I wonder if people realize that Kristen Hassen is being paid 2.5 million $$$ to be “working” at Riverside County Animal Shelter (9/2025-9/2027). Also collected $$$ in LA to “consult” there. Her “Outcomes For Pets” is one big pile of phony advice for shelters.
Odd how this carpetbagging grifter still finds time to peddle her destructive, nonsensical, inhumane and illegal dumping policies at animal welfare sideshows. When she should be at work at the shelters she has grifted millions from. She is busy posing as an “expert” at animal welfare trade shows.
It would be fine, but her phony lifesaving policies are a total scam.
I saw with my own eyes when Kristen Aurbach-Hassen posted on her own social media page: that large spay and neuter programs DO NOT DECREASE ADMISSIONS TO SHELTERS. She is a clear and present danger to orphaned animals and needs to be exposed. She is literally grifting my tax dollars and these incompetent shelter directors/ lemmings are following her off a cliff.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Christine. There’s a lot of frustration out there about how resources are being spent and the direction of shelter policies. Transparency and accountability are so important, especially when public funds and animal lives are at stake. Your observations highlight why it’s crucial to keep advocating for proven solutions like robust spay/neuter programs and to question approaches that don’t address the root causes. I appreciate your passion and your commitment to speaking up for the animals.
This is and has been a problem here in the PNW, where most of our rescue dogs come from Texas, Oklahoma and other places with no or poor spay/neuter programs—they keep producing them and we keep taking them in. For instance, every Great Pyrenees you see around here—and they are legion—has almost certainly been shipped from Texas. And rescues for better and worse keep fundraising off the situation. In my experience, those with the largest budgets become if not complicit in the dog trade complex, then very seriously incurious about it. Spay/neuter isn’t sexy and doesn’t provide the feel-good thrill that mass adoption events or compelling rescue stories do. These organizations follow the money. And their leaders are interchangeable with any business CFO—no one wants to stop the flow and be put out of business. It’s a problem with nonprofits across the board—the goalposts are always shifting with each success and when they hit on a particularly good money maker it’s in their interest to keep juicing it. Even when it requires the organization to stray from its foundational purpose or abandon it completely in practice. It’s a hard truth but one we need to understand and recognize.
Thank you HW, for sharing your perspective from the Pacific Northwest! You've highlighted something I've observed as well - the cycle of transporting animals from states with limited spay/neuter resources to areas with higher adoption demand creates a perpetual pipeline rather than addressing the root cause.
Your observation about Great Pyrenees from Texas is particularly striking and illustrates how transport has become normalized as the "solution" rather than prevention. You're absolutely right that spay/neuter lacks the emotional appeal and fundraising potential of dramatic rescue stories or adoption events.
The comparison to business models is spot-on - when organizations build infrastructure and staffing around transport and adoption, there's an inherent disincentive to truly solve the problem. It's the classic nonprofit sustainability paradox: success in their mission would ultimately reduce their relevance and funding.
What makes this especially concerning is that we know prevention works. The data consistently shows that robust spay/neuter programs dramatically reduce shelter intake and euthanasia rates over time. Communities with well-funded sterilization initiatives have demonstrated this repeatedly.
Thank you for bringing this important perspective to the conversation. It's only by recognizing these systemic issues that we can begin to redirect resources toward truly sustainable solutions.
Thank you for speaking out. I see shipments of cats and dogs from San Diego humane and Los Angeles /Riverside/ Dan Bernadino animal services being shipped to Oregon Humane constantly. CA spent $50 million in tax payer money to solve the problem, yet we are still shipping animals up your way. You hit the nail on the head in that it’s a business model and if you reduce the population your job dries up and the heart wrenching pleas for donations stop. It is utter insanity at its best.
It is common knowledge that PORTLAND OREGON HAS A HORRID PET OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM! The entire county is overflowing. We have heard that Oregon Humane- has some dirty laundry. Their CEO Sharon Harmon is making $50,000 a month 👿 —she is also one of Gary Weitzman’s pals (SD inHumane) . Oregon Humane has been accused of killing some of the “disaster” transports. You know, those CASH COW Wings of Rescue/ASPCA grifters who love to use natural disasters to raise millions- then use those unaltered, terrified animals as disposable fund raising props . Animals are flown in and literally DISAPPEAR. Zero transparency. Musical chairs with orphaned animals. Corruption right under our noses- and people are donating thinking they are actually helping animals. It’s the perfect grift for these carpetbagging psychopaths. We have to spread the word: Donate Only to your small, local neighborhood rescues.
The Humane World (previously HSUS) Expo is a commercialized extravaganza with indoctrination by the Maddies Fund and Best Friends "usual suspects" presenters profiteering on overpopulation and shelter overcapacity crisis. Yes! the title is perfect "bypassing the only exit that works: spay neuter".
It's truly amazing to go thru hundreds of pages (thousands) of their literature and presentations and not find one mention of spay/neuter priority.
It's.... Golly, what to do with all these animals....we have the answers, you can buy our software data programs and gimmicks to "turn the community into the shelter" amassing donor and taxpayer funds with faux solutions.
Here locally, advocates are questioning an undisclosed pending Maddies shelter grant directing funds AWAY from spay/neuter/vax outreach as the community experiences stray/shelter overpopulation and distemper crisis.
It's what is urgently needed yet not funded by grant. 35 large dog intake yesterday with distemper exposure will be euthanized without immediate foster quarantine as many cases are appearing.
It's deliberate strategy to avoid spay/neuter priority thru such seminar indoctrinations and grants that fund "embedded personnel" or various database programs making "the community the shelter".
Thank you, Carmen! You've highlighted exactly what's so frustrating about the current approach. While shelters are literally euthanizing dogs due to distemper outbreaks and overcrowding (as we're seeing right now in Tehama County), these major organizations continue to promote everything except the proven solution.
It's particularly telling that Maddie's Fund grants often come with strings attached that direct resources away from spay/neuter programs. The recent legislative report on California's $50 million animal welfare initiative shows this pattern clearly - despite shelters requesting $46 million for spay/neuter services, only $8.67 million was allocated while millions went to administrative activities and equipment.
