The Battle for Animal Welfare: Interview with Best Friends' Worst Enemy

How Paulette Dean Fought Best Friends' Worst Tactics and Stood Firm for Humane Care

Introduction

Paulette Dean has been a steadfast advocate for comprehensive animal welfare for over four decades, serving as the Executive Director of the Danville Area Humane Society (DAHS) since 1992 and as the humane investigator since 1997. Under her leadership, DAHS has remained committed to its mission of providing a safety net for all animals, particularly those most in need—sick, injured, and dangerous animals that may not be adoptable. Dean’s approach to animal welfare emphasizes transparency, community involvement, and humane care over rigid benchmarks or one-size-fits-all solutions.

Recently, Paulette found herself at the center of a high-profile conflict with Best Friends Animal Society, a national organization promoting a "no-kill" initiative defined by achieving a 90% live release rate. When Dean declined to adopt Best Friends' limited-admission model—believing it would force DAHS to turn away animals in need—Best Friends launched a public campaign against her shelter, accusing it of falling short in its save rates. This clash highlighted a fundamental philosophical divide: while Best Friends prioritizes numerical goals, Paulette remains focused on addressing the nuanced realities of her community’s animal population.

In this interview, Paulette Dean shares her perspective on the challenges of balancing humane care with public expectations, her concerns about national organizations imposing rigid frameworks on local shelters, and her vision for sustainable animal welfare practices that truly serve both animals and their communities.

Paulette Dean with Hal, a 5 month old Tabby rescued with 18 other cats - all of whom would have been denied shelter had DAHS agreed to BFAS’ Limited Intake demands.

The Interview

Personal and Professional Background

Animal Politics: Paulette, can you share your journey in animal welfare and what inspired you to dedicate your career to this field since 1984?

Paulette Dean: My passion for animals started as a child, praying daily to avoid even seeing hurt or hungry animals. In 1983, while driving home, I found a beagle struck by a car. I stayed with her until her last moments. The next day, I reached out to a woman involved with the local humane society, asking how I could help. Within weeks, I joined the board of the Danville Area Humane Society. In 1984, we started our contract with the City of Danville to run the public shelter, even building an addition as a gift to the city. After leaving in 1986, I returned in 1989, became the director in 1992, and was appointed a humane investigator in 1997.

Animal Politics: What are some of the core values and principles that guide your leadership at the Danville Area Humane Society (DAHS)?

Paulette Dean: At DAHS, we firmly believe that animals are not just numbers on spreadsheets or in reports—they are living beings with unique needs and stories. Our approach is rooted in compassion and a deep commitment to humane care, rather than rigid benchmarks or high-pressure goals.

I prioritize transparency, community involvement, and tailoring solutions to fit the specific needs of the animals and the community we serve. This means making decisions based on each animal’s well-being, not just on achieving statistical goals. We strive to provide a safety net for every animal, especially those who are sick, injured, or deemed less adoptable, recognizing that each animal deserves a chance at a better life, regardless of whether they fit into a standardized model.

The Danville Experience

Animal Politics: Can you describe the conflict between DAHS and Best Friends Animal Society? What were the key points of disagreement?

Paulette Dean: Over the years, we’ve watched Best Friends’ influence grow, alongside the rise of "no-kill" proponents. While we share the ultimate goal of ending euthanasia for healthy animals, we believe the philosophy behind the movement is deeply flawed. We’ve seen the unintended, and often cruel, consequences of prioritizing numbers over humane care.

We see it like this: at Point A, there are far too many animals being born, and neglect and cruelty are rampant. Every animal welfare organization—ours included—wants to see animals in loving, responsible homes. We all want to eliminate euthanasia for healthy animals, which is our Point C. But the philosophy promoted by Best Friends and similar organizations bypasses the essential work that needs to happen at Point B—spaying and neutering, removing animals from neglectful environments, and addressing overpopulation.

