Few terms in animal welfare are more polarizing than 'no-kill.' Once a rallying cry to end euthanasia, it has devolved into a numbers game. Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) cemented the 90% live-release rate as the gold standard for achieving no-kill status. Yet for many communities lured by this siren’s call, the pursuit of this arbitrary metric has led to perverse incentives, unintended consequences, and, ultimately, disaster.

Few examples illustrate the damage caused by the obsessive pursuit of this metric more clearly than Douglas, Arizona—a small community whose shelter recently claimed a 93% live-release rate after years of turmoil. But how did this embattled shelter reach that milestone—and at what cost?

Douglas serves as a case study of a national crisis driven by organizations like BFAS, a key player in The Consortium*—a powerful network of influential organizations that promote no-kill as a moral imperative. While the objective may sound noble, the policies designed to achieve it—such as Managed Intake, Community Animals, and Barrier Free Adoptions—have led to dangerous consequences that put both animal welfare and public safety at risk.

And no organization within The Consortium* wields more influence over local shelters than BFAS. As a leading force, BFAS has set an ambitious goal: making America no-kill by 2025.

Managed Intake and Community Animals

The consequences of The Consortium’s policies, driven by BFAS, come into sharp focus with Managed Intake—a practice instructing shelters to reject healthy strays or advise residents to leave animals where they are found. While this tactic lowers intake numbers, it artificially boosts live-release rates by keeping animals out of shelters entirely, allowing agencies to claim success. However, this sleight of hand leaves animals vulnerable in communities unequipped to protect them - introducing the troubling category of Community Animals.

In a recent presentation to the City of Douglas, a Consortium consultant, Team Shelter USA, promoted their version of the Community Animals policy, which allows both stray cats and dogs to remain at large—igniting public safety concerns. Dogs left to roam pose threats to children, pets, and wildlife while suffering dangers such as accidents, starvation, and abuse.

The repercussions for pet cats are already evident. Last year, the Douglas shelter reclassified adoptable cats as Community Animals and released hundreds into the unforgiving Arizona desert—where survival was unlikely. The move may have boosted the shelter’s live-release rate, but it also condemned these animals to horrific deaths.

“These animals are being abandoned in environments where survival is virtually impossible,” says a lifelong Arizona animal advocate requesting anonymity. “It’s a way to manipulate statistics without addressing the underlying issues.”

The fallout from these policies extends beyond Douglas. On February 14, 2025, a San Diego County judge issued an injunction against the San Diego Humane Society for its similar Community Cats program. The judge ruled that these programs violate California law, and each cat (or dog) released into the community is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine per animal. Judge Bacal ruled entirely in favor of the plaintiffs—marking a significant legal rebuke of BFAS-driven practices and signaling growing legal and ethical challenges for shelters adopting The Consortium’s controversial policies.

Douglas Shelter: A Case Study

The Douglas Animal Shelter has long struggled with limited resources and high intake rates, marred by controversy and allegations of mismanagement. One of its darkest chapters came last year when pet cats were released into the desert—a decision reportedly made under the influence of a BFAS-embedded employee serving as Chief Programs Officer at the nearby Humane Society of Southern Arizona.

Further scrutiny emerged from a DEA inspection, triggered by a local journalist's inquiry into drug mismanagement at the shelter. Inspectors found discrepancies in euthanasia logs for sedatives like Ketamine and Xylazine—substances commonly abused as street drugs—while parolees, not trained professionals, handled these controlled substances.

So in the midst of all of this turmoil, how did the Douglas Shelter achieve a 93% live-release rate in January? Staff cite two key strategies: barrier-free adoptions and transports.

Barrier-free adoptions involves removing safeguards like landlord approval, yard requirements, and adoption fees. Such policies may spark high adoption rates but often lead to these animals being returned by adopters unprepared for the responsibility of a pet. However, under Managed Intake, these returned animals are now released into the community.

Transports may provide a necessary short-term fix, it is costly, logistically complex, and emotionally taxing on rescuers according to a recent three-year study conducted by the University of Oklahoma Center for Applied Social Research. Most importantly, the study found transport does nothing to address the underlying issue—the unchecked reproduction of companion animals.

It is easy to see how Managed Intake, Barrier-Free Adoptions, and Transports can produce impressive numbers. But are these tactics sustainable? This playbook echoes BFAS' claim in 2020 that Los Angeles had achieved no-kill—only for euthanasia rates to spike 72% in 2024.

