I see a lot of foster litters where the puppies have been separated and the mom declared aggressive to the puppies. This is so sad. Many of these mother dogs are in bad situations with people who don’t know how to care for a mom and a litter. I hate this for them. I feel like spay abort would be more ethical and I think the shelters want the puppies for fundraising and to feed the adopt don’t shop customers. 😡
You’re naming something really painful and important here. Those moms have already been failed once, and then we fail them again by treating their puppies as feel‑good inventory while labeling the mother “aggressive.” I share your concern that, in many cases, a well‑timed spay/abort would be more humane than bringing yet another litter into a system that is already overwhelmed. Your observation about fundraising and “adopt don’t shop” optics absolutely belongs in this conversation, and I’m grateful you raised it.
I’m sure in some cases the mother is not mothering well and I often see that she was aggressive to caretakers. Female dogs are under enormous stress having a litter in a strange and or chaotic place and the well meaning people I have seen often are pretty clueless about how to properly manage a dam in whelp. It’s very upsetting to me.
You’re absolutely right, a stressed dam in an unfamiliar, chaotic environment can behave very differently than she would in a stable setting, and that often gets misinterpreted.
Your point about management is critical, too. Proper handling, quiet space, and experienced oversight can make all the difference for both the mother and the litter. When those pieces are missing, outcomes suffer, and the dog is often blamed for a situation she didn’t create.
"The 'ban on rescue-to-rescue transfers' is deeply hypocritical. Punishing the individual volunteers who work tirelessly to save animals is shameful.
It mirrors the flawed logic of Oklahoma’s House Bill 3915. On the surface, it looks like a way to fund spay and neuter, but there are significant catches. First, it creates a 'responsibility tax' by charging pet owners who pay for insurance to foot the bill, while ignoring the commercial breeders and pet stores actually causing the overpopulation.
Second, official fiscal reports show the first $40,000 of this program is earmarked just for a part-time government staffer to manage the funds. Most importantly, instead of directly helping lower-income residents afford sterilization, the bill funnels money into public shelters that can spend it on 'public education and outreach' rather than the actual work of fixing animals. We shouldn't be penalizing the people solving the problem to fund more bureaucracy and marketing for those who aren't.
Magi, you've laid out a genuinely important critique here, and the Oklahoma HB 3915 parallel is worth watching closely.
You're right that any spay/neuter funding mechanism that exempts commercial breeders and pet stores while taxing responsible pet owners, and then funnels the revenue into bureaucratic overhead and "public education" rather than actual surgeries, is solving the wrong problem at the wrong end. The rescue-to-rescue transfer ban compounds that by punishing the very volunteers filling the gaps that underfunded public shelters leave open. I'll be keeping a close eye on both measures and would welcome anything you're tracking on the Oklahoma bill as it moves forward.
Thank you again for so clearly defining the many problems currently burdening the Animal Shelter System, and articulating the many concerns that hamper good outcomes. Human incompetence, misunderstandings deliberate obfuscation and fuzzy 'rules' combine to stymy responsible results which leaves the ' ultimate' victim, the vulnerable animal in an untenable position. The lack of clarity rules. and, as noted, a fractured bureaucracy triumphs. Can such a broken system ever be repaired? As noted, ARFC does propose a simple, standardized system which sounds efficient, though shelters demurred . The system proves exceedingly complex and hampered by a host of challenges almost too daunting to imagine, let alone rectify. But, you have attempted to define what is required, all of which suggestions sound eminently sensible, if there is ever a hope that it can be remotely workable. Given that one accepts these suggestions, there is now no excuse to say that there are not viable solutions to this mammouth chaotic mess we call the California Animal Shelter System.
Elaine, thank you for this generous and thoughtful reflection. You’ve captured the core problem perfectly: a maze of fuzzy rules, fractured bureaucracy, and deliberate opacity that leaves animals absorbing the consequences while everyone else debates process. I share your hope that ARFC’s push for a simple, standardized data system, combined with concrete reform proposals, can at least take away the excuse that “it’s too complicated” to fix.
The lack of transparency is a major issue for municipal animal shelters nationwide. Apple Valley is a fantastic case study of why data needs to be transparent.
