The article omits a key element: Awarding an eye-popping 2.5 million dollar contract to Best Friend's associate Kristen Hassen (Outcomes Consulting) on top of hundreds of thousands misspent on entirely unqualified Erin Gettis.
Kristen Hassen markets the doctrines developed by Best Friends and Maddies Fund producing the nationwide shelter crisis and stray populations, including in my community, that fuels their profiteering.
Expanding adoption hours more convenient to public? Waiving return-to-owner fees? These and other boiler-plate common sense changes to increase Live Outcome didn't require Hassen's 2.5 million contract and could have happened long ago with any competent director with appropriate budget.
Sadly, the 2.5 million dollar Outcomes Consulting contract could have immediately reduced intake with a s/n/clinic volume outreach program instead.
Best Friends badly needs a win with associates Hassen and Mary Martin after exposure of their disastrous track records and don't deserve accolades for making basic, obvious changes that should have happened millions of misspent dollars ago.
The typical manipulations of Live Outcome statistic will be closely watched (transports, Managed Intake, Community Animals, mis-categorizing etc)
There will always be Banshees in any reform movement but if not for such passion and lawsuits focusing media attention, nothing would change as the key players in nationwide animal welfare are shameless grifters, dare I say sociopaths, who exploit animals and public compassion.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Carmen. I appreciate you raising these concerns and highlighting the financial and policy decisions that are at the heart of the debate. Transparency and accountability in how contracts are awarded and funds are spent are essential for public trust—especially in animal welfare, where so much is at stake for both animals and communities. Your passion for ensuring reforms are meaningful and not just cosmetic is clear, and I agree that ongoing scrutiny and open discussion are vital for real progress. Thank you for contributing to this important conversation.
I want to remind everybody that local small non-profit rescues all volunteers working off of donation money with jobs and other commitments ate the ones that are actually doing the rescuing and sheltering because of these bizarre policies.
Well Municipal shelters and large animal welfare organizations form partnerships we are the ones that are not brought to the table.
Early on when these lawsuits started to develop my concern as someone that's done trap neuter return for 20 years in two different counties was,
If shelters were forced to follow the Hayden act they would just kill cats and kittens. But instead they just turn them on the street. At one point Kate Hurley introduced a change to the penal code where she stated to me that Tnt is abandonment and that this change she wanted to make would resolve that . it was complete BS and it was to protect her policy of telling shelters just to leave and turn cats and kittens out on the street.
What I would like to negotiate with our local shelter and Contra Costa County,
That has been trained away healthy cats and kittens since 2021 and is created a humongous overpopulation, that they simply fix the kittens that all the rescues are taking off of the streets return them back to the rescues and let us do the adoption and it would lower our adoption fees and hopefully help us filled back our budgets that have been severely impacted.
In trap neutering return there is an issue of nuisance mitigation which at some point and some sites you need to reduce the colonies by getting the friendlies out.
Over the years I have been questioned by low cost Clinics and shelters why I have friendly cats I have friendly cats because they're being dumped on the streets everywhere in California.
At this point I don't want cats to go into shelters especially establishing partnerships with a large animal cartels.
All I want is municipalities to pay for the spay and neuters so that I am not out of pocket $150 to 200 at a low-cost Clinic. I think rescues could deal with these policies if we could establish policies between the shelters and the small non-profit rescues that are actually doing all the work in the community.
I am getting the feeling that they want to squash all the small non-profits we seem to be a pest to them and then that way they could actually capture our donation money too.
It has become obvious that the animal cartels and the shelter directors have very little concern about the animals on the street and this is become about funding and income.
The undocumented ghost animals,
This is not the picture for those of us that do this 24/7 as volunteers,.
Thank you, Lisa—your experience and perspective are so important. You’re absolutely right that small, volunteer-run rescues are doing the heavy lifting, often without meaningful support or inclusion in policy decisions. That disconnect is a major part of the problem—and exactly why transparency, accountability, and locally grounded collaboration matter so much. I hear you on the burden of funding spay/neuter and the frustration with policies that leave animals vulnerable. These are the voices that need to be at the table if we’re serious about real reform.
