<![CDATA[Paws4Change®

<![CDATA[Paws4Change® - Blog]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:20:17 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[Breed Specific Laws: Still Bad for Us, Still Bad For Them]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 15:53:21 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/breed-specific-laws-still-bad-for-us-still-bad-for-them

I believe local laws related to companion animals can have two indirect consequences: 1) good laws can be infectious in a good way, encouraging other cities and counties to embrace a similar law or laws; and 2) bad laws can spread like a disease, infecting other cities and counties with laws that do not help animals and do not help people. I recently learned of two cities in south Alabama considering breed specific restrictions regarding pit-bull type dogs, one of which is the City of Geneva which is located in Geneva County. The name of the second city isn't important for purposes of this blog at this point. I'll explain why later.

In my experience, it is not uncommon for cities to consider breed specific laws in the wake of a dog attack that caused injuries or a dog bite-related fatality. Such is the case in the City of Geneva. A man was attacked by a pack of dogs and died in March 2021; the media report of that incident references the previous death of a child but does no indicate when that happened. In March of this year, a woman was attacked and injured by three dogs. The owner of the dogs was charged with a misdemeanor because the injuries did not rise to a level to be considered serious. People want to be kept safe, so the default action is often to try to control dogs that look like the dog who either seriously hurt or killed someone even if that dog (or dogs) have already been determined not to be dangerous (because the negative contact was provoked or the dog was defending its owner or property) or the dog was already destroyed. I believe that focusing on laws that target dogs who look like the dangerous dog is more of a reaction to a specific event than a genuine focus on public safety moving forward.

The ordinance enacted by Geneva is one of the most draconian I have seen in years. It applies to dogs that even look like pit bull type dogs, requires dogs to be registered with the city, requires people to post signs that they own a dangerous dog and if people don't comply, their dogs will be taken from them and most likely killed because they are deemed dangerous just because of how they look. It also imposes a pet limit which requires people to re-home animals they have in excess of the limit and charges a $250 penalty for someone to reclaim a lost pet as a first offense and $500 for a second offense (in addition to daily fees). I reached out to the city to ask if I could submit some questions after the ordinance was enacted and was told I could. When I submitted my questions I extended an offer to gift city officials four copies of Bronwyn Dickey's seminal book about pit- bull type dogs so they can educate themselves on a topic about which they believe they have sufficient knowledge to create new laws. I don't really expect to hear back from anyone. I don't live there. I don't vote there. It should be noted that the City of Geneva is in Geneva County which has failed to adopt the state's dog confinement law. Neighboring counties have not adopted the statute either which means dogs are essentially roaming around like its 1870. Dogs don't know jurisdictions. If areas surrounding the City of Geneva allow dogs to run loose (perhaps forming packs) that presents issues related to public safety when dogs cause vehicle accidents or injure or kill someone.

Despite what you may read on some websites and find in an AI search on the subject, dog bites are rare events and the vast majority of dogs targeted by breed bans or restrictions will never bite. Dog bite related fatalities are also exceedingly rare events. The one dog bite fatality case in which I helped defend an Alabama City just over a decade ago involved not pit-bull type dogs but Rottweilers who attacked and killed WWII veteran Donald Thomas when he went to check his mail. I interviewed the neighbors, all of whom felt threatened by the dogs running loose, but who did not report the dogs or their concerns to the city because they didn’t think it would do any good. One woman who did call the police department after having been chased by the dogs (a few years before the attack that killed Mr. Thomas) failed to go to city hall to engage with a magistrate to swear out a warrant. All the neighbors with whom I spoke regretted they had not done more that may have prevented Mr. Thomas’ death.

This contact with cities about breed restrictions caused me to go back and look at one of the original pages of my website written many years ago called Breed Bans: Bad for Us, Bad for Them. Fast forward over a decade and I stand by what I wrote. They are still bad for us and bad for dogs. Not much has changed other than we now have new sources to use to help educate those considering banning or regulating dogs based on breed. This is what we know:

The reasons for actual dog attacks (as opposed to incidents of simple and avoidable injuries) are often complex, but the answer to preventing dog attacks is relatively simple: humane care and control of dogs is often all that is needed to prevent most dog attacks.
The National Canine Research Council's investigations into dog bite-related fatalities reveals the majority of these tragic cases involved circumstances where owners failed to provide necessary care and human control of their dogs:
- Failure by dog owners to spay or neuter dogs not involved in a responsible breeding program.
- Maintaining dogs in semi-isolation on chains or in pens.
- Allowing dogs to run loose (which happens in the majority of counties in Alabama).
- Neglecting or abusing dogs.
- Maintaining dogs not as household pets, but as guard dogs, fighting dogs, intimidation dogs, breeding dogs or yard dogs; and
- Allowing children to interact with unfamiliar dogs.
According to the CDC:
- Children are more likely than adults to be bitten by a dog. The injuries from dog bites in children also tend to be more severe. Most dog bites affecting young children occur during everyday activities and while interacting with familiar dogs.
- Having a dog in the household is linked to a higher likelihood of being bitten than not having a dog. As the number of dogs in the home increases, so does the likelihood of being bitten.
- Adults with two or more dogs in the household are five times more likely to be bitten. This is comparison to people living without dogs at home.
- Among adults, men are more likely than women to be bitten by a dog.
Breed bans or restrictions are over-inclusive because they penalize responsible dog owners and dogs that are beloved family pets and have never been involved in any type of aggressive behavior;