When “no-kill” was introduced in Virginia, I attended the training. It quickly became clear that to avoid euthanizing animals, shelters would be forced to turn them away. At some point, numbers took precedence over the actual needs of the animals. A few years later, a neighboring county hired a Best Friends consultant to retrain their animal control officers. I went on a cruelty call with them that still haunts me. We visited a property with dead bodies and emaciated animals—cats, chickens, dogs, and pigs.

The Best Friends consultant advised the officers, including myself, to educate the owner instead of seizing the animals. I was appalled, as the owner was known to be an addict. We had no choice but to leave those animals behind. A few months later, there were more dead animals, and the woman was convicted of cruelty. That’s when it became clear to me that Best Friends' approach was not only ineffective, but it could also lead to more suffering and death for the animals.

Animal Politics: How did the “Danville Deserves Better” campaign launched by Best Friends impact your organization and the community’s perception of DAHS?

Paulette Dean: When Best Friends launched their campaign, we were warned it would be brutal, but the harassment we faced exceeded our expectations. Shelters and groups nationwide supported us, but the emotional toll was significant. One of our staff members, Mia, was harassed by a campaign worker who violated our property’s “no trespassing” signs and threatened her. She was so frightened, she quit her job. The same individual visited a former board member, telling her, “Tell Paulette that Best Friends has more money to fight her than she has to fight Best Friends.”

The harassment escalated further. Best Friends aired commercials featuring a woman who briefly worked with us years ago, falsely claiming to have witnessed the euthanasia of puppies, fueling public outrage. This was just one part of a coordinated campaign to tarnish our reputation, with lies spread at City Council meetings and across social media. We chose not to engage publicly, recognizing that the emotional fallout from adoption rejections often clouds judgment, but we refused to let these baseless attacks go unanswered.

To protect our staff, we increased security measures. We spent 250 hours responding to FOIA requests, redacting sensitive information to safeguard our employees. Despite this, our detractors compiled spreadsheets and posted misleading details online. The intimidation even reached City Council members, with Best Friends staff targeting them at their homes.

This campaign was an attack on our organization’s credibility, despite our decades of proven service and leadership in the community. Best Friends’ goal was clear: to make us irrelevant.

Animal Politics: Best Friends proposed transferring cats from DAHS to their New York facility as part of their initiative. Why did you decide not to adopt their limited-admission policy, and what were the consequences of that decision?

Paulette Dean: At DAHS, we require transfer partners to sign agreements that the animals we send will be adopted into responsible, indoor-only homes. However, Best Friends refused to sign such agreements. They do not impose similar conditions on their transfers. This lack of accountability was a key reason we chose not to adopt their transfer program. We believe it’s crucial to ensure the well-being of the animals we place, not just meet a number or statistic.

Philosophical Differences on "No-Kill"

Animal Politics: Best Friends defines "no-kill" as achieving a 90% live release rate, but you’ve expressed concerns about this benchmark. Can you elaborate on why you believe this definition oversimplifies the realities shelters face?

Paulette Dean: The 90% live release rate is an arbitrary, man-made benchmark that doesn’t reflect the complexities of animal welfare in our community. At DAHS, our euthanasia numbers include critically ill or injured animals, as well as sick and injured strays taken directly to veterinary clinics by animal control officers. Many are euthanized by the veterinarians; however, since we are the public shelter, we report these cases in our annual reports to maintain transparency and count every animal. We also provide euthanasia services for free, especially for grieving owners when all other options fail their suffering animals. Turning these animals away simply isn’t an option, regardless of statistics.

Animal Politics: How do you balance DAHS’s mission of providing a safety net for all animals—including those who are sick, injured, or dangerous—with the pressure to increase save rates?

Paulette Dean: This campaign has tested our resolve. We believe the euthanasia rate is a community-wide issue, not just a shelter problem. To address this, we’ve expanded outreach through free microchip clinics and significantly boosted our already comprehensive spay/neuter programs. Additionally, we’ve formed a strategic planning committee to guide us starting in January.

