Interesting takeaway, SFS. I’m not sure if you meant that as a critique, a compliment, or just an observation—but I appreciate you reading it. There’s definitely a political layer to how both municipal and private shelter policies are shaped, especially when consultants and contracts come into play. My goal is simply to advocate for transparency and accountability—wherever the policies originate.
There is no accountability if they won’t answer the questions. Hassan, Castle and Weitzman were appointed by UC Davis Koret School for Newsom’s 50 million Fund for Animals advisory Board. Because Koret holds the money, they should answer the questions. Is there anyone on the advisory board with an opposing view on the side of the animals and community welfare?
Great point, Aimee. Without accountability, public trust—and real progress—both suffer. Their appointments to the Fund for Animals advisory board only raise the stakes. You’re absolutely right to ask: where are the voices representing the animals and the communities? That’s a question worth pursuing.
This current situation reminds me of when I was appointed to the San Diego County Animal Control Advisory Board over 25 years ago. Each supervisor appointed 2 representatives from their district. The other supervisors appointed dog and cat breeders, a zoo executive, veterinarians, a representative from UCSD which had a contract to obtain "medical research" subjects from the shelter (pound seizure), a sheep rancher and an egg farmer. I was the first appointee to ever represent the animals (whether in the shelter or in the community) and the people of the area. All of the other appointees had a special interest in advocating for or stopping various animal related regulations. One of the veterinarians happened to be my vet. and when I asked him why he supported pound seizure, he replied that the shelter animals were of no value and some use should be made of them. Obviously, he was no longer my vet. One of the other appointees was a
prolific pit bull breeder who was proud that he culled his litters by banging pan tops together and then drowning the pups who were fearful. This was reported in the
newspaper as well as recounted in meetings. It's probably not necessary to say that it was a high stress position. Fortunately, our next district supervisor appointed another animal/community centric person who was a good friend and the mayor of one of the county animal control contractors so there were 2 of us standing up against the special interest appointees. What I'm seeing and hearing today is similar to 25 years ago: special interests, including those in sheep's clothing, are colluding to keep the money flowing into their pockets rather than utilizing their power and position to benefit what should be aligned missions but definitely are not.
Above, Judy mentions that it's discouraging "when people want the same things (animal welfare, inclusion & respect) but defend to the nnnnth degree a position that refuses critical thinking when it comes to program or doctrine". IMO, people currently don't want the same thing in the animal welfare world. One side wants to focus on prevention of pet
overpopulation, transparency, accountability and policies/programs that benefit companion animals and the community. The other side wants to keep the gift going so that they achieve personal power and financial benefit.
Just like in the bad old days of the San Diego County Animal Control Advisory Board, to the general public it might appear like all the members had the same interest: they were connected by their involvement with animals. However, one side was soullessly involved with maintaining and furthering the use of animals for their benefit while the dissenters' interest in animals was altruistic. That's what's discouraging to me. The "experts" have taken companion animal welfare backward 2 decades.
Thank you for sharing this, Candy. Your story is both powerful and sobering—and sadly, it echoes so much of what we're still seeing today. It’s clear you’ve been in the trenches for a long time, standing up when it mattered most. That kind of principled advocacy leaves a mark, even when the system resists change. I’m grateful you’re still speaking out. Your voice helps anchor this moment in a much longer—and necessary—memory.
I have now read this newsletter for the third time. My first 2 attempts were met with anger and frustration making a constructive comment impossible. Having some hands-on experience as a former board member and publicist for the AC&C I am saddened and frustrated that the animal welfare system was broken then and nothing has changed. I never could understand why people do not just "Do the right thing"... and the people who do the wrong thing are still around and in power positions.
Thank you, Rosemary, for reading—and for sticking with it through the frustration. Your perspective as a former board member and publicist adds real weight to this conversation. It is maddening how long some of these patterns persist, and I share your belief that doing the right thing shouldn’t be so hard. I’m grateful you’re still engaged—it matters!
The first thing Beth & I look at in evaluating the performance of an animal control director is the human body count on his/her watch. The very first priority for any animal control director has to be the health & safety of the people who hire him or her. The second priority is protecting the pets, livestock, and wildlife of the community; this is also an essential part of why animal control departments exist. Holding down the body count among impounded animals found at large or owner-surrendered for non-behavioral reasons may be a third priority, but avoiding euthanasias of dangerous dogs, especially with bite history, is misplacing priorities at the expense of the public and animals who have done no harm. Kristen Hassen's whole career has demonstrated, and worse, taught, an inversion of priorities, to the detriment of the agencies and communities that have hired her. Several agencies have been sued in her wake for rehoming dangerous dogs who went on to kill or grievously injure more people & animals. That none of these cases included human fatalities appears to be due chiefly to speedy and effective response by emergency medical technicians.
Thanks, Merritt and Beth. You’ve always had a clear-eyed way of cutting to the heart of the issue—and your point about inverted priorities really resonates. Public safety isn’t just a line item; it’s the foundation everything else should be built on. If you’ve done any reporting on Kristen’s past placements or the fallout from her policies, I’d love to take a look—could be helpful as I dig deeper into the bigger picture.
I've had some interactions with Matt over the years but I have not yet invited him to do an interview with Animal Politics. I'll be sending him an invite in the next few days. Thanks for the suggestion.
The refusal to discuss questions and differing points of view is unhappily similar to the dynamics in other areas, too; gender identity politics toes the same line. It’s discouraging when people want the same things (animal welfare, inclusion & respect) but defend to the nnnnth degree a position that refuses critical thinking when it comes to program or doctrine.
Feels like I've just read an article about government politics.
