When Outrage Undermines Reform: How Misinformed Advocacy Hurts the Animals It Aims to Save

Riverside’s shelter controversy shows how misinformation and personal attacks can derail reform—harming the very animals advocates claim to defend.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.”
—often attributed to Mark Twain

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — On a sweltering June afternoon, the phones at the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) ring with relentless urgency—lost pets, neighborhood strays, and the seasonal surge of kittens and puppies that define California’s sheltering crisis. But behind the front desk, another storm brews—one not of animals, but of lawsuits, social media outrage, and a community divided over what progress, accountability, and compassion really mean.

Lawsuit Shines a Harsh Spotlight

In March, a California Superior Court judge allowed key claims to proceed in a sweeping lawsuit against RCDAS, alleging violations of the state’s Hayden Act, which mandates basic protections and adoption opportunities for shelter animals. The suit, led by attorney Dan Bolton and longtime advocates, accuses the county—under former director Erin Gettis—of unlawful euthanasia, mismanagement, and misuse of public funds, fueling headlines and galvanizing critics.

The public backlash and legal pressure culminated in Gettis’s resignation and a national search that resulted in the hiring of Mary Martin, a seasoned shelter leader. But Martin’s appointment has drawn skepticism from some advocates, who see her selection as influenced by national “consortium” figures—a network of powerful organizations, including Best Friends Animal Society, Kristen Hassen, and Maddie’s Fund, that collectively shape sheltering policy and funding priorities across the country. Critics question whether genuine reform is possible under the “community sheltering” model championed by this consortium.

Yet the facts on the ground are more complicated than the rhetoric. While the lawsuit paints a picture of systemic neglect, recent data show a department in transition. Since Martin’s appointment (March 2025), the live release rate has surged to 80.9%, up from 72% the previous year. Euthanasia has dropped 33%, and adoption and transfer rates have reached historic highs. The department has expanded public access, waived fees to reunite pets with owners, and launched new partnerships to move animals into homes and rescue networks.

“These results are a testament to the hard work of our staff and the strength of our community partnerships,” Martin said in May. Despite the polarization, recent progress is becoming harder to dismiss.

While online outrage erupts, real change happens in quiet moments—one animal, one decision at a time.

A Community Divided: Advocacy, Outrage, and the Search for Truth

But progress has not quieted the critics. In recent weeks, social media has erupted with accusations against Martin and her staff—claims of “dumping cats in the desert” and abandoning friendly animals in triple-digit heat. One viral post labeled Martin “the dead face of evil,” alleging a “draconian plot” to abandon cats under the guise of community programs. The post, widely shared by local activists and picked up by national animal publications, offered no verifiable evidence—only outrage and ad hominem attacks.

This cycle is familiar in animal welfare, where years of frustration and underfunding often leave advocates feeling unheard and desperate for change. But as the noise grows, so does the risk of misinformation.

Attorney Dan Bolton, leading the lawsuit, has sometimes blurred the line between legal advocacy and social media agitation—amplifying unverified claims and airing private communications publicly. By arguing key aspects of the case online rather than in court, he has fueled a cycle of accusation and reaction, raising questions about strategy, credibility, and motive.

Asked for solutions, Bolton conceded in an on-the-record interview with Animal Politics, “I have not fully thought this through. There are no easy answers.”

Meanwhile, Alan Woodruff, the original plaintiff, has since distanced himself from the loudest critics. He withdrew from the case and now supports Martin’s reforms, believing RCDAS, with the right community and political backing, could become a model for no-kill sheltering—a striking reversal from the man who first brought the case.

Inside the Shelter: Policy, Practice, and the Realities of Reform

The current controversy centers on RCDAS’s approach to free-roaming and community cats. Like many large California shelters, RCDAS has adopted a Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) model for unsocialized cats—spaying, vaccinating, and returning them to their original locations, rather than impounding them for adoption or euthanasia. Critics call this abandonment when applied to friendly cats; supporters argue it’s the most humane way to manage community cat populations and reduce shelter intake and deaths.