Breed bans or restrictions are also under-inclusive because they do not target specific dogs that present a danger to the public;
Banning or restricting certain breeds can lead people to believe that only certain breeds of dogs can be aggressive when, in fact, a number of types of breeds and mixed breeds engage in aggressive behavior;
The breed of dogs tells us what they look like and not how they behave;
About half the dogs labeled as pit bull type dogs lack the DNA of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls;
Many dogs are a combination of breeds (based on DNA testing) that surprise most people (see the images below created by the Animal Farm Foundation and available as flashcards in the AAF resources trove); and
Dogs targeted for breed discriminatory laws are not more likely to bite and don't bite harder.
The media would have us believe that only certain breeds of dogs have the capacity to be aggressive. The reality is that there is no such thing as the “super predator” dog hyped by the media and falsely accused of the majority of injuries or attacks.

I am by no means an authority on this topic. I encourage anyone interested in learning more about issues related to pit-bull type dogs, breed bans and restrictions and causes of dog attacks to learn more on the websites for the National Canine Research Council and the Animal Farm Foundation. I also highly encourage anyone with any level of interest on this topic to read what I consider a treatise - Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon written by Bronwyn Dickey. I also highly recommend The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression by Karen Delise.

(click on each image to see a larger copy; you can also view all the flashcards here)

My questions to the City of Geneva about the ordinance included the following:

The City of Huntsville has a well written, breed-blind vicious and dangerous animal ordinance that has worked well (and has been adopted by other cities like Albertville) and some cities in the state have repealed their breed specific laws. Did the city consult with any other cities in Alabama about their breed restrictions prior to enacting the new animal ordinance? If so, what data were those places able to provide to support the effectiveness of the restrictions?
Because breed identification of dogs is so inaccurate, how will your ACO accurately make determinations regarding breed to enforce the ordinance and without unfairly targeting dogs who have no known bite history and to avoid litigation by dog owners whose dogs are unfairly targeted?
Your ordinance allows restriction of dogs based on appearance even though many breeds look like pit-bull type dogs but are not: Boxers, Boxer mixes, Bulldogs, American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers and Labrador Retriever mixes. How will the city handle cases in which the owner of a dog disputes his or her dog is one of the restricted breeds?
If a dog owner provides the city with the results of a DNA test for the dog, what percentage of the dog’s DNA consisting of a restricted breed triggers the city’s restrictions?
Under state law know of as the Pet Protection Act even dog owners criminally charged with animal cruelty are afforded due process to determine disposition of animals seized from them. Will some form of due process be afforded owners of dogs restricted by your ordinance and in order to avoid litigation for lack of due process?
The ordinance allows the city to impound and destroy dogs “found within the corporate city limits” not registered within the 30-day time period [required by the ordinance]. Does this mean dogs found running at large or will this be enforced through some other means for dogs under the control of their owners?
If the dogs involved in the recent attack that led you to enact this ordinance had been Siberian Huskies or German Shepherds, would the city seek to regulate those breeds of dogs?

Like I said, I don't expect to hear back from the City of Geneva even though I was told I could submit questions about the ordinance. I do expect the city to be sued and I expect people's dogs to be killed because they don't register them or they can't afford reclaim fees that amount to ransom.

Back to the second city I was told was considering banning or restricting pit-bull type dogs following a dog bite related fatality in which a teenager was attacked and killed by dogs owned by his neighbor who were reportedly pit-bull type dog mixes. I spoke with City of Daleville Mayor Jayme Stayton yesterday after I heard his city was considering following in the steps of the City of Geneva to ban or restrict breeds of dogs. He confirmed his city is not considering laws that target dogs by breed. He also confirmed that a recent dog bit related fatality took place not in his city but in the county, adding "all kinds of dogs can bite." He was open to revision of his city code regarding vicious and dangerous animals which was last updated almost 20 years ago and open to contacting the Dale County elected officials to encourage them to adopt the state's dog confinement law. I shared some information to help him with that subject and others related to the animal code he and the city council can consider. It was refreshing to have a conversation with someone focused not on breed but on behavior and how to keep his constituents safe.