Your experience with the 35 dogs facing euthanasia due to distemper exposure is heartbreaking and exactly the kind of crisis that could be prevented with proper prevention strategies. The "community as shelter" approach fails these animals when what they truly need is fewer animals being born in the first place.
Thank you for speaking up about what you're seeing on the ground. These voices of experience are crucial as we push for meaningful change in animal welfare priorities.
"many of those vans shuttle animals from one struggling community to another"
This is what the Consortium doesn't care about.
How does it make sense for the state I live in to be transporting animals to the next state over, while importing animals from down south. How does that make any sense?
Thank you, Kerryann—your comment really gets to the heart of the issue. It’s hard to see the logic in shuffling animals around when every community is struggling, and prevention is being sidelined. Until we focus on spay/neuter and real solutions, we’re just moving the problem—not solving it. I appreciate your thoughtful perspective!
Same here in San Diego. SD Humane ships animals down from LA Anima Services then turns around and ships them to Oregon. Almost makes one wonder if they are not shipping them from public shelters where you can get public records to nonprofit shelters that refuse to give public records so they can then turn around and be shipped to another nonprofit shelter that refuses record request. To me this makes it appear that it’s an easy way to help lose track of animals and their outcomes…
Thank you, Kelly. You raise a really important concern about transparency and accountability. When animals are shuffled between different shelters—especially from public to private organizations—it does become much harder to track what actually happens to them. Clear records and public access to outcomes are essential if we want real progress and trust in the system. Your observation highlights exactly why we need more openness, not less, in animal welfare.
There is also the problem that many of these dogs are pitbulls that have a high return rate, are dangerous, and thaymt nobody wants. I am seeing more and more pitbulls, and my Dad was attacked multiple times when walking their dogs. At this point shelters have not only ignored best practices of spay and neuter but also act as warehouses for a blood sport breed. I think this is where we differ - I would euthanize literally all the pitbulls. I have a new neighbor relieved I am getting a medium poodle in July because the old neighbor had a pitbull that jumped the fence, attack a friend's little dog, then attacked him.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Julia. Safety concerns are real, and I’m sorry to hear about your dad’s experience. It’s true that shelters are overwhelmed and that breed-specific challenges add to the complexity. I believe the real solution starts with prevention—spay/neuter and responsible pet ownership—so we can reduce the number of unwanted animals and the tough situations shelters face. I appreciate you joining the conversation and sharing your experience.
Another brilliant article. I agree - especially with this : "Meanwhile, the tools that do solve the problem—sterilization, community retention, and field services—are defunded, dismissed, or dismantled in favor of better optics. Public safety and animal welfare are no longer the mission. Marketing is."
In NYC, for example, most of the dogs who come into the ACC (Animal pound) are pits or pit mixes, and many don't stand a chance.
In my neighborhood, most of the dogs I see are small ones - no idea if they were purchased or rescued. Many are purebred. We are not near one of the ACC shelters, and I know that many people are not aware of the problem.
And to add insult to injury, the brilliant NYC council's new proposal is to set aside $$ only for TNR not-for-profits. Extremely short-sighted. since there is no provision for the many TNR rescuers who are not incorporated and pay for surgeries out of their own pocket; nothing for dogs; nothing for stray cats who are not part of the TNR community - and nothing for the many people who can't afford $1,000 for a cat spay and are not educated about its necessity. Yup. Only in NYC can this result come after an all-day hearing on the issue on 9/13/24
Thank you so much, Elizabeth. Your perspective from NYC is invaluable, and you highlight a real disconnect between policy and what actually helps animals and the people caring for them. It’s so frustrating to see funding and attention miss the mark—especially when so many grassroots rescuers and everyday pet owners are left out. You’re absolutely right: real solutions require supporting everyone on the front lines, not just checking boxes for optics. Thank you for sharing your experience and for all you do for animals in your community!
What is fascinating (and sad) to me is that not one mention by these giant organizations (or even in this fantastic article) is that another solution that can help curb the problem of overcrowding in our shelters is lost dog prevention and recovery! We know what owner surrenders are, but WHERE do all of these "stray" dogs come from? How many dogs escape from their guardian's care on a DAILY basis? I can tell you that it IS A LOT and that if every single dog that escaped from their yard or home (or from a vet's office or roll over car accident or the myriad of ways that dogs go missing) were taken directly to the shelter, there would be an EXPLOSION of daily euthanasia rates!
When someone finds a loose dog, they often will: (1) self-adopt the found dog, (2) turn it into a rescue group instead of a shelter, (3) be told by shelter staff to let the loose where they found it, (4) take the found dogs to a no-kill facility instead of the local shelter, or (5) they even sell the found dog online. Because of all of these variables where the lost dog never ends up in the shelter, we do NOT see the full majority of "lost" dogs ending up in our shelters and we are not aware of just how common and large this problem is--until you examine and follow your local lost dog Facebook group! Shelters will often never see the loose/skittish/lost dogs that the volunteers and professional pet detectives that I train recover, like this dog name Bob who I blogged about that escaped during a car crash in the Colorado Rockies and volunteers were able to recover him (in the field) without Bob ever having to set a paw in a shelter (story of Bob's recovery found here: https://katalbrecht.substack.com/p/dangerous-dog-rescue-at-11000-feet).
Lost dogs that are NOT found are a MAJOR contributing factor to the stray and shelter dog populations. But the topic of lost dog prevention and lost dog recovery is seldom, if ever, mentioned in the list of things that shelters should be working on. I agree that spay/neuter is a fundamental and crucial item for that list and that "co-location" and transportation of "stray" (i.e. lost but not found) dogs from crowded shelters to uncrowded shelters in distant states IS A BAD IDEA. Yes, it may save the dog from euthanasia, how can we argue that? But it dramatically reduces the chance that the family looking for their missing dog will ever find their dog! I understand that this issue doesn't land on a shelter's priority list when they are fighting to save lives of the animals in their care. Most shelter workers just don't KNOW what to do about helping families with lost pets, but there are online training programs for lost pet recovery (https://www.missinganimalresponse.com/mar-courses/) and lost pet prevention training (https://www.theretrievers.org/neverlostu/) and resources that shelters can (and should!) tell anyone who comes in to report a lost pet. They can actually MITIGATE cats from entering shelters by giving simple advice to someone coming in to report their cat is missing (from this page: https://www.missinganimalresponse.com/lost-cat-behavior/ )or at the very least, they could link to these resources on their websites.
