Amen! This has been going on way too long and it is time they were stopped. We're putting a lot of our resources into a s/n program across the whole country that has a great business plan, runs very well, is very successful and reasonably cost effective. We still have triple more the applications then we can green light (even though we are planning on committing 1M of our own money this year) We still cannot get any help from any in this consortium group. The public needs to know before they donate to these organizations (actually any organization) exactly where their money is going. The animal situation in this country. is catastrophic and all this suffering is unacceptable. There plan isn't working and all the "boots on the ground" rescues know that. As do all the good shelter staff. Time for a very Big change.
Thank you, Nancy. I couldn’t agree more—real change will come from people like you who are doing the hard work with real results. Your commitment to spay/neuter is exactly what we need more of, and it's shameful that the so-called leaders won’t step up to support it. The public deserves transparency, and you’re helping shine that light. Keep going—we’re with you.
Like in every business, the result counts. And in my opinion, the state of animal welfare in the US is devastating. Every reputable company would initiate changes to their policies. From stricter laws to mandatory spay/neuter policies and enforcement, the current measures are not working.
Rescues and shelters can not keep up with the flood of animals. Larger organizations, such as the ASPCA and BF, are driving and shaping these policies. Something is off, and I am glad the curtain gets pulled. Donate to your local organization!
Thank you, TFC, for your thoughtful comment. You're absolutely right—the outcomes speak volumes, and the current system is failing too many animals. It’s time for real policy shifts, and greater support for local organizations doing the hard, honest work on the ground.
"Some practitioners argue it’s time for the animal welfare field to embrace pluralism over monopoly—trusting that innovation and excellence can arise from the local level without being dictated by a handful of heavily resourced national actors." No @#$%. There have been several times in the now distant past when there were competing philosophies of animal welfare in play, notably during the active rivalry between the then-new Humane Society of the U.S. and the staid American Humane Association; during the rise of the animal rights movement; and during the rise of the no-kill movement. These highly competitive times brought the introduction of high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter, the abolition of decompression killing, the beginning of adoption advertising, the introduction of direct mail fundraising, the abolition of pound seizure, the introduction of pentobarbital euthanasia in place of gas chambers, the introduction of neuter/return feral cat control, and a major rethink of animal shelter design. All of this came amid considerable acrimony, much of which I reported about. The acrimony & institutional rivalry stimulated innovation & progress, both for better and for worse; but because there was debate both at the leadership & at the grassroots level, nothing was done for long without being challenged and re-examined. In between these times of flux, unfortunately, there were decade-long stalls when bad practices persisted and nothing much changed. We are now in another very long stall. Unfortunately, this stall, like those of the past, is in part the result of a donor base which persists in longing for "movement unity," with everyone "on the same page," "speaking with one voice." Which is exactly what the humane cause does not need & has really never needed. As Orson Welles pointed out in The Third Man, as the black marketeer Harry Lime, "“In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
Thanks, Merritt. At first glance, I thought you might be disagreeing with me—but then I realized you brilliantly reinforced the very point I was making. Your historical perspective is a powerful reminder that friction and plurality have always driven progress in this field. Let’s hope this moment sparks another renaissance. Iron sharpens iron!
Thank you for your important reporting and thank you to Gordon Lavalette. How do we educate people to donate to the small local rescues doing the real work -- rather than these marketing machines? We need an "Act Blue" or "Win Red" to help streamline marketing and fundraising for the little rescues who are doing the real work.
A 2.5 million dollar "no bid" contract with Kristen Hassen's Outcomes Consulting for Riverside County Dept of Animal Services is being litigated as a waste of taxpayer funds because:
*Hassen's abysmal track record with other shelters
*2.5 million was desperately needed for volume spay/neuter/medical outreach instead
*Her consultancy opinions were freely available from other sources and a shelter director's responsibility to implement if appropriate.
Kristen Hassen was a director of Tucson's municipal Pima Animal Care Center (PACC) and as many Best Friends trained PACC personnel, Monica Dangler subsequently became PACC director.
As director, Monica Dangler on behalf of PACC, then ordered several Outcomes Consulting contracts and other services from Kristen Hassen. The (known) consultancy contracts were unnecessary and did not accomplish anything that could not have achieved internally.
In December 2024, Monica Dangler resigned as director of PACC to join Hassen's Outcomes Consulting 2.5 million contract with Riverside County Shelters. Isn't that a cozy arrangement?
Friends of PACC, an auxiliary funding org for PACC, paid for Hassen's consulting ordered by Dangler, and so far refuses to disclose all payments to Outcomes Consulting but more is being uncovered.
It begs the question, what is the relationship between supervisors awarding no bid Hassen consultancy contracts, Best Friends Animal Society and Outcomes Consulting espousing BFAS doctrines????
Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful comment, Carmen. You've laid out a serious and troubling sequence of events that certainly deserves more scrutiny. The connections you've highlighted raise important questions about accountability, transparency, and the use of public and donor funds—especially when better outcomes for animals are on the line. I’ll continue following this story closely, and I appreciate you adding this context to the conversation.