CA’s SB 1459 went into effect on 1/1/26, requiring public shelters in counties over 400,000 population (which includes San Bernardino County, where Apple Valley is located) to post monthly intake and outcome statistics.
Currently AVAS is not complying with this new requirement.
Because the law is brand new there is no established enforcement mechanism yet.
I imagine the only way to get action on this shelter as well as any other CA shelter is via lawsuits.
Also, this is a Best Friends rescue partner shelter, which explains the managed intake policies and the turning away of unaltered animals at the doors, so that those animals can then procreate in the community to increase the homeless pet population.
The burden on rescuers is real and although I support following up with rescue groups to be sure spay/neuter certificates are not fraudulently created - I also believe equal follow up should be attempted with animals adopted by the general public.
On an unrelated side note Ed, the lack of available affordable spay/neuter services may be the number one struggle facing pet owners and animal rescuers.
My rescue group just took in an owner relinquishment in the SF Bay Area. I spent hours yesterday calling around to try to find somewhere to neuter him.
It is a one to two month wait to get in anywhere.
The cost was jaw dropping. $1500 to neuter a two year old dog that weighs under twenty pounds!
The only low cost alternative was a high volume spay/neuter clinic that was $245 but did not have the option for me to pay extra for pre anesthetic bloodwork, IV fluids, and a pain injection.
So my solution was to book a neuter at a vet three and a half hours away and my foster volunteer will drive there the night before and I will pay for her gas and hotel.
That neuter will be $165 plus all of the add on services I am wanting.
I also just want to say I absolutely DO support follow ups with rescue groups because from my point of view, I have been aware sadly of too many bad rescues that are forging spay/neuter certificates and adopting out animals unaltered (like another cocker spaniel rescue group in California is doing). The shelters they are pulling from are not following up on the spay/neuter certificates or they are not requiring the dog's microchip number on the certificates which is how they are able to forge these documents. I'm only aware of this going on because I receive complaints about cocker spaniel specific rescues since that is my niche, but I imagine the forging of spay/neuter certificates is going on at other rescues as well.
Cathy, I’m glad you raised this, because it’s an important piece of the picture.
I agree that follow-up with rescues is essential, and that forged or incomplete spay/neuter certificates justify tighter oversight, especially when shelters aren’t even requiring microchip numbers on the forms, which makes fraud and mistakes so much easier. The challenge, as you know better than anyone, is designing enforcement that actually targets bad actors without burying responsible groups in red tape, and your examples are helpful in showing where that line needs to be. I'll include this issue in my next article.
Cathy, this is such a clear, concrete illustration of how policy, data, and day-to-day rescue realities collide, thank you for laying it out so specifically.
You’re right that SB 1459 was meant to make “Apple Valley–style” opacity much harder to pull off, and AVAS’s noncompliance already tells us a lot about where enforcement and litigation pressure may need to land next. I also appreciate your point about Best Friends–style managed intake and the way it pushes both the reproductive burden and the financial/ logistical burden onto rescuers and ordinary owners; your neuter odyssey in the Bay Area is a perfect (and infuriating) example of how scarce, costly surgery slots are now driving decisions on the ground.
If you’re willing, I’d love to anonymize that $1,500/neuter story in a future piece on the spay/neuter access crisis as it captures the absurdity better than any statistic.
Absolutely feel free to use this example. Feel free to DM me if you would like details of all the places I called and the central coast vet I am using that is SO worth the long drive (luckily my volunteer is retired and doesn't mind a road trip)
We have direct experience with Apple Valley and other inland shelters—and have encountered denied rescue pulls, poor recordkeeping, and systems that make saving cats incredibly difficult. It appears that euthanasia is prioritized over rescue. Walther Clark legal group is managing a lawsuit against Apple Valley and there is a hearing on April 1 to determine next steps. In the meantime, the Shelter is allowed to continue practices as usual with no penalties… What to do?
Thank you for sharing this, CCF, and for the work you’re doing on the ground there. It’s valuable to have confirmation from people who are living these systems in real time. The fact that there’s already litigation in play, underscores how serious and systemic the issues are.