Interesting takeaway, SFS. I’m not sure if you meant that as a critique, a compliment, or just an observation—but I appreciate you reading it. There’s definitely a political layer to how both municipal and private shelter policies are shaped, especially when consultants and contracts come into play. My goal is simply to advocate for transparency and accountability—wherever the policies originate.
Purely observation!
There is no accountability if they won’t answer the questions. Hassan, Castle and Weitzman were appointed by UC Davis Koret School for Newsom’s 50 million Fund for Animals advisory Board. Because Koret holds the money, they should answer the questions. Is there anyone on the advisory board with an opposing view on the side of the animals and community welfare?
Great point, Aimee. Without accountability, public trust—and real progress—both suffer. Their appointments to the Fund for Animals advisory board only raise the stakes. You’re absolutely right to ask: where are the voices representing the animals and the communities? That’s a question worth pursuing.
This current situation reminds me of when I was appointed to the San Diego County Animal Control Advisory Board over 25 years ago. Each supervisor appointed 2 representatives from their district. The other supervisors appointed dog and cat breeders, a zoo executive, veterinarians, a representative from UCSD which had a contract to obtain "medical research" subjects from the shelter (pound seizure), a sheep rancher and an egg farmer. I was the first appointee to ever represent the animals (whether in the shelter or in the community) and the people of the area. All of the other appointees had a special interest in advocating for or stopping various animal related regulations. One of the veterinarians happened to be my vet. and when I asked him why he supported pound seizure, he replied that the shelter animals were of no value and some use should be made of them. Obviously, he was no longer my vet. One of the other appointees was a
prolific pit bull breeder who was proud that he culled his litters by banging pan tops together and then drowning the pups who were fearful. This was reported in the
newspaper as well as recounted in meetings. It's probably not necessary to say that it was a high stress position. Fortunately, our next district supervisor appointed another animal/community centric person who was a good friend and the mayor of one of the county animal control contractors so there were 2 of us standing up against the special interest appointees. What I'm seeing and hearing today is similar to 25 years ago: special interests, including those in sheep's clothing, are colluding to keep the money flowing into their pockets rather than utilizing their power and position to benefit what should be aligned missions but definitely are not.
Above, Judy mentions that it's discouraging "when people want the same things (animal welfare, inclusion & respect) but defend to the nnnnth degree a position that refuses critical thinking when it comes to program or doctrine". IMO, people currently don't want the same thing in the animal welfare world. One side wants to focus on prevention of pet
overpopulation, transparency, accountability and policies/programs that benefit companion animals and the community. The other side wants to keep the gift going so that they achieve personal power and financial benefit.
Just like in the bad old days of the San Diego County Animal Control Advisory Board, to the general public it might appear like all the members had the same interest: they were connected by their involvement with animals. However, one side was soullessly involved with maintaining and furthering the use of animals for their benefit while the dissenters' interest in animals was altruistic. That's what's discouraging to me. The "experts" have taken companion animal welfare backward 2 decades.
Thank you for sharing this, Candy. Your story is both powerful and sobering—and sadly, it echoes so much of what we're still seeing today. It’s clear you’ve been in the trenches for a long time, standing up when it mattered most. That kind of principled advocacy leaves a mark, even when the system resists change. I’m grateful you’re still speaking out. Your voice helps anchor this moment in a much longer—and necessary—memory.
I have now read this newsletter for the third time. My first 2 attempts were met with anger and frustration making a constructive comment impossible. Having some hands-on experience as a former board member and publicist for the AC&C I am saddened and frustrated that the animal welfare system was broken then and nothing has changed. I never could understand why people do not just "Do the right thing"... and the people who do the wrong thing are still around and in power positions.
Thank you, Rosemary, for reading—and for sticking with it through the frustration. Your perspective as a former board member and publicist adds real weight to this conversation. It is maddening how long some of these patterns persist, and I share your belief that doing the right thing shouldn’t be so hard. I’m grateful you’re still engaged—it matters!
The first thing Beth & I look at in evaluating the performance of an animal control director is the human body count on his/her watch. The very first priority for any animal control director has to be the health & safety of the people who hire him or her. The second priority is protecting the pets, livestock, and wildlife of the community; this is also an essential part of why animal control departments exist. Holding down the body count among impounded animals found at large or owner-surrendered for non-behavioral reasons may be a third priority, but avoiding euthanasias of dangerous dogs, especially with bite history, is misplacing priorities at the expense of the public and animals who have done no harm. Kristen Hassen's whole career has demonstrated, and worse, taught, an inversion of priorities, to the detriment of the agencies and communities that have hired her. Several agencies have been sued in her wake for rehoming dangerous dogs who went on to kill or grievously injure more people & animals. That none of these cases included human fatalities appears to be due chiefly to speedy and effective response by emergency medical technicians.
Thanks, Merritt and Beth. You’ve always had a clear-eyed way of cutting to the heart of the issue—and your point about inverted priorities really resonates. Public safety isn’t just a line item; it’s the foundation everything else should be built on. If you’ve done any reporting on Kristen’s past placements or the fallout from her policies, I’d love to take a look—could be helpful as I dig deeper into the bigger picture.
Have you tried to interview Matt Bershadker at ASPCA?
Hi Patty,
I've had some interactions with Matt over the years but I have not yet invited him to do an interview with Animal Politics. I'll be sending him an invite in the next few days. Thanks for the suggestion.
The refusal to discuss questions and differing points of view is unhappily similar to the dynamics in other areas, too; gender identity politics toes the same line. It’s discouraging when people want the same things (animal welfare, inclusion & respect) but defend to the nnnnth degree a position that refuses critical thinking when it comes to program or doctrine.