Ed, do you have any suggestions on how we can get Contra Costa County to the table?
I've spent the last 4 years going to board a supervisors meetings mayor's conferences City managers and the 18 contracted cities within this County.
Is it going to take suing each County in California to change their policies ?that is a waste of time, energy and money.
Is there a way to put the shelters on notice when they turn animals away that they're violating the law.
I have a documented case from Antioch Animal Services which is one of the cities within Contra Costa County that has its own Animal shelter that told a member of the public to put a litter of three week old kittens back where they found them.
I was hoping that fix our shelters or the pet assistant foundation will come up with a form letter but nothing yet.
Do you think if they start getting letters from attorneys about the violation of Hayden act they would pay attention?
Lisa, I really appreciate your persistence—what you're describing in Contra Costa is exactly why systemic reform is so urgent. You're absolutely right: suing every county isn’t a sustainable path forward. Fortunately, Judie Mancuso's organization, Social Compassion in Legislation, is actively working on this very initiative at the state level to strengthen enforcement of the Hayden Act and improve shelter accountability.
I encourage you to reach out directly to Judie at judie@socialcompassion.org to share your documented case and connect on strategy. You're doing exactly what needs to be done—documenting, speaking up, and not letting go. Let’s get these voices unified. CC:"Nick Sackett" <nick@socialcompassion.org>
Best Friends is a wealthy organization intent on staying that way. Like MAGA they rely on being loud, but not humane and they work with smoke and mirrors. Their influence has made our pet overpopulation so much worse, especially with cats. They ignore the need for aggressive spay/neuter while concentrating on putting dogs and cats out in the community with no concern for what happens after they are dumped nor recognizing that their abandonment of mandatory spay/neuter prior to any adoptions is no different than abandoning those dogs and cats. It leads to a continuation of what they are seeking. Staying wealthy and pretending that the emperor has a beautiful new robe.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Laurie. I appreciate your candid perspective and your concern about the long-term impacts of national organizations and their policies on local communities and animal welfare. The debate over the best way to address pet overpopulation—especially the role of spay/neuter and community placement—is a critical one, and your voice highlights how important it is to keep these conversations grounded in both transparency and compassion. Open dialogue and ongoing scrutiny are essential if we want real solutions that truly help animals and the people who care about them. Thank you for being part of this important discussion.
Ignoring the population charts for leaving unaltered dogs and cats on the streets for the public to manage is right out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and there should be reparations for all shelters that fell for this scam. The actions are straight from the definition of a predatory nonprofit. For example, the new Memphis Animal Services (MAS) shelter director, Suzy Hollenbach (15+ years of boots on the ground rescue experience in the 13th most dangerous city in the WORLD), is facing +10 MILLION stray dogs on the streets in 2027. Things are insane there. Will she be able to make a dent in the impending disaster. You are correct. Animal advocates, with half a brain and years of shelter experience, are irate. Rightfully so.
Thanks, Teresa. You capture the stakes—and the frustration—perfectly. What’s happening in Memphis is a stark example of how misguided policies can lead to devastating consequences. I hope Suzy Hollenbach is given the support and resources she’ll need. We need more truth-telling and accountability across the board.
In Tennessee, we have evidence that BFAS is requesting shelter statistics via FOIA for shelter that are not network partners with them. If a shelter is a nonprofit and they are not government funded up to a certain percentage, then they are not required to provide this info as they are not considered public records. As well, any past or present shelter records per an investigation are not public records, either. One might argue that all animal control records, just by definition, are not public records. Next, every shelter needs to check the BFAS website and see if they are listed under their state. Below is the link to Tennessee. Simply replace Tennessee with a different state name and review the shelter drop-down list. We have evidence of several being marked as Network Partners that were not. In these cases, this was removed by BFAS after government attorneys sent them kind certified snail mail to do so. This is a war. The end is coming and Tennessee is fighting back.