Critics call BFAS tactics a shell game—shuffling animals between adopters, rescues, communities, and shelters—to artificially inflate live-release rates while exacerbating the root causes of pet overpopulation.

A Nationwide Pattern

The issues in Douglas mirror a broader national crisis. Shelters across the country are facing similar challenges as they scramble to meet arbitrary no-kill benchmarks set by BFAS, an organization with limited sheltering experience. The results are often tragic:

• Southern Arizona Humane Society & San Diego Humane Society: In the quest for higher live release rates, hundreds of small animals were transferred from local shelters to The Fertile Turtle, a reptile breeding business where many reportedly became reptile food.

• Los Angeles: From 2016 to 2019, BFAS managed the Northeast Valley Shelter. During this period, multiple lawsuits emerged over dangerous dog adoptions, including a case where a pit bull severely injured a young girl.

• El Paso and San Antonio: Efforts to boost live-release rates led to overcrowding and public safety concerns when dangerous dogs were adopted out without proper vetting.

• San Diego County: A recent injunction against the San Diego Humane Society over its Community Animals policy exposed legal and ethical flaws in BFAS-aligned strategies.

• Indianapolis Animal Care Center: Despite having a BFAS-embedded manager in 2024, a year end report revealed the shelter faced a steep decline in performance metrics, leaving the community frustrated and questioning what went wrong.

These, along with so many other examples, underscore a systemic problem: no-kill policies, as promulgated by BFAS and The Consortium*, often prioritize statistical success over animal welfare and public safety, leaving communities to bear the consequences.

The Ethics of No-Kill

The systemic issues seen in Douglas and across the nation reveal deeper ethical concerns about how BFAS policies are implemented. While the no-kill movement’s goal—to save lives—resonates deeply, critics contend that the singular pursuit of a live-release metric creates perverse incentives:

• Selective Intake: Shelters admit only highly adoptable animals, such as puppies and kittens, while excluding harder-to-place animals like seniors or pit bulls, inflating save rates but increasing pressure on communities.

• Reclassification: The harder-to-place adoptable animals are labeled as community animals and released into unsafe environments to reduce intake numbers and increase live release rates.

• Opaque Transfers: Animals are shifted to other shelters or rescues without transparency about their fates, concealing outcomes.

These tactics may produce favorable statistics in the short term, but they also erode public trust and sidestep core issues like overpopulation and limited spay/neuter services—endangering both animals and communities. Meaningful reform demands that national organizations like BFAS undergo independent audits of their policies, outcomes, and financial practices to ensure that metrics never overshadow ethics.

A Path Forward

If The Consortium* truly seeks to reform animal welfare, it must shift from chasing arbitrary metrics to implementing real, community-driven solutions:

• Expand Spay/Neuter Programs: Reduce intake at the source by dramatically increasing access to free and low-cost services, curbing overpopulation before it reaches shelters.

• End One-Size-Fits-All Policies: Support shelters based on their unique challenges rather than imposing rigid, numbers-driven mandates.

• Demand Legislative Reform: Crack down on puppy mills and backyard breeders—major contributors to shelter overpopulation—through stronger laws and enforcement.

• Mandate Full Transparency: Require local shelters and national organizations, including BFAS, to publicly disclose animal outcomes, financial practices, and the true impact of their policies.

BFAS, as the driving force behind The Consortium*, must lead by example—embracing independent audits, revising harmful policies, and prioritizing ethics over optics. Anything less is a betrayal of the movement it claims to champion.

Conclusion

Douglas is not an anomaly—it is a warning. The crisis unfolding in shelters across the country is a direct result of The Consortium’s* reckless pursuit of numerical milestones at any cost. As Best Friends nears its 2025 no-kill pledge, the real measure of success must be redefined. Manipulated metrics and hollow victories cannot replace ethical, sustainable solutions that protect both animals and communities. BFAS must abandon the pursuit of optics and embrace real accountability—through independent audits, transparent reporting, and policies rooted in responsibility rather than ideology. The future of animal welfare depends on it.

*Addendum: What is the Consortium?

The Consortium is a shorthand term that animal advocates use to identify a powerful network of influential organizations collaborating to shape the future of animal welfare. This network includes:

• Maddie’s Fund

• Koret Shelter Medicine Program (KSMP)

• Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) / Shelter Pet Data Alliance (SPDA)

• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

• PetSmart Charities

• National Animal Control Association (NACA)

• Human Animal Support Services (HASS)

• Outcomes Consulting

• Team Shelter USA

Share

Leave a comment

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.