The moment that your beloved dog escapes from your care is the moment that your dog magically transforms from a "beloved family member" to a "stray dog" and it is often treated like it is a commodity! As a "stray," your dog is at risk of being hit by a car, of being self-adopted, of being viewed as "valuable" and something to sell to someone else online, of ending up in a shelter, of running loose and being uncatchable, of eating or drinking something that will kill it, and the list goes on and on. And the worst part is you'd think that the dog would be SAFE in the shelter and have a great chance of being recovered. But once that beloved lost dog ends up in a shelter, the 72 hour clock (think "The Last 48") begins to tick down to where if the owner does not get to the particular shelter where the dog is being contained, they will LOSE ownership rights if they don't get to the shelter in time. And most guardians are just not aware of this. And they stop searching very quickly and give up due to grief, fear, and a feeling of hopelessness.
Back in 1996, when I first had the idea of developing lost pet services, it started as an "experiment" to see if my retired cadaver dog could be trained to find lost dogs & cats. It has since blossomed into a massive movement on Facebook with rescuers, trappers, keyboard warriors, and others involved in helping families recover their missing dogs, cats, and other companion animals. I only wish the sheltering industry would understand the many factors that are involved in why so many dogs and cats sit in their shelters unclaimed. There are reasons and answers for WHY this happens, but my post is too long already.
My network (Missing Animal Response Network) has volunteer and professional resources who coach families in what to do and what NOT to do to find their companion animal, physically help to search for lost dogs and cats, use thermal drones, scent tracking dogs, high-tech "Missy" traps and enclosure traps, conduct surveillance using game cameras that text photos when the animal is at the feeding station and many other recovery techniques. I've presented workshops at major conferences over the years to shelter workers and have seen very little interest by shelters to get their staff (or shelter volunteers) trained in lost pet recovery. I used to think shelter staff don't sign up for our training because I charge a fee for our 8-week online course. Like maybe MONEY was the issue. However, seeing how much money shelters will fork out to high-paid consultants who give them "solutions" like co-location, as if it is a "new idea" (when PetSmart Charities started co-location services with a program called "Rescue Waggin" BACK IN 2004!) disgusts me and I am ready to throw in the towel with trying to educate shelters.
Sorry for the novel, Ed. You can always count on me to add my 2 cents worth about the lost pet problem when your articles offer me the opportunity to do so. Thank you!
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed comment, Kat! You raise a hugely important point—lost dog prevention and recovery are often overlooked in the conversation about shelter overcrowding. As you point out, many “stray” dogs are actually lost pets who never make it back home, and the lack of focus on reunification means families and animals both lose out.
Your work with Missing Animal Response Network is a great example of what’s possible when shelters and communities invest in lost pet recovery and prevention. I completely agree that training staff and volunteers in these techniques, and sharing resources like MAR and Never Lost U, should be a much bigger part of the solution. Thank you for all you do to keep families together and for reminding us that prevention goes beyond just spay/neuter—it’s also about making sure lost pets get home safely.
The points in the article regarding the need to prioritize prevention via spay/neuter programs is well taken, however it only addresses the long term aspect of the problem. There is crisis in many shelters across the country today that are tactically dealing with animals that have already been born. I ascribe to the NO KILL Equation methodology of shelter management, as developed by Nathan Winograd. It emphasizes 11 key components that must all work in concert with each other in order to be effective. The ultimate success of the program depends on having each of the 11 elements in as robust a way as possible. Spay/neuter is certainly one of the 11, but it is not the top priority. In fact, all 11 are basically given equal weighting. There is no specific ranking. One of the problems I see across multiple shelters is that there is mass confusion about what no kill even means, and that there are different methodologies... some that work and some, like BFAS, that do not. It gives no kill, in general, little chance of being enacted because the generic label has developed a bad reputation. I would love to see you highlight the NO KILL equation and perhaps other no kill philosophies that do work to start to change the narrative moving forward. Thank you for all you do to communicate the truth!!!
Hi Marc, your points are well taken. However, the key is comprehensive implementation. As Nathan emphasizes, “a half-hearted effort isn’t enough.” All elements must be prioritized and fully funded for the model to work as intended.
What my article was pointing out, is the deliberate deprioritization of spay/neuter—the only tenet that actually turns off the supply of unwanted animals entering the system. Without robust investment in high-volume, low-cost sterilization, the rest of the equation becomes a perpetual supply chain: animals keep coming in, and national organizations have a steady stream of “inventory” to transport, adopt, and fundraise off of. This approach may keep the crisis narrative alive and donations flowing, but it does little to solve the underlying problem.
Fair enough. I was mainly making the point that you have to address both the future supply, as well as the existing animals already born into the crisis. But you are correct... can't do one at the expense of the other.
How should or is our concern against transport of puppies from puppy mills to pet stores any different from long distance transport of shelter animals. Both are costly and dangerous for animals that should receive compassion. Transports should be reserved for emergency situations such as disasters or major cruelty situations.
Thank you, Melissa—this is such an important point. The risks and stress for animals are real, whether they’re coming from a puppy mill or a crowded shelter. Compassion should always come first, and I completely agree that transport should be a last resort, reserved for true emergencies—not a routine fix. Your thoughtful perspective is much appreciated!
Totally agree that spay/neuter programs need to be funded and utilized, but please address the shortage of veterinarians willing to work in high volume s/n programs or full-service vets willing to perform the services for reasonable prices. In our area of North Texas/Southern Oklahoma, our options are very limited and are not improving. All the funding in the world won't help if there is no one to do the surgeries.
After the 323 small pets being shipped to be used as reptile food, I started looking into transports and they make little sense. Several incidents have been found where they have shipped dogs across the country that end up in deplorable rescues only to be busted and taken in by the local shelters. It’s all about optics.