A local TNR volunteer, referred by Martin as a reliable source, described the process as well-intentioned but imperfect. “Staff face intense scrutiny and often take in all cats, sometimes lacking experience to distinguish between ‘owned’ and ‘unowned,’” she said. While some return locations are less than ideal, she emphasized there’s no evidence of deliberate abandonment in unsafe areas. She added that better record-keeping on intake locations would help ensure safe returns.

Amid public concerns about cats’ fate, Martin confirmed the policy: feral cats are returned to their trapping sites, usually by their caregivers or trappers, unless too sick or injured.

Despite these assurances, legal compliance remains a point of public scrutiny. In late 2024, the San Diego Superior Court issued a closely watched decision on the San Diego Humane Society’s Community Cat Program. The court ruled shelters must admit cats with objective signs of ownership—like a collar, microchip, or recent vet care—regardless of temperament. It also required admission of all kittens under 12 weeks and clarified that “friendliness” alone does not obligate shelters to provide intake. While not binding statewide, the decision sets an important example for how California law applies to community cat programs.

In response to the question, “Is RCDAS complying with the San Diego court ruling regarding cats?” Martin said the agency’s policies are under review and adjustments will be made as needed. This measured answer highlights the complexity of shelter reform and the ongoing need for vigilance and transparency—a reminder that real progress is rarely linear.

The Perils of Hero Worship and Advocacy by Outcry

The Riverside debate is not just about policy—it is about the soul of animal welfare advocacy. Years of frustration have left many in the community hungry for bold leadership—sometimes elevating voices that prioritize confrontation over collaboration. The result is a movement veering off course—where outrage eclipses evidence, and charisma often outweighs competence.

Lasting progress in animal welfare is rarely the result of headlines or heroics. It stems from humility, transparency, and a willingness to follow the evidence—even when it challenges assumptions or allies. The art of advocacy lies in knowing when to build bridges and when to hold feet to the fire. Effective change-makers assess the landscape, pursue collaboration first, and escalate to confrontation only when truly necessary—always aiming to return to constructive dialogue as soon as possible.

A Note on Transparency

In the interest of full disclosure: I was persuaded to come out of retirement to apply for the executive director position at RCDAS, which was ultimately awarded to Mary Martin. After that decision, I offered to assist the agency—either pro bono or on a consulting basis—motivated solely by a desire to improve outcomes for animals and the community.

To date, no one from Riverside County has responded. I was not granted an interview—likely due to the series of exposés I published on RCDAS during the recruitment period. That only underscores the point: while I remain open to consulting opportunities where my experience might be useful, my analysis and commentary are driven by principle, not personal gain. They are grounded in decades of leadership in animal welfare and a commitment to evidence-based, ethical reporting.

That commitment includes holding agencies accountable when they fall short and acknowledging them when they make progress—even when doing so draws criticism. I understand that some in the rescue community expect loyalty only to outrage. I choose loyalty to outcomes. When reporting is shaped by fear of backlash, it ceases to be journalism—it becomes branding. That’s not what Animal Politics is here to do.

The Path Forward

Riverside County’s animal shelter system remains a work in progress, shaped by legal pressure, operational reforms, and the passions of a deeply invested community. As the debate continues, one lesson stands out: reform demands passion, precision, and the discipline to be guided by verifiable facts and fairness—not just from agencies, but from advocates and journalists alike.

For the animals of Riverside County—and the people who care about them—the challenge now is to channel outrage into outcomes: to ensure that the loudest voices are also the most responsible. To strike the right balance, we must remain vigilant without abandoning collaboration, and keep animal welfare—not outrage—our central focus.

Conclusion

Riverside County advocates have a unique opportunity to pivot from confrontation to collaboration, leveraging recent reforms and coalition-building to drive lasting, systemic change. Across jurisdictions, the evidence is clear: when advocates engage constructively while holding agencies accountable, progress accelerates and public trust is rebuilt.

In the end, the real test of advocacy isn’t volume or vitriol—it’s impact and results. And the animals can’t afford for us to fail.

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

Stay Informed

For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.