My observation is that most of the time the problems are home-grown, stemming from local government agency mismanagement. There are systemic reasons for this. Even well-resourced local governments are responsive only to what they define as their "customer". You complain about a pothole in front of your house and (if you're persistent enough) they'll act on it. Shelter animals don't get to complain about their poor treatment (or their deaths). When we step in to act as their voice, the local governments perceive that as meddling. (In their bureaucratic mode of thinking, you don't have standing to complain, because it's not directly affecting you.)
What's the solution? A combination of persistence and reasonableness. We raise the issues, we present documentation, we safeguard our credibility by avoiding unfounded claims, we're open to discussion, and we refuse to go away. We don't water down our standards, we don't accommodate the agency's incompetence or laziness, but we stick to proven policies and feasible goals. In my opinion, welcoming partial progress and cooperating with qualified shelter leaders is part of this recipe.
Thank you for this, M—it’s a grounded and wise perspective. You're exactly right: animals can’t advocate for themselves, and when we do it for them, we're often treated as outsiders. But as you said, persistence paired with reasonableness is key. Credibility, documentation, and a willingness to recognize progress when it happens—that’s how real change takes root. I couldn’t agree more that cooperation with competent leadership is part of the solution.
Excellent shelter management usually come with an outsized ego. What is often overlooked is that it takes time to evaluate staff, and earn their buy-in on policy changes. The revolving door of management is confusing and worrying to all involved, Staff and advocates on the outside. Change is never easy and animal welfare requires all " oars in the water rowing in the same direction"
Thank you, Melissa, for your thoughtful comment. You’re absolutely right—real change in animal welfare takes time, patience, and teamwork. Earning staff trust and building a unified vision is never easy, especially with frequent leadership changes. I appreciate your insight and couldn’t agree more: progress happens when everyone’s rowing in the same direction. Thanks for adding your perspective to this important conversation!
I have a question about making pledges to help a dog get adopted. I often pledge to help a pup, but hear back maybe 20 percent of the time. A few organizations follow through on a regular basis (like Blue Collar Dogs), but very few. Is this a waste of time? Better options?
Thank you, Joan—I'm so glad you’re enjoying the columns. Your question is a great one, and an important one. Pledging can make a difference, but only if the funds are used responsibly and transparently. It’s always wise to verify where and how your pledge will be used before donating. In many cases, giving directly to your local shelter—or a trusted rescue with a proven track record—can have a much greater and more accountable impact.
I had the privilege of working with Mary Martin while she was at Dallas Animal
Services. While we never had a specific discussion about Best Friends, I found her intelligent, compassionate, experienced, knowledgeable, an excellent leader, and a cool human. Especially when it came to community cats and TNR. She was an amazing ally to me, both as an independent cat rescuer, foster mom, and commissioner for the Dallas City Council’s Animal Advisory Board. Our community cat program and spay neuter partnerships made real progress under Mary’s leadership. I hope the people of Riverside give her the time and respect that she deserves. I have faith that they will see the positive results that we did. Of course, with cats it feels like a losing battle sometimes, but Mary not only listened, but she came up with solutions. And for that I will always be grateful and stand with her. We miss her dearly and believe (and hope) that Riverside will only benefit from her leadership.
I’m so happy to have found this Substack, by the way. Thank you, Ed, for your honest and compelling investigations.
Thank you so much, Karen—your firsthand experience adds an important dimension to this conversation. It’s encouraging to hear how Mary’s leadership made a real difference in Dallas, especially in the tough, often thankless work of community cat management. I truly appreciate your thoughtful words and support—and I’m glad you found the Substack! Welcome aboard.
Karen, thank you for you positive comment. I think it's important to be supportive of qualified, compassionate, proactive shelter leaders like Mary Martin. A good shelter director has to fight another battle behind the scenes: She has to secure resources from elected officials, and she has persuade the upper bureaucracy to authorize policy changes. The animals will be well served if the community works with Mary Martin to win some of these battles.
The article omits a key element: Awarding an eye-popping 2.5 million dollar contract to Best Friend's associate Kristen Hassen (Outcomes Consulting) on top of hundreds of thousands misspent on entirely unqualified Erin Gettis.