Animal Politics: In your view, what does a truly humane approach to “no-kill” look like, and how does it differ from Best Friends’ model?

Paulette Dean: I’ve touched on this before, but it’s worth emphasizing: any “no-kill” program that turns away animals in need is fundamentally flawed and, in my view, cruel. A truly humane approach doesn’t focus on a number or percentage—it’s about ensuring every animal receives care, regardless of their condition. Best Friends’ model, with its rigid 90% live release rate, overlooks the reality that shelters often face animals that are severely injured, critically ill, or dangerous. These animals deserve compassion and humane treatment, not to be rejected simply because they don’t fit an arbitrary goal.

In contrast, a genuine “no-kill” approach must be rooted in comprehensive community solutions: robust spay/neuter programs, outreach, and partnerships that address the root causes of overpopulation. It’s about building a safety net for all animals, where no one is turned away, and where every effort is made to prevent cruelty through education, support, and proper resources. It’s not about numbers on a spreadsheet—it’s about what’s right for the animals and the community as a whole.

Community Impact

Animal Politics: How has the conflict with Best Friends shaped public dialogue around animal welfare in Danville? Have there been any long-term effects on community trust or support for DAHS?

Paulette Dean: Surprisingly, the conflict with Best Friends has strengthened our community’s support. Despite the intense pressure and misinformation, we’ve been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support from local residents. Donations have actually increased, and countless people have reached out to express their appreciation for the work we’re doing.

This has reaffirmed that the community values our approach and understands the complexities of animal welfare. While the public dialogue has been challenging at times, it’s ultimately reinforced the trust in DAHS. People recognize that we’ve always operated with the best interests of the animals and the community at heart, and they’ve rallied behind us in ways that we could never have anticipated.

Animal Politics: What role does transparency and community involvement play in your approach to animal welfare, especially when facing criticism or external pressure?

Paulette Dean: Transparency has always been a cornerstone of how we operate, and it remains central to our philosophy—even in the face of criticism. We’ve never tried to hide anything. In fact, when a bill was introduced in 2002 that required all releasing agencies, including public shelters, private shelters, and foster-based rescues, to post an annual report on the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website, we were one of the primary organizations lobbying for it.

We believe that communities need to be involved in animal welfare, not just as donors or adopters, but as active participants who understand what’s happening in their shelters. We’ve always seen transparency as an opportunity to build trust, not just with our supporters, but with the broader community, to ensure that people can see the work we do and the challenges we face. In moments of external pressure, we’ve doubled down on this commitment, knowing that the more people understand, the more they can support the real, meaningful work that happens behind the scenes.

Lessons Learned

Animal Politics: What lessons can other communities or shelters learn from your experience with Best Friends? Are there specific strategies or practices you would recommend they adopt—or avoid?

Paulette Dean: One of the key lessons we’ve learned through our experience with Best Friends is that their strategies are non-negotiable. They operate with a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach, and there’s no room for compromise. You either capitulate to their demands or you endure their tactics. There is no middle ground. For other communities or shelters, I would advise caution when engaging with organizations that demand a singular model of success, especially one that doesn’t take into account the unique needs of your community.

While their goals might seem appealing on the surface, adopting a “no-kill” policy that forces shelters to turn animals away can have dire consequences, as we’ve seen. Instead, I recommend focusing on a comprehensive, community-based approach—one that addresses root causes like overpopulation, neglect, and cruelty, while providing a safety net for every animal in need, regardless of its condition. Collaboration and flexibility are key; a successful strategy is one that evolves to meet the real, nuanced needs of both animals and the community.

Animal Politics: How do you think national organizations like Best Friends can better collaborate with local shelters to address unique community needs without imposing one-size-fits-all solutions?