That is not even to mention the level of disease being spread. On the 323 transport they mixed species (although it goes against the very guidelines the consortium wrote) and guinea pigs ended up with a deadly rabbit disease.
Spay/neuter, enforcement of back yard breeding, and stopping sales of animals from pet stores who see them as profit is the only logical at out of this mess. SDHS complains frequently about small pets and yet have never held true to the promise they made (or even gave an update) regarding the commitment to end the sale of small pets in pet stores. Makes you wonder if Petco love and petsmart charities give them money to prevent them from doing this. Another case of saying something for optics yet doing nothing to solve the problem.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Kelly. You’ve really highlighted how troubling and complicated these transport programs can be—especially when they ignore basic welfare guidelines and transparency. Mixing species, spreading disease, and sending animals to questionable rescues are exactly the kinds of risks that get overlooked when optics take priority over real solutions. I completely agree: focusing on spay/neuter, cracking down on backyard breeding, and ending pet store sales are the real ways out of this cycle. Your comment gets right to the heart of what needs to change.
San Diego Humane's Gaines St. multi-million dollar extravaganza shelter (with an observed cat population of under 4 to 10 cats during 6 visits over the last 3 months) has a Petco store proudly stationed in their lobby. Meanwhile, Petco is currently hawking the sale of half priced small critters - many of whom will undoubtedly be purchased on impulse and dumped in the near future when the novelty wears off and the kids don't take care of them as promised. What a ridiculous cycle that feeds both the Petco and SDHS coffers while San Diego taxpayers pick up the tab of a close to $20 million annual San Diego City/SDHS animal control contract.
SDHS' minimalist expenditure on spay/neuter is mere window dressing. Plus, SDHS is now threatening to cut back on even distributing the city-funded spay/neuter vouchers that are shackled with numerous caveats limiting their usefulness. I developed and advocated for the s/n voucher program with the Board of Supervisors when the County held the animal services contract and it had great success educating and motivating the public. In fact, we rarely saw puppies anymore in the County-run shelters. Staff and volunteers heralded the empty kennels - something that was only hoped for over previous decades, but was finally achieved through community cooperation. Since taking over the cities' animal control contracts, SDHS decries overcrowding of dog kennels to the point that "overflow" are warehoused and lost/found friendly cats are rerouted via their "Community Cat Program" to the zip code "habitat" where they were found by a Good Samaritan - leaving the vast majority of the well equipped adoption enclosures empty. To no sensible person's surprise, the lawsuit pressed by Pet Assistance against SDHS' cat abandonment program was recently found in violation of several state laws which are quite clear on the subject of animal abandonment.
Investment in community based spay/neuter education and low cost/free surgeries is a proven solution to pet overpopulation and all of the resulting tragedies and costs. So, why haven't SDHS and other entities who claim to be experts on the subject of companion animal welfare, directed some of their millions to reducing pet overpopulation? The reasons are well documented in Ed's previous newsletters - solutions kill the golden goose that enrich these so-called animal welfare institutions.
Transports and rescues enable the problem. Not that I would do away with them, but they are the crutch that allows all of us to think we are making progress.
Think for a moment if all the transports stopped and the rescues closed down. Then we would have to deal with the real problem. Then we would have to get serious about spay and neuter, breeder (and animal) licensing laws, veterinary shortages solutions, and sustainable shelters that are community resources instead of dumping grounds. We would have to actually fix things instead of continuing to put on Band-Aids and believing that we’re making progress.
Meanwhile, we continue to push this snowball down the hill, but eventually it will be too large and reality will hit. You can only export the problem for so long. The saddest part of all of this is that the policies being promoted as best practices are actually undoing years of progress and making things worse by the day.
Thank you, Cara—your insight is spot on. Transports and rescues can save lives in the short term, but as you said, they often let us avoid facing the real, systemic issues. If we truly want lasting change, we have to invest in spay/neuter, responsible breeding laws, and building shelters that support communities—not just shuffle animals around. I appreciate your thoughtful perspective and your commitment to real solutions!
SOOO disappointed to hear about Best Friends! Hub and I have few private options (friends, family) to take our dogs should we both pass unexpectedly. So, in our wills, we specified that if our available adopters can’t take them, they should be sent to Best Friends, with a stipend for their care.
Now I no longer want to do that! Any suggestions as to where large dogs might be re-homed if their owners pass and family/friends are unable or unwilling to take them in?
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, BumbleBee. Your concern about ensuring your dogs have a secure future is completely understandable, and it's wise to be planning ahead.
For alternatives to Best Friends, you might consider:
Pet Trusts - These are now legal in most states and provide the strongest protection. You can designate a caretaker, leave specific funds for your pets' care, and even name a trustee to ensure the money is properly used.
Specialized Pet Survivor Programs - Organizations like Hopalong Animal Rescue's Pet Survivor Program accept pets from around the country. For a gift of $6,000+ per pet in your will, they'll find a loving home matching your specifications and cover medical bills for your pet's lifetime.
Home-to-Home Services - Include instructions in your will for your executor to use services like Rehome by Adopt-A-Pet or Get Your Pet, which connect pets directly with new adopters, bypassing shelters entirely.
Local No-Kill Shelters with Legacy Programs - Some local organizations like Animal Friends in Pittsburgh have programs specifically for pets of deceased owners. Their "Lifesavers Society" is available to donors who give $5,000+ and guarantees care until a suitable home is found.
Peace of Mind Dog Rescue - This California nonprofit specializes in helping senior dogs and dogs whose guardians can no longer care for them.
I'd recommend researching these options and speaking with an estate planning attorney who has experience with pet trusts. The peace of mind from having a solid plan in place is invaluable.
Thank you for caring so deeply about your dogs' future wellbeing!
Thank you! I appreciate the help in navigating what has become an overly complex issue, thanks to so many people and organizations doing the wrong things 😟
I wonder if people realize that Kristen Hassen is being paid 2.5 million $$$ to be “working” at Riverside County Animal Shelter (9/2025-9/2027). Also collected $$$ in LA to “consult” there. Her “Outcomes For Pets” is one big pile of phony advice for shelters.
