 primary organizations I mentioned historically supported spay/neuter initiatives, but all, at around the same time, curiously decided to suddenly stop supporting these lifesaving efforts just as we were closing in on solving the pet overpopulation problem. Indeed, supporting local shelters and spay/neuter programs is crucial for community-level impact, while also acknowledging the role some national groups may play in addressing broader issues like animal fighting, research practices, and wildlife protection. Your point about finding ways to support both local and national efforts is well taken and each of us needs to do our due diligence to ensure our donations are used as intended—there's room for all of us to make a difference in the areas we care about most.
When I looked into this, it turned out to be cheaper for the kill shelter to euthanize than to spay/neuter and adopt. They held the Covid restrictions in place for way too long adding to the problem by keeping their doors closed to the community except for an inefficient reservation system to see just 1 dog. If you wanted to meet another dog you had to fill out another reservation. Crazy!
These well documented articles are initiating conversation and awareness. National Animal Welfare orgs and pet merchandise corporation's shift from spay-neuter to rescue is a cynically deliberate business model based on pet overpopulation. Desperate pleas for distressed homeless animals is emotional blackmail fundraising gold for Best Friends, ASPCA, HSUS et al and more rescues and fosters are a boon for the big box stores.
Spay/neuter is such an obvious way to address the problem of overpopulation of uncared for companion animals. Sad and maddening that shelters and all to many animal welfare organizations do not prioritize it. It seems like some access to care strategies could easily be partnered with it. Create a partnership with underserved people, streamline care sources, and find ways to cut costs and provide decent services.
Here is Ruth Steinberger's perspective (Spay First) recently published by Animals24-7.
https://www.animals24-7.org/2025/01/06/fix-the-problem-by-ruth-steinberger-founder-spayfirst/