Paulette Dean: The truth is, national organizations like Best Friends often don’t take local needs into consideration. They have a rigid approach and seem uninterested in any opinion but their own. For real collaboration to happen, national organizations need to listen to the voices of local shelters, who understand their community’s unique challenges and resources.

Instead of pushing a one-size-fits-all solution, they should be willing to work alongside local shelters to develop flexible, tailored strategies that prioritize the well-being of animals and the realities of the community. It’s not about imposing a set of numbers or targets, but rather creating partnerships that recognize and respect local context and expertise. Only then can we truly make progress in a way that benefits everyone, especially the animals.

Broader Animal Welfare Challenges

Animal Politics: Overrepresented breeds like pit bulls often face unique challenges in shelters. How does DAHS address these challenges while maintaining its commitment to humane care?

Paulette Dean: At DAHS, we treat pit bulls with the same care and respect as we do any other breed. They aren’t treated any differently just because of their reputation. Like all animals, they are kept for their required stray hold period, after which they are made available for adoption. We provide them with the same attention and enrichment: volunteers take them for walks, and we work tirelessly to find them suitable homes.

One of the biggest challenges, however, is finding transfer partners who are willing to take them, which is unfortunately rare. We do our best to build relationships with other organizations, but the reality is that pit bulls are often overlooked due to stigma. Despite this, our commitment to humane care remains unwavering. We believe that every animal deserves a chance, and that includes pit bulls.

Animal Politics: What do you see as the root causes of animal overpopulation, and what preventive measures do you believe are most effective in addressing these issues?

Paulette Dean: The root causes of animal overpopulation are multifaceted, but it all starts with spaying and neutering. Until we make this a priority in every community, the cycle of unwanted animals will continue. But it’s not just about the physical act of spaying and neutering—there’s also a need for a cultural shift. Children need to be taught kindness and responsibility toward animals from a young age. Early education is crucial in changing attitudes and fostering long-term empathy.

Additionally, humane laws need to be passed and, more importantly, enforced. Without proper legal protections, animals remain vulnerable. Finally, we need to move away from the divisive language that has plagued the animal welfare debate. Instead of focusing on who’s right or wrong, we should work together to find common-sense solutions that protect animals and reduce overpopulation.

Vision for the Future

Animal Politics: Looking ahead, what is your vision for DAHS and for animal welfare in Danville? How do you plan to continue advocating for comprehensive care while navigating external pressures?

Paulette Dean: Our vision at DAHS is always to find new ways to improve, whether that’s through better programs, increased community involvement, or more effective outreach. But no matter what, we will never compromise on the well-being of the animals. We’ve built a strong foundation on providing comprehensive, humane care, and that will remain our priority.

External pressures will come and go, but our commitment to doing what’s best for the animals will not change. We’ll continue advocating for policies that put animals first, and we’ll stay true to our mission, regardless of the challenges. Ultimately, it’s about doing the hard, right work that benefits animals and the community, without being swayed by short-term trends or external agendas.

Closing Remarks:

Animal Politics: Paulette, thank you for sharing your harrowing experience with us. In closing, if any of our readers would like to contact you directly, how would they do that?

Paulette Dean: For more information, you can contact me directly at dahsinc@yahoo.com. My phone number is (434) 799-0843, or you can visit the DAHS website at dahsinc.com or our Facebook at Danville Area Humane Society Virginia.

Animal Politics: As Paulette Dean continues her steadfast leadership at the Danville Area Humane Society, it’s clear that her commitment to comprehensive care and humane treatment for all animals remains unwavering, even in the face of external pressures and public scrutiny.

Her work reflects a deeper understanding of the complexities within animal welfare, and her focus on long-term solutions, community involvement, and ethical care serves as a powerful model for shelters everywhere. In a world often quick to define success by numbers alone, Paulette reminds us that true progress is measured by compassion, dedication, and the real impact we have on the lives of the individual animals we seek to protect.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, 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.