I see a lot of foster litters where the puppies have been separated and the mom declared aggressive to the puppies. This is so sad. Many of these mother dogs are in bad situations with people who don’t know how to care for a mom and a litter. I hate this for them. I feel like spay abort would be more ethical and I think the shelters want the puppies for fundraising and to feed the adopt don’t shop customers. 😡
You’re naming something really painful and important here. Those moms have already been failed once, and then we fail them again by treating their puppies as feel‑good inventory while labeling the mother “aggressive.” I share your concern that, in many cases, a well‑timed spay/abort would be more humane than bringing yet another litter into a system that is already overwhelmed. Your observation about fundraising and “adopt don’t shop” optics absolutely belongs in this conversation, and I’m grateful you raised it.
I’m sure in some cases the mother is not mothering well and I often see that she was aggressive to caretakers. Female dogs are under enormous stress having a litter in a strange and or chaotic place and the well meaning people I have seen often are pretty clueless about how to properly manage a dam in whelp. It’s very upsetting to me.
You’re absolutely right, a stressed dam in an unfamiliar, chaotic environment can behave very differently than she would in a stable setting, and that often gets misinterpreted.
Your point about management is critical, too. Proper handling, quiet space, and experienced oversight can make all the difference for both the mother and the litter. When those pieces are missing, outcomes suffer, and the dog is often blamed for a situation she didn’t create.
"The 'ban on rescue-to-rescue transfers' is deeply hypocritical. Punishing the individual volunteers who work tirelessly to save animals is shameful.
It mirrors the flawed logic of Oklahoma’s House Bill 3915. On the surface, it looks like a way to fund spay and neuter, but there are significant catches. First, it creates a 'responsibility tax' by charging pet owners who pay for insurance to foot the bill, while ignoring the commercial breeders and pet stores actually causing the overpopulation.
Second, official fiscal reports show the first $40,000 of this program is earmarked just for a part-time government staffer to manage the funds. Most importantly, instead of directly helping lower-income residents afford sterilization, the bill funnels money into public shelters that can spend it on 'public education and outreach' rather than the actual work of fixing animals. We shouldn't be penalizing the people solving the problem to fund more bureaucracy and marketing for those who aren't.
Yet, people are rooting for it to pass.
Magi, you've laid out a genuinely important critique here, and the Oklahoma HB 3915 parallel is worth watching closely.
You're right that any spay/neuter funding mechanism that exempts commercial breeders and pet stores while taxing responsible pet owners, and then funnels the revenue into bureaucratic overhead and "public education" rather than actual surgeries, is solving the wrong problem at the wrong end. The rescue-to-rescue transfer ban compounds that by punishing the very volunteers filling the gaps that underfunded public shelters leave open. I'll be keeping a close eye on both measures and would welcome anything you're tracking on the Oklahoma bill as it moves forward.
Loving your “When Shelters Shift the Risk” column. Just have to make time to read it all! Thank you.
Joan Lisante Hood
Thank you again for so clearly defining the many problems currently burdening the Animal Shelter System, and articulating the many concerns that hamper good outcomes. Human incompetence, misunderstandings deliberate obfuscation and fuzzy 'rules' combine to stymy responsible results which leaves the ' ultimate' victim, the vulnerable animal in an untenable position. The lack of clarity rules. and, as noted, a fractured bureaucracy triumphs. Can such a broken system ever be repaired? As noted, ARFC does propose a simple, standardized system which sounds efficient, though shelters demurred . The system proves exceedingly complex and hampered by a host of challenges almost too daunting to imagine, let alone rectify. But, you have attempted to define what is required, all of which suggestions sound eminently sensible, if there is ever a hope that it can be remotely workable. Given that one accepts these suggestions, there is now no excuse to say that there are not viable solutions to this mammouth chaotic mess we call the California Animal Shelter System.
Elaine, thank you for this generous and thoughtful reflection. You’ve captured the core problem perfectly: a maze of fuzzy rules, fractured bureaucracy, and deliberate opacity that leaves animals absorbing the consequences while everyone else debates process. I share your hope that ARFC’s push for a simple, standardized data system, combined with concrete reform proposals, can at least take away the excuse that “it’s too complicated” to fix.
The lack of transparency is a major issue for municipal animal shelters nationwide. Apple Valley is a fantastic case study of why data needs to be transparent.