And didn’t LAAS pay her around $25,000 as well. Meanwhile, the GM was making a huge salary. How can someone being paid nearly $500k/yr need a consult to tell them how to do their job! Imagine all the good that could have been done with all that money. It blows my mind how greedy people are, especially when it involves the suffering of living beings.
Thank you, Jacqueline. You're absolutely right to raise this point. When leadership already commands such high salaries, it’s frustrating to see even more public or donor funds diverted to consultants—especially when those dollars could go directly toward lifesaving programs. The animals deserve better, and so do the taxpayers and donors who support them.
What’s interesting is Gary Weitzman at SDHS keeps taking animals (he whines about overcrowding daily) from south LAAS shelter. Coincidently, this is Hassen’s pilot shelter. Thinking it may have something to do with helping her numbers look good so they can call her pilot shelter a success. Correct me if I’m working but he seems to only take from this shelter while the others see as bad if not worse. I strongly feel there is something behind this.
Thanks for sharing this, Kelly. It’s an important observation—and if anyone else has confirmation or additional insight into this pattern, we encourage you to reach out to Animal Politics. Transparency starts with asking the right questions.
Thank you, Gina. Sadly, you're right—money often clouds judgment, and public memory can be short. That’s why it’s so important to keep these conversations going and keep shining a light on what’s really happening.
I want to see the outcome of this lawsuit. Unfortunately, if it is anything like the case of the animal rights organizations suing the SDHS for dumping of friendly cats on the streets, it will drag through the courts for years. Deny, delay.
You're absolutely right, Suzanne—these cases often take far too long to resolve. But shedding light on the issues is the first step toward change. Let’s hope this one helps push accountability forward, no matter how long it takes.
Incredible work over the past year—truly commendable how you’ve pulled back the curtain on the ASPCA, Best Friends, and others for their deceptive practices and lack of real commitment to animal welfare. Your reporting has brought much-needed awareness to issues too long ignored. One question though: why no mention of Cal Animals and their role in opposing critical legislation like Bowie’s Law? Their influence seems significant and worth examining. Looking forward to your continued investigations.
If the suit is successful, is the goal to return the money to donors, revoke the 501c3 status of some/all these orgs, supervised practice, or...what is the hoped-for outcome?
Amen! This has been going on way too long and it is time they were stopped. We're putting a lot of our resources into a s/n program across the whole country that has a great business plan, runs very well, is very successful and reasonably cost effective. We still have triple more the applications then we can green light (even though we are planning on committing 1M of our own money this year) We still cannot get any help from any in this consortium group. The public needs to know before they donate to these organizations (actually any organization) exactly where their money is going. The animal situation in this country. is catastrophic and all this suffering is unacceptable. There plan isn't working and all the "boots on the ground" rescues know that. As do all the good shelter staff. Time for a very Big change.
Thank you, Nancy. I couldn’t agree more—real change will come from people like you who are doing the hard work with real results. Your commitment to spay/neuter is exactly what we need more of, and it's shameful that the so-called leaders won’t step up to support it. The public deserves transparency, and you’re helping shine that light. Keep going—we’re with you.
Like in every business, the result counts. And in my opinion, the state of animal welfare in the US is devastating. Every reputable company would initiate changes to their policies. From stricter laws to mandatory spay/neuter policies and enforcement, the current measures are not working.
Rescues and shelters can not keep up with the flood of animals. Larger organizations, such as the ASPCA and BF, are driving and shaping these policies. Something is off, and I am glad the curtain gets pulled. Donate to your local organization!
Thank you, TFC, for your thoughtful comment. You're absolutely right—the outcomes speak volumes, and the current system is failing too many animals. It’s time for real policy shifts, and greater support for local organizations doing the hard, honest work on the ground.
"Some practitioners argue it’s time for the animal welfare field to embrace pluralism over monopoly—trusting that innovation and excellence can arise from the local level without being dictated by a handful of heavily resourced national actors." No @#$%. There have been several times in the now distant past when there were competing philosophies of animal welfare in play, notably during the active rivalry between the then-new Humane Society of the U.S. and the staid American Humane Association; during the rise of the animal rights movement; and during the rise of the no-kill movement. These highly competitive times brought the introduction of high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter, the abolition of decompression killing, the beginning of adoption advertising, the introduction of direct mail fundraising, the abolition of pound seizure, the introduction of pentobarbital euthanasia in place of gas chambers, the introduction of neuter/return feral cat control, and a major rethink of animal shelter design. All of this came amid considerable acrimony, much of which I reported about. The acrimony & institutional rivalry stimulated innovation & progress, both for better and for worse; but because there was debate both at the leadership & at the grassroots level, nothing was done for long without being challenged and re-examined. In between these times of flux, unfortunately, there were decade-long stalls when bad practices persisted and nothing much changed. We are now in another very long stall. Unfortunately, this stall, like those of the past, is in part the result of a donor base which persists in longing for "movement unity," with everyone "on the same page," "speaking with one voice." Which is exactly what the humane cause does not need & has really never needed. As Orson Welles pointed out in The Third Man, as the black marketeer Harry Lime, "“In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
Thanks, Merritt. At first glance, I thought you might be disagreeing with me—but then I realized you brilliantly reinforced the very point I was making. Your historical perspective is a powerful reminder that friction and plurality have always driven progress in this field. Let’s hope this moment sparks another renaissance. Iron sharpens iron!