Kristen Hassen markets the doctrines developed by Best Friends and Maddies Fund producing the nationwide shelter crisis and stray populations, including in my community, that fuels their profiteering.
Expanding adoption hours more convenient to public? Waiving return-to-owner fees? These and other boiler-plate common sense changes to increase Live Outcome didn't require Hassen's 2.5 million contract and could have happened long ago with any competent director with appropriate budget.
Sadly, the 2.5 million dollar Outcomes Consulting contract could have immediately reduced intake with a s/n/clinic volume outreach program instead.
Best Friends badly needs a win with associates Hassen and Mary Martin after exposure of their disastrous track records and don't deserve accolades for making basic, obvious changes that should have happened millions of misspent dollars ago.
The typical manipulations of Live Outcome statistic will be closely watched (transports, Managed Intake, Community Animals, mis-categorizing etc)
There will always be Banshees in any reform movement but if not for such passion and lawsuits focusing media attention, nothing would change as the key players in nationwide animal welfare are shameless grifters, dare I say sociopaths, who exploit animals and public compassion.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Carmen. I appreciate you raising these concerns and highlighting the financial and policy decisions that are at the heart of the debate. Transparency and accountability in how contracts are awarded and funds are spent are essential for public trust—especially in animal welfare, where so much is at stake for both animals and communities. Your passion for ensuring reforms are meaningful and not just cosmetic is clear, and I agree that ongoing scrutiny and open discussion are vital for real progress. Thank you for contributing to this important conversation.
I want to remind everybody that local small non-profit rescues all volunteers working off of donation money with jobs and other commitments ate the ones that are actually doing the rescuing and sheltering because of these bizarre policies.
Well Municipal shelters and large animal welfare organizations form partnerships we are the ones that are not brought to the table.
Early on when these lawsuits started to develop my concern as someone that's done trap neuter return for 20 years in two different counties was,
If shelters were forced to follow the Hayden act they would just kill cats and kittens. But instead they just turn them on the street. At one point Kate Hurley introduced a change to the penal code where she stated to me that Tnt is abandonment and that this change she wanted to make would resolve that . it was complete BS and it was to protect her policy of telling shelters just to leave and turn cats and kittens out on the street.
What I would like to negotiate with our local shelter and Contra Costa County,
That has been trained away healthy cats and kittens since 2021 and is created a humongous overpopulation, that they simply fix the kittens that all the rescues are taking off of the streets return them back to the rescues and let us do the adoption and it would lower our adoption fees and hopefully help us filled back our budgets that have been severely impacted.
In trap neutering return there is an issue of nuisance mitigation which at some point and some sites you need to reduce the colonies by getting the friendlies out.
Over the years I have been questioned by low cost Clinics and shelters why I have friendly cats I have friendly cats because they're being dumped on the streets everywhere in California.
At this point I don't want cats to go into shelters especially establishing partnerships with a large animal cartels.
All I want is municipalities to pay for the spay and neuters so that I am not out of pocket $150 to 200 at a low-cost Clinic. I think rescues could deal with these policies if we could establish policies between the shelters and the small non-profit rescues that are actually doing all the work in the community.
I am getting the feeling that they want to squash all the small non-profits we seem to be a pest to them and then that way they could actually capture our donation money too.
It has become obvious that the animal cartels and the shelter directors have very little concern about the animals on the street and this is become about funding and income.
The undocumented ghost animals,
This is not the picture for those of us that do this 24/7 as volunteers,.
They are starving they are sick
Thank you, Lisa—your experience and perspective are so important. You’re absolutely right that small, volunteer-run rescues are doing the heavy lifting, often without meaningful support or inclusion in policy decisions. That disconnect is a major part of the problem—and exactly why transparency, accountability, and locally grounded collaboration matter so much. I hear you on the burden of funding spay/neuter and the frustration with policies that leave animals vulnerable. These are the voices that need to be at the table if we’re serious about real reform.