CA’s SB 1459 went into effect on 1/1/26, requiring public shelters in counties over 400,000 population (which includes San Bernardino County, where Apple Valley is located) to post monthly intake and outcome statistics.
Currently AVAS is not complying with this new requirement.
Because the law is brand new there is no established enforcement mechanism yet.
I imagine the only way to get action on this shelter as well as any other CA shelter is via lawsuits.
Also, this is a Best Friends rescue partner shelter, which explains the managed intake policies and the turning away of unaltered animals at the doors, so that those animals can then procreate in the community to increase the homeless pet population.
The burden on rescuers is real and although I support following up with rescue groups to be sure spay/neuter certificates are not fraudulently created - I also believe equal follow up should be attempted with animals adopted by the general public.
On an unrelated side note Ed, the lack of available affordable spay/neuter services may be the number one struggle facing pet owners and animal rescuers.
My rescue group just took in an owner relinquishment in the SF Bay Area. I spent hours yesterday calling around to try to find somewhere to neuter him.
It is a one to two month wait to get in anywhere.
The cost was jaw dropping. $1500 to neuter a two year old dog that weighs under twenty pounds!
The only low cost alternative was a high volume spay/neuter clinic that was $245 but did not have the option for me to pay extra for pre anesthetic bloodwork, IV fluids, and a pain injection.
So my solution was to book a neuter at a vet three and a half hours away and my foster volunteer will drive there the night before and I will pay for her gas and hotel.
That neuter will be $165 plus all of the add on services I am wanting.
Crazy, right?
I also just want to say I absolutely DO support follow ups with rescue groups because from my point of view, I have been aware sadly of too many bad rescues that are forging spay/neuter certificates and adopting out animals unaltered (like another cocker spaniel rescue group in California is doing). The shelters they are pulling from are not following up on the spay/neuter certificates or they are not requiring the dog's microchip number on the certificates which is how they are able to forge these documents. I'm only aware of this going on because I receive complaints about cocker spaniel specific rescues since that is my niche, but I imagine the forging of spay/neuter certificates is going on at other rescues as well.
Cathy, I’m glad you raised this, because it’s an important piece of the picture.
I agree that follow-up with rescues is essential, and that forged or incomplete spay/neuter certificates justify tighter oversight, especially when shelters aren’t even requiring microchip numbers on the forms, which makes fraud and mistakes so much easier. The challenge, as you know better than anyone, is designing enforcement that actually targets bad actors without burying responsible groups in red tape, and your examples are helpful in showing where that line needs to be. I'll include this issue in my next article.
Cathy, this is such a clear, concrete illustration of how policy, data, and day-to-day rescue realities collide, thank you for laying it out so specifically.
You’re right that SB 1459 was meant to make “Apple Valley–style” opacity much harder to pull off, and AVAS’s noncompliance already tells us a lot about where enforcement and litigation pressure may need to land next. I also appreciate your point about Best Friends–style managed intake and the way it pushes both the reproductive burden and the financial/ logistical burden onto rescuers and ordinary owners; your neuter odyssey in the Bay Area is a perfect (and infuriating) example of how scarce, costly surgery slots are now driving decisions on the ground.
If you’re willing, I’d love to anonymize that $1,500/neuter story in a future piece on the spay/neuter access crisis as it captures the absurdity better than any statistic.
Absolutely feel free to use this example. Feel free to DM me if you would like details of all the places I called and the central coast vet I am using that is SO worth the long drive (luckily my volunteer is retired and doesn't mind a road trip)
We have direct experience with Apple Valley and other inland shelters—and have encountered denied rescue pulls, poor recordkeeping, and systems that make saving cats incredibly difficult. It appears that euthanasia is prioritized over rescue. Walther Clark legal group is managing a lawsuit against Apple Valley and there is a hearing on April 1 to determine next steps. In the meantime, the Shelter is allowed to continue practices as usual with no penalties… What to do?
Thank you for sharing this, CCF, and for the work you’re doing on the ground there. It’s valuable to have confirmation from people who are living these systems in real time. The fact that there’s already litigation in play, underscores how serious and systemic the issues are.