Odd how this carpetbagging grifter still finds time to peddle her destructive, nonsensical, inhumane and illegal dumping policies at animal welfare sideshows. When she should be at work at the shelters she has grifted millions from. She is busy posing as an “expert” at animal welfare trade shows.
It would be fine, but her phony lifesaving policies are a total scam.
I saw with my own eyes when Kristen Aurbach-Hassen posted on her own social media page: that large spay and neuter programs DO NOT DECREASE ADMISSIONS TO SHELTERS. She is a clear and present danger to orphaned animals and needs to be exposed. She is literally grifting my tax dollars and these incompetent shelter directors/ lemmings are following her off a cliff.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Christine. There’s a lot of frustration out there about how resources are being spent and the direction of shelter policies. Transparency and accountability are so important, especially when public funds and animal lives are at stake. Your observations highlight why it’s crucial to keep advocating for proven solutions like robust spay/neuter programs and to question approaches that don’t address the root causes. I appreciate your passion and your commitment to speaking up for the animals.
This is and has been a problem here in the PNW, where most of our rescue dogs come from Texas, Oklahoma and other places with no or poor spay/neuter programs—they keep producing them and we keep taking them in. For instance, every Great Pyrenees you see around here—and they are legion—has almost certainly been shipped from Texas. And rescues for better and worse keep fundraising off the situation. In my experience, those with the largest budgets become if not complicit in the dog trade complex, then very seriously incurious about it. Spay/neuter isn’t sexy and doesn’t provide the feel-good thrill that mass adoption events or compelling rescue stories do. These organizations follow the money. And their leaders are interchangeable with any business CFO—no one wants to stop the flow and be put out of business. It’s a problem with nonprofits across the board—the goalposts are always shifting with each success and when they hit on a particularly good money maker it’s in their interest to keep juicing it. Even when it requires the organization to stray from its foundational purpose or abandon it completely in practice. It’s a hard truth but one we need to understand and recognize.
Thank you HW, for sharing your perspective from the Pacific Northwest! You've highlighted something I've observed as well - the cycle of transporting animals from states with limited spay/neuter resources to areas with higher adoption demand creates a perpetual pipeline rather than addressing the root cause.
Your observation about Great Pyrenees from Texas is particularly striking and illustrates how transport has become normalized as the "solution" rather than prevention. You're absolutely right that spay/neuter lacks the emotional appeal and fundraising potential of dramatic rescue stories or adoption events.
The comparison to business models is spot-on - when organizations build infrastructure and staffing around transport and adoption, there's an inherent disincentive to truly solve the problem. It's the classic nonprofit sustainability paradox: success in their mission would ultimately reduce their relevance and funding.
What makes this especially concerning is that we know prevention works. The data consistently shows that robust spay/neuter programs dramatically reduce shelter intake and euthanasia rates over time. Communities with well-funded sterilization initiatives have demonstrated this repeatedly.
Thank you for bringing this important perspective to the conversation. It's only by recognizing these systemic issues that we can begin to redirect resources toward truly sustainable solutions.
Thank you for speaking out. I see shipments of cats and dogs from San Diego humane and Los Angeles /Riverside/ Dan Bernadino animal services being shipped to Oregon Humane constantly. CA spent $50 million in tax payer money to solve the problem, yet we are still shipping animals up your way. You hit the nail on the head in that it’s a business model and if you reduce the population your job dries up and the heart wrenching pleas for donations stop. It is utter insanity at its best.
It is common knowledge that PORTLAND OREGON HAS A HORRID PET OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM! The entire county is overflowing. We have heard that Oregon Humane- has some dirty laundry. Their CEO Sharon Harmon is making $50,000 a month 👿 —she is also one of Gary Weitzman’s pals (SD inHumane) . Oregon Humane has been accused of killing some of the “disaster” transports. You know, those CASH COW Wings of Rescue/ASPCA grifters who love to use natural disasters to raise millions- then use those unaltered, terrified animals as disposable fund raising props . Animals are flown in and literally DISAPPEAR. Zero transparency. Musical chairs with orphaned animals. Corruption right under our noses- and people are donating thinking they are actually helping animals. It’s the perfect grift for these carpetbagging psychopaths. We have to spread the word: Donate Only to your small, local neighborhood rescues.
The Humane World (previously HSUS) Expo is a commercialized extravaganza with indoctrination by the Maddies Fund and Best Friends "usual suspects" presenters profiteering on overpopulation and shelter overcapacity crisis. Yes! the title is perfect "bypassing the only exit that works: spay neuter".
It's truly amazing to go thru hundreds of pages (thousands) of their literature and presentations and not find one mention of spay/neuter priority.
It's.... Golly, what to do with all these animals....we have the answers, you can buy our software data programs and gimmicks to "turn the community into the shelter" amassing donor and taxpayer funds with faux solutions.
Here locally, advocates are questioning an undisclosed pending Maddies shelter grant directing funds AWAY from spay/neuter/vax outreach as the community experiences stray/shelter overpopulation and distemper crisis.
It's what is urgently needed yet not funded by grant. 35 large dog intake yesterday with distemper exposure will be euthanized without immediate foster quarantine as many cases are appearing.
It's deliberate strategy to avoid spay/neuter priority thru such seminar indoctrinations and grants that fund "embedded personnel" or various database programs making "the community the shelter".
Thank you, Carmen! You've highlighted exactly what's so frustrating about the current approach. While shelters are literally euthanizing dogs due to distemper outbreaks and overcrowding (as we're seeing right now in Tehama County), these major organizations continue to promote everything except the proven solution.
It's particularly telling that Maddie's Fund grants often come with strings attached that direct resources away from spay/neuter programs. The recent legislative report on California's $50 million animal welfare initiative shows this pattern clearly - despite shelters requesting $46 million for spay/neuter services, only $8.67 million was allocated while millions went to administrative activities and equipment.
Your experience with the 35 dogs facing euthanasia due to distemper exposure is heartbreaking and exactly the kind of crisis that could be prevented with proper prevention strategies. The "community as shelter" approach fails these animals when what they truly need is fewer animals being born in the first place.