Ed, do you have any suggestions on how we can get Contra Costa County to the table?
I've spent the last 4 years going to board a supervisors meetings mayor's conferences City managers and the 18 contracted cities within this County.
Is it going to take suing each County in California to change their policies ?that is a waste of time, energy and money.
Is there a way to put the shelters on notice when they turn animals away that they're violating the law.
I have a documented case from Antioch Animal Services which is one of the cities within Contra Costa County that has its own Animal shelter that told a member of the public to put a litter of three week old kittens back where they found them.
I was hoping that fix our shelters or the pet assistant foundation will come up with a form letter but nothing yet.
Do you think if they start getting letters from attorneys about the violation of Hayden act they would pay attention?
Lisa, I really appreciate your persistence—what you're describing in Contra Costa is exactly why systemic reform is so urgent. You're absolutely right: suing every county isn’t a sustainable path forward. Fortunately, Judie Mancuso's organization, Social Compassion in Legislation, is actively working on this very initiative at the state level to strengthen enforcement of the Hayden Act and improve shelter accountability.
I encourage you to reach out directly to Judie at judie@socialcompassion.org to share your documented case and connect on strategy. You're doing exactly what needs to be done—documenting, speaking up, and not letting go. Let’s get these voices unified. CC:"Nick Sackett" <nick@socialcompassion.org>
Best Friends is a wealthy organization intent on staying that way. Like MAGA they rely on being loud, but not humane and they work with smoke and mirrors. Their influence has made our pet overpopulation so much worse, especially with cats. They ignore the need for aggressive spay/neuter while concentrating on putting dogs and cats out in the community with no concern for what happens after they are dumped nor recognizing that their abandonment of mandatory spay/neuter prior to any adoptions is no different than abandoning those dogs and cats. It leads to a continuation of what they are seeking. Staying wealthy and pretending that the emperor has a beautiful new robe.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Laurie. I appreciate your candid perspective and your concern about the long-term impacts of national organizations and their policies on local communities and animal welfare. The debate over the best way to address pet overpopulation—especially the role of spay/neuter and community placement—is a critical one, and your voice highlights how important it is to keep these conversations grounded in both transparency and compassion. Open dialogue and ongoing scrutiny are essential if we want real solutions that truly help animals and the people who care about them. Thank you for being part of this important discussion.
Ignoring the population charts for leaving unaltered dogs and cats on the streets for the public to manage is right out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and there should be reparations for all shelters that fell for this scam. The actions are straight from the definition of a predatory nonprofit. For example, the new Memphis Animal Services (MAS) shelter director, Suzy Hollenbach (15+ years of boots on the ground rescue experience in the 13th most dangerous city in the WORLD), is facing +10 MILLION stray dogs on the streets in 2027. Things are insane there. Will she be able to make a dent in the impending disaster. You are correct. Animal advocates, with half a brain and years of shelter experience, are irate. Rightfully so.
- Teresa Clark
Thanks, Teresa. You capture the stakes—and the frustration—perfectly. What’s happening in Memphis is a stark example of how misguided policies can lead to devastating consequences. I hope Suzy Hollenbach is given the support and resources she’ll need. We need more truth-telling and accountability across the board.
In Tennessee, we have evidence that BFAS is requesting shelter statistics via FOIA for shelter that are not network partners with them. If a shelter is a nonprofit and they are not government funded up to a certain percentage, then they are not required to provide this info as they are not considered public records. As well, any past or present shelter records per an investigation are not public records, either. One might argue that all animal control records, just by definition, are not public records. Next, every shelter needs to check the BFAS website and see if they are listed under their state. Below is the link to Tennessee. Simply replace Tennessee with a different state name and review the shelter drop-down list. We have evidence of several being marked as Network Partners that were not. In these cases, this was removed by BFAS after government attorneys sent them kind certified snail mail to do so. This is a war. The end is coming and Tennessee is fighting back.
Link:
https://bestfriends.org/no-kill-2025/animal-shelter-statistics/tennessee
I appreciate this thoughtful column.