Thank you for your important reporting and thank you to Gordon Lavalette. How do we educate people to donate to the small local rescues doing the real work -- rather than these marketing machines? We need an "Act Blue" or "Win Red" to help streamline marketing and fundraising for the little rescues who are doing the real work.
I do what I can: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/animal-politics-think-globally-give
A 2.5 million dollar "no bid" contract with Kristen Hassen's Outcomes Consulting for Riverside County Dept of Animal Services is being litigated as a waste of taxpayer funds because:
*Hassen's abysmal track record with other shelters
*2.5 million was desperately needed for volume spay/neuter/medical outreach instead
*Her consultancy opinions were freely available from other sources and a shelter director's responsibility to implement if appropriate.
Kristen Hassen was a director of Tucson's municipal Pima Animal Care Center (PACC) and as many Best Friends trained PACC personnel, Monica Dangler subsequently became PACC director.
As director, Monica Dangler on behalf of PACC, then ordered several Outcomes Consulting contracts and other services from Kristen Hassen. The (known) consultancy contracts were unnecessary and did not accomplish anything that could not have achieved internally.
In December 2024, Monica Dangler resigned as director of PACC to join Hassen's Outcomes Consulting 2.5 million contract with Riverside County Shelters. Isn't that a cozy arrangement?
Friends of PACC, an auxiliary funding org for PACC, paid for Hassen's consulting ordered by Dangler, and so far refuses to disclose all payments to Outcomes Consulting but more is being uncovered.
It begs the question, what is the relationship between supervisors awarding no bid Hassen consultancy contracts, Best Friends Animal Society and Outcomes Consulting espousing BFAS doctrines????
Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful comment, Carmen. You've laid out a serious and troubling sequence of events that certainly deserves more scrutiny. The connections you've highlighted raise important questions about accountability, transparency, and the use of public and donor funds—especially when better outcomes for animals are on the line. I’ll continue following this story closely, and I appreciate you adding this context to the conversation.
And didn’t LAAS pay her around $25,000 as well. Meanwhile, the GM was making a huge salary. How can someone being paid nearly $500k/yr need a consult to tell them how to do their job! Imagine all the good that could have been done with all that money. It blows my mind how greedy people are, especially when it involves the suffering of living beings.
Thank you, Jacqueline. You're absolutely right to raise this point. When leadership already commands such high salaries, it’s frustrating to see even more public or donor funds diverted to consultants—especially when those dollars could go directly toward lifesaving programs. The animals deserve better, and so do the taxpayers and donors who support them.
What’s interesting is Gary Weitzman at SDHS keeps taking animals (he whines about overcrowding daily) from south LAAS shelter. Coincidently, this is Hassen’s pilot shelter. Thinking it may have something to do with helping her numbers look good so they can call her pilot shelter a success. Correct me if I’m working but he seems to only take from this shelter while the others see as bad if not worse. I strongly feel there is something behind this.
Thanks for sharing this, Kelly. It’s an important observation—and if anyone else has confirmation or additional insight into this pattern, we encourage you to reach out to Animal Politics. Transparency starts with asking the right questions.
Geez it seems like we need some sort of flow chart to follow the dealings of these people
Or perhaps an oversight organization: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/unmuzzling-animal-welfare-the-urgent
As long as the money is there, it will never stop. People forget... quickly
Thank you, Gina. Sadly, you're right—money often clouds judgment, and public memory can be short. That’s why it’s so important to keep these conversations going and keep shining a light on what’s really happening.
I want to see the outcome of this lawsuit. Unfortunately, if it is anything like the case of the animal rights organizations suing the SDHS for dumping of friendly cats on the streets, it will drag through the courts for years. Deny, delay.
You're absolutely right, Suzanne—these cases often take far too long to resolve. But shedding light on the issues is the first step toward change. Let’s hope this one helps push accountability forward, no matter how long it takes.
Merritt, this is so interesting and so informative. So much for me to learn. Thank you. As an aside I love the ending.
Thank you Ed, really appreciate you being on it, sharing this kind of information with those of us too afraid to hear…
Incredible work over the past year—truly commendable how you’ve pulled back the curtain on the ASPCA, Best Friends, and others for their deceptive practices and lack of real commitment to animal welfare. Your reporting has brought much-needed awareness to issues too long ignored. One question though: why no mention of Cal Animals and their role in opposing critical legislation like Bowie’s Law? Their influence seems significant and worth examining. Looking forward to your continued investigations.
If the suit is successful, is the goal to return the money to donors, revoke the 501c3 status of some/all these orgs, supervised practice, or...what is the hoped-for outcome?