Thank you for speaking up about what you're seeing on the ground. These voices of experience are crucial as we push for meaningful change in animal welfare priorities.
Excellent points!
"many of those vans shuttle animals from one struggling community to another"
This is what the Consortium doesn't care about.
How does it make sense for the state I live in to be transporting animals to the next state over, while importing animals from down south. How does that make any sense?
Thank you, Kerryann—your comment really gets to the heart of the issue. It’s hard to see the logic in shuffling animals around when every community is struggling, and prevention is being sidelined. Until we focus on spay/neuter and real solutions, we’re just moving the problem—not solving it. I appreciate your thoughtful perspective!
Same here in San Diego. SD Humane ships animals down from LA Anima Services then turns around and ships them to Oregon. Almost makes one wonder if they are not shipping them from public shelters where you can get public records to nonprofit shelters that refuse to give public records so they can then turn around and be shipped to another nonprofit shelter that refuses record request. To me this makes it appear that it’s an easy way to help lose track of animals and their outcomes…
Thank you, Kelly. You raise a really important concern about transparency and accountability. When animals are shuffled between different shelters—especially from public to private organizations—it does become much harder to track what actually happens to them. Clear records and public access to outcomes are essential if we want real progress and trust in the system. Your observation highlights exactly why we need more openness, not less, in animal welfare.
There is also the problem that many of these dogs are pitbulls that have a high return rate, are dangerous, and thaymt nobody wants. I am seeing more and more pitbulls, and my Dad was attacked multiple times when walking their dogs. At this point shelters have not only ignored best practices of spay and neuter but also act as warehouses for a blood sport breed. I think this is where we differ - I would euthanize literally all the pitbulls. I have a new neighbor relieved I am getting a medium poodle in July because the old neighbor had a pitbull that jumped the fence, attack a friend's little dog, then attacked him.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Julia. Safety concerns are real, and I’m sorry to hear about your dad’s experience. It’s true that shelters are overwhelmed and that breed-specific challenges add to the complexity. I believe the real solution starts with prevention—spay/neuter and responsible pet ownership—so we can reduce the number of unwanted animals and the tough situations shelters face. I appreciate you joining the conversation and sharing your experience.
Another brilliant article. I agree - especially with this : "Meanwhile, the tools that do solve the problem—sterilization, community retention, and field services—are defunded, dismissed, or dismantled in favor of better optics. Public safety and animal welfare are no longer the mission. Marketing is."
In NYC, for example, most of the dogs who come into the ACC (Animal pound) are pits or pit mixes, and many don't stand a chance.
In my neighborhood, most of the dogs I see are small ones - no idea if they were purchased or rescued. Many are purebred. We are not near one of the ACC shelters, and I know that many people are not aware of the problem.
And to add insult to injury, the brilliant NYC council's new proposal is to set aside $$ only for TNR not-for-profits. Extremely short-sighted. since there is no provision for the many TNR rescuers who are not incorporated and pay for surgeries out of their own pocket; nothing for dogs; nothing for stray cats who are not part of the TNR community - and nothing for the many people who can't afford $1,000 for a cat spay and are not educated about its necessity. Yup. Only in NYC can this result come after an all-day hearing on the issue on 9/13/24
Thank you so much, Elizabeth. Your perspective from NYC is invaluable, and you highlight a real disconnect between policy and what actually helps animals and the people caring for them. It’s so frustrating to see funding and attention miss the mark—especially when so many grassroots rescuers and everyday pet owners are left out. You’re absolutely right: real solutions require supporting everyone on the front lines, not just checking boxes for optics. Thank you for sharing your experience and for all you do for animals in your community!
What is fascinating (and sad) to me is that not one mention by these giant organizations (or even in this fantastic article) is that another solution that can help curb the problem of overcrowding in our shelters is lost dog prevention and recovery! We know what owner surrenders are, but WHERE do all of these "stray" dogs come from? How many dogs escape from their guardian's care on a DAILY basis? I can tell you that it IS A LOT and that if every single dog that escaped from their yard or home (or from a vet's office or roll over car accident or the myriad of ways that dogs go missing) were taken directly to the shelter, there would be an EXPLOSION of daily euthanasia rates!
When someone finds a loose dog, they often will: (1) self-adopt the found dog, (2) turn it into a rescue group instead of a shelter, (3) be told by shelter staff to let the loose where they found it, (4) take the found dogs to a no-kill facility instead of the local shelter, or (5) they even sell the found dog online. Because of all of these variables where the lost dog never ends up in the shelter, we do NOT see the full majority of "lost" dogs ending up in our shelters and we are not aware of just how common and large this problem is--until you examine and follow your local lost dog Facebook group! Shelters will often never see the loose/skittish/lost dogs that the volunteers and professional pet detectives that I train recover, like this dog name Bob who I blogged about that escaped during a car crash in the Colorado Rockies and volunteers were able to recover him (in the field) without Bob ever having to set a paw in a shelter (story of Bob's recovery found here: https://katalbrecht.substack.com/p/dangerous-dog-rescue-at-11000-feet).
Lost dogs that are NOT found are a MAJOR contributing factor to the stray and shelter dog populations. But the topic of lost dog prevention and lost dog recovery is seldom, if ever, mentioned in the list of things that shelters should be working on. I agree that spay/neuter is a fundamental and crucial item for that list and that "co-location" and transportation of "stray" (i.e. lost but not found) dogs from crowded shelters to uncrowded shelters in distant states IS A BAD IDEA. Yes, it may save the dog from euthanasia, how can we argue that? But it dramatically reduces the chance that the family looking for their missing dog will ever find their dog! I understand that this issue doesn't land on a shelter's priority list when they are fighting to save lives of the animals in their care. Most shelter workers just don't KNOW what to do about helping families with lost pets, but there are online training programs for lost pet recovery (https://www.missinganimalresponse.com/mar-courses/) and lost pet prevention training (https://www.theretrievers.org/neverlostu/) and resources that shelters can (and should!) tell anyone who comes in to report a lost pet. They can actually MITIGATE cats from entering shelters by giving simple advice to someone coming in to report their cat is missing (from this page: https://www.missinganimalresponse.com/lost-cat-behavior/ )or at the very least, they could link to these resources on their websites.