My observation is that most of the time the problems are home-grown, stemming from local government agency mismanagement. There are systemic reasons for this. Even well-resourced local governments are responsive only to what they define as their "customer". You complain about a pothole in front of your house and (if you're persistent enough) they'll act on it. Shelter animals don't get to complain about their poor treatment (or their deaths). When we step in to act as their voice, the local governments perceive that as meddling. (In their bureaucratic mode of thinking, you don't have standing to complain, because it's not directly affecting you.)
What's the solution? A combination of persistence and reasonableness. We raise the issues, we present documentation, we safeguard our credibility by avoiding unfounded claims, we're open to discussion, and we refuse to go away. We don't water down our standards, we don't accommodate the agency's incompetence or laziness, but we stick to proven policies and feasible goals. In my opinion, welcoming partial progress and cooperating with qualified shelter leaders is part of this recipe.
Thank you for this, M—it’s a grounded and wise perspective. You're exactly right: animals can’t advocate for themselves, and when we do it for them, we're often treated as outsiders. But as you said, persistence paired with reasonableness is key. Credibility, documentation, and a willingness to recognize progress when it happens—that’s how real change takes root. I couldn’t agree more that cooperation with competent leadership is part of the solution.
Excellent shelter management usually come with an outsized ego. What is often overlooked is that it takes time to evaluate staff, and earn their buy-in on policy changes. The revolving door of management is confusing and worrying to all involved, Staff and advocates on the outside. Change is never easy and animal welfare requires all " oars in the water rowing in the same direction"
Thank you, Melissa, for your thoughtful comment. You’re absolutely right—real change in animal welfare takes time, patience, and teamwork. Earning staff trust and building a unified vision is never easy, especially with frequent leadership changes. I appreciate your insight and couldn’t agree more: progress happens when everyone’s rowing in the same direction. Thanks for adding your perspective to this important conversation!
I enjoy your columns very much.
I have a question about making pledges to help a dog get adopted. I often pledge to help a pup, but hear back maybe 20 percent of the time. A few organizations follow through on a regular basis (like Blue Collar Dogs), but very few. Is this a waste of time? Better options?
Thank you, Joan—I'm so glad you’re enjoying the columns. Your question is a great one, and an important one. Pledging can make a difference, but only if the funds are used responsibly and transparently. It’s always wise to verify where and how your pledge will be used before donating. In many cases, giving directly to your local shelter—or a trusted rescue with a proven track record—can have a much greater and more accountable impact.
Oy vey!
Amen!
I had the privilege of working with Mary Martin while she was at Dallas Animal
Services. While we never had a specific discussion about Best Friends, I found her intelligent, compassionate, experienced, knowledgeable, an excellent leader, and a cool human. Especially when it came to community cats and TNR. She was an amazing ally to me, both as an independent cat rescuer, foster mom, and commissioner for the Dallas City Council’s Animal Advisory Board. Our community cat program and spay neuter partnerships made real progress under Mary’s leadership. I hope the people of Riverside give her the time and respect that she deserves. I have faith that they will see the positive results that we did. Of course, with cats it feels like a losing battle sometimes, but Mary not only listened, but she came up with solutions. And for that I will always be grateful and stand with her. We miss her dearly and believe (and hope) that Riverside will only benefit from her leadership.
I’m so happy to have found this Substack, by the way. Thank you, Ed, for your honest and compelling investigations.
Thank you so much, Karen—your firsthand experience adds an important dimension to this conversation. It’s encouraging to hear how Mary’s leadership made a real difference in Dallas, especially in the tough, often thankless work of community cat management. I truly appreciate your thoughtful words and support—and I’m glad you found the Substack! Welcome aboard.
Karen, thank you for you positive comment. I think it's important to be supportive of qualified, compassionate, proactive shelter leaders like Mary Martin. A good shelter director has to fight another battle behind the scenes: She has to secure resources from elected officials, and she has persuade the upper bureaucracy to authorize policy changes. The animals will be well served if the community works with Mary Martin to win some of these battles.