The moment that your beloved dog escapes from your care is the moment that your dog magically transforms from a "beloved family member" to a "stray dog" and it is often treated like it is a commodity! As a "stray," your dog is at risk of being hit by a car, of being self-adopted, of being viewed as "valuable" and something to sell to someone else online, of ending up in a shelter, of running loose and being uncatchable, of eating or drinking something that will kill it, and the list goes on and on. And the worst part is you'd think that the dog would be SAFE in the shelter and have a great chance of being recovered. But once that beloved lost dog ends up in a shelter, the 72 hour clock (think "The Last 48") begins to tick down to where if the owner does not get to the particular shelter where the dog is being contained, they will LOSE ownership rights if they don't get to the shelter in time. And most guardians are just not aware of this. And they stop searching very quickly and give up due to grief, fear, and a feeling of hopelessness.
Back in 1996, when I first had the idea of developing lost pet services, it started as an "experiment" to see if my retired cadaver dog could be trained to find lost dogs & cats. It has since blossomed into a massive movement on Facebook with rescuers, trappers, keyboard warriors, and others involved in helping families recover their missing dogs, cats, and other companion animals. I only wish the sheltering industry would understand the many factors that are involved in why so many dogs and cats sit in their shelters unclaimed. There are reasons and answers for WHY this happens, but my post is too long already.
My network (Missing Animal Response Network) has volunteer and professional resources who coach families in what to do and what NOT to do to find their companion animal, physically help to search for lost dogs and cats, use thermal drones, scent tracking dogs, high-tech "Missy" traps and enclosure traps, conduct surveillance using game cameras that text photos when the animal is at the feeding station and many other recovery techniques. I've presented workshops at major conferences over the years to shelter workers and have seen very little interest by shelters to get their staff (or shelter volunteers) trained in lost pet recovery. I used to think shelter staff don't sign up for our training because I charge a fee for our 8-week online course. Like maybe MONEY was the issue. However, seeing how much money shelters will fork out to high-paid consultants who give them "solutions" like co-location, as if it is a "new idea" (when PetSmart Charities started co-location services with a program called "Rescue Waggin" BACK IN 2004!) disgusts me and I am ready to throw in the towel with trying to educate shelters.
Sorry for the novel, Ed. You can always count on me to add my 2 cents worth about the lost pet problem when your articles offer me the opportunity to do so. Thank you!
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed comment, Kat! You raise a hugely important point—lost dog prevention and recovery are often overlooked in the conversation about shelter overcrowding. As you point out, many “stray” dogs are actually lost pets who never make it back home, and the lack of focus on reunification means families and animals both lose out.
Your work with Missing Animal Response Network is a great example of what’s possible when shelters and communities invest in lost pet recovery and prevention. I completely agree that training staff and volunteers in these techniques, and sharing resources like MAR and Never Lost U, should be a much bigger part of the solution. Thank you for all you do to keep families together and for reminding us that prevention goes beyond just spay/neuter—it’s also about making sure lost pets get home safely.
I feel bad for diverting the conversation of the importance of spay/neuter programs, but I just can't help myself!
No need to feel bad, it is a brilliant and important component of any "no-kill" equation!
The points in the article regarding the need to prioritize prevention via spay/neuter programs is well taken, however it only addresses the long term aspect of the problem. There is crisis in many shelters across the country today that are tactically dealing with animals that have already been born. I ascribe to the NO KILL Equation methodology of shelter management, as developed by Nathan Winograd. It emphasizes 11 key components that must all work in concert with each other in order to be effective. The ultimate success of the program depends on having each of the 11 elements in as robust a way as possible. Spay/neuter is certainly one of the 11, but it is not the top priority. In fact, all 11 are basically given equal weighting. There is no specific ranking. One of the problems I see across multiple shelters is that there is mass confusion about what no kill even means, and that there are different methodologies... some that work and some, like BFAS, that do not. It gives no kill, in general, little chance of being enacted because the generic label has developed a bad reputation. I would love to see you highlight the NO KILL equation and perhaps other no kill philosophies that do work to start to change the narrative moving forward. Thank you for all you do to communicate the truth!!!
Hi Marc, your points are well taken. However, the key is comprehensive implementation. As Nathan emphasizes, “a half-hearted effort isn’t enough.” All elements must be prioritized and fully funded for the model to work as intended.
What my article was pointing out, is the deliberate deprioritization of spay/neuter—the only tenet that actually turns off the supply of unwanted animals entering the system. Without robust investment in high-volume, low-cost sterilization, the rest of the equation becomes a perpetual supply chain: animals keep coming in, and national organizations have a steady stream of “inventory” to transport, adopt, and fundraise off of. This approach may keep the crisis narrative alive and donations flowing, but it does little to solve the underlying problem.
Fair enough. I was mainly making the point that you have to address both the future supply, as well as the existing animals already born into the crisis. But you are correct... can't do one at the expense of the other.
Agreed!
How should or is our concern against transport of puppies from puppy mills to pet stores any different from long distance transport of shelter animals. Both are costly and dangerous for animals that should receive compassion. Transports should be reserved for emergency situations such as disasters or major cruelty situations.
Thank you, Melissa—this is such an important point. The risks and stress for animals are real, whether they’re coming from a puppy mill or a crowded shelter. Compassion should always come first, and I completely agree that transport should be a last resort, reserved for true emergencies—not a routine fix. Your thoughtful perspective is much appreciated!
Totally agree that spay/neuter programs need to be funded and utilized, but please address the shortage of veterinarians willing to work in high volume s/n programs or full-service vets willing to perform the services for reasonable prices. In our area of North Texas/Southern Oklahoma, our options are very limited and are not improving. All the funding in the world won't help if there is no one to do the surgeries.
After the 323 small pets being shipped to be used as reptile food, I started looking into transports and they make little sense. Several incidents have been found where they have shipped dogs across the country that end up in deplorable rescues only to be busted and taken in by the local shelters. It’s all about optics.
That is not even to mention the level of disease being spread. On the 323 transport they mixed species (although it goes against the very guidelines the consortium wrote) and guinea pigs ended up with a deadly rabbit disease.
Spay/neuter, enforcement of back yard breeding, and stopping sales of animals from pet stores who see them as profit is the only logical at out of this mess. SDHS complains frequently about small pets and yet have never held true to the promise they made (or even gave an update) regarding the commitment to end the sale of small pets in pet stores. Makes you wonder if Petco love and petsmart charities give them money to prevent them from doing this. Another case of saying something for optics yet doing nothing to solve the problem.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Kelly. You’ve really highlighted how troubling and complicated these transport programs can be—especially when they ignore basic welfare guidelines and transparency. Mixing species, spreading disease, and sending animals to questionable rescues are exactly the kinds of risks that get overlooked when optics take priority over real solutions. I completely agree: focusing on spay/neuter, cracking down on backyard breeding, and ending pet store sales are the real ways out of this cycle. Your comment gets right to the heart of what needs to change.
San Diego Humane's Gaines St. multi-million dollar extravaganza shelter (with an observed cat population of under 4 to 10 cats during 6 visits over the last 3 months) has a Petco store proudly stationed in their lobby. Meanwhile, Petco is currently hawking the sale of half priced small critters - many of whom will undoubtedly be purchased on impulse and dumped in the near future when the novelty wears off and the kids don't take care of them as promised. What a ridiculous cycle that feeds both the Petco and SDHS coffers while San Diego taxpayers pick up the tab of a close to $20 million annual San Diego City/SDHS animal control contract.
SDHS' minimalist expenditure on spay/neuter is mere window dressing. Plus, SDHS is now threatening to cut back on even distributing the city-funded spay/neuter vouchers that are shackled with numerous caveats limiting their usefulness. I developed and advocated for the s/n voucher program with the Board of Supervisors when the County held the animal services contract and it had great success educating and motivating the public. In fact, we rarely saw puppies anymore in the County-run shelters. Staff and volunteers heralded the empty kennels - something that was only hoped for over previous decades, but was finally achieved through community cooperation. Since taking over the cities' animal control contracts, SDHS decries overcrowding of dog kennels to the point that "overflow" are warehoused and lost/found friendly cats are rerouted via their "Community Cat Program" to the zip code "habitat" where they were found by a Good Samaritan - leaving the vast majority of the well equipped adoption enclosures empty. To no sensible person's surprise, the lawsuit pressed by Pet Assistance against SDHS' cat abandonment program was recently found in violation of several state laws which are quite clear on the subject of animal abandonment.
Investment in community based spay/neuter education and low cost/free surgeries is a proven solution to pet overpopulation and all of the resulting tragedies and costs. So, why haven't SDHS and other entities who claim to be experts on the subject of companion animal welfare, directed some of their millions to reducing pet overpopulation? The reasons are well documented in Ed's previous newsletters - solutions kill the golden goose that enrich these so-called animal welfare institutions.
You hit the nail on the head. Excellent analysis.
I haven't even read the column yet, but I LOVE the title!
Can't wait to read the rest.
Can't wait to hear what your thoughts on it...
Transports and rescues enable the problem. Not that I would do away with them, but they are the crutch that allows all of us to think we are making progress.
Think for a moment if all the transports stopped and the rescues closed down. Then we would have to deal with the real problem. Then we would have to get serious about spay and neuter, breeder (and animal) licensing laws, veterinary shortages solutions, and sustainable shelters that are community resources instead of dumping grounds. We would have to actually fix things instead of continuing to put on Band-Aids and believing that we’re making progress.
Meanwhile, we continue to push this snowball down the hill, but eventually it will be too large and reality will hit. You can only export the problem for so long. The saddest part of all of this is that the policies being promoted as best practices are actually undoing years of progress and making things worse by the day.
Thank you, Cara—your insight is spot on. Transports and rescues can save lives in the short term, but as you said, they often let us avoid facing the real, systemic issues. If we truly want lasting change, we have to invest in spay/neuter, responsible breeding laws, and building shelters that support communities—not just shuffle animals around. I appreciate your thoughtful perspective and your commitment to real solutions!
SOOO disappointed to hear about Best Friends! Hub and I have few private options (friends, family) to take our dogs should we both pass unexpectedly. So, in our wills, we specified that if our available adopters can’t take them, they should be sent to Best Friends, with a stipend for their care.
Now I no longer want to do that! Any suggestions as to where large dogs might be re-homed if their owners pass and family/friends are unable or unwilling to take them in?
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, BumbleBee. Your concern about ensuring your dogs have a secure future is completely understandable, and it's wise to be planning ahead.
For alternatives to Best Friends, you might consider:
Pet Trusts - These are now legal in most states and provide the strongest protection. You can designate a caretaker, leave specific funds for your pets' care, and even name a trustee to ensure the money is properly used.
Specialized Pet Survivor Programs - Organizations like Hopalong Animal Rescue's Pet Survivor Program accept pets from around the country. For a gift of $6,000+ per pet in your will, they'll find a loving home matching your specifications and cover medical bills for your pet's lifetime.
Home-to-Home Services - Include instructions in your will for your executor to use services like Rehome by Adopt-A-Pet or Get Your Pet, which connect pets directly with new adopters, bypassing shelters entirely.
Local No-Kill Shelters with Legacy Programs - Some local organizations like Animal Friends in Pittsburgh have programs specifically for pets of deceased owners. Their "Lifesavers Society" is available to donors who give $5,000+ and guarantees care until a suitable home is found.
Peace of Mind Dog Rescue - This California nonprofit specializes in helping senior dogs and dogs whose guardians can no longer care for them.
I'd recommend researching these options and speaking with an estate planning attorney who has experience with pet trusts. The peace of mind from having a solid plan in place is invaluable.
Thank you for caring so deeply about your dogs' future wellbeing!
Thank you! I appreciate the help in navigating what has become an overly complex issue, thanks to so many people and organizations doing the wrong things 😟
Please look into Frosted Faces.
Thanks! Will do!
Also, Lionel's Legacy in the San Diego area