(presentation images and flashcards courtesy of Animal Farm Foundation; yard sign image courtesy of City of Geneva resident Donna Antolic)

]]><![CDATA[Saving Thunder: An Open Letter to the Leaders of the City of Denver]]>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 19:50:43 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/saving-thunder-an-open-letter-to-the-leaders-of-the-city-of-denverHonorable Mayor Mike Johnston
City Council Member Amanda P. Sandoval
City Council Member Kevin Flynn
City Council Member Jamie Torres
City Council Member Diana Romero Campbell
City Council Member Amanda Sawyer
City Council Member Paul Kashmann
City Council Member Flor Alvidrez
City Council Member Shontel M. Lewis
City Council Member Darrell Watson
City Council Member Chris Hinds
City Council Member Stacie Gilmore
City Council Member Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez
City Council Member Sarah Parody
City of Denver

Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Denver:

Cities sometimes get an opportunity to do the right thing, for the right reason, to help keep the public safe while also saving the life of an animal in keeping with the values of the constituents they serve. You are currently presented with such an opportunity. I write today to implore you to use your influence to spare the life of a dog named "Thunder" currently housed in your animal shelter.

The facts of this case are vast and no doubt known to you, but appear to be summarized as follows from my perspective:

a family dog named Thunder who had 7 years of good behavior around people, children and other animals
a circumstantial incident where Thunder's owner was not home and he got out of a gate, leading to an incident that resulted in charges
Thunder was taken from his owner and impounded in a shelter kennel for 9 months in an environment not at all like the one he had always known
where his initial social behavior degraded over time, as shelter employees tossed treats into his kennel in a failed attempt to bond with him, causing shelter employees to fear him
resulting in Thunder not being allowed out of the building to breathe fresh air and exercise
leading a previously well behaved dog to display fear-based behaviors not exhibited prior to his entry into the shelter (and which likely would have abated outside the building)
about which national subject matter expert Jim Crosby opined the dog does not create a public safety risk
and for which placement of the dog is available at Base Camp Eden
so the city can fulfill its public safety goals to ensure people are kept safe (even though this dog may have injured no one).

My name is Aubrie Kavanaugh. I am an Army veteran and a retired defense litigation paralegal/investigator. I spent more than 30 years of my life defending cities like yours in addition to decades of animal welfare/animal shelter reform advocacy. I am surprised the City of Denver code does not contain provisions like those in the city where I worked to prevent dogs like Thunder from being kenneled for months through use of due process and a disposition hearing. I would argue that housing a dog in these conditions constitutes a form of cruelty - regardless of good intent - because it is entirely preventable through a process in which the dog's disposition can and should be determined not within months but within 30 days. I was not surprised to learn that shelter staff previously gave testimony in an adjacent case (People v. Monica R. Lopez) that the shelter is a "stressful environment for any dog. . .[and is] not a normal environment. That's not a healthy, you know, dogs did not evolve to live in a box and be secluded from, you know, other animals and people." The National Canine Research Council would agree:

Shelters are noisy, alien environments [for dogs], filled with strange smells, unfamiliar people, and dogs they may hear, but not see. We should not be surprised that some dogs may. . . behave differently when confined in a shelter, with its barrage of stressors that the dog cannot control, than they will in the safe, secure, predictable environment of a home, cared for by people with whom they are able to form positive attachments.
Blanket assumptions about the future behavior of dogs. . .in a shelter, as well as about the suitability of such dogs for adoption, are unfounded. Rather than rely on blanket assumptions, shelters should trust to compassion, critical thinking, and common sense."

I fully understand that you have a public safety mandate to keep people safe and that the safety of humans will always take priority over saving the lives of animals. One of the worst cases I ever worked related to dog bite related fatality of WWII Veteran Donald Thomas in the City of Leeds, Alabama, when Mr. Thomas went to check his mail and was attacked and killed by two dogs inside city limits. The law firm from which I retired defended the city in a wrongful death case based on negligence; it was essentially a failure to protect case. Jim Crosby, who has offered his expert opinion here, worked with the prosecution in examination of what led to the attack. The dogs in our case were shot and killed on site, having killed a man. Your case involves not a death, but an encounter in which Thunder may have caused minor injuries.

I simply do not see any risk at all to public safety by allowing Thunder to be spared and sent to Basecamp Eden where he can live out the rest of his days in Calhan, Colorado, while not living in a small kennel inside a closed building. The mission of Basecamp Eden is perfectly suited to dogs like Thunder: to save animals from high risk situations and provide them with a safe, structured environment. The fact that Base Camp works with veterans suffering from PTSD to help them create meaningful connections with animals is an absolute plus. Should Basecamp Eden be allowed to take ownership of Thunder (following execution of a hold harmless contract), I would not be surprised to learn at some point in the future that Thunder has not only returned to his happy, balanced behavior, but that he has also helped a veteran (to whom we owe a debt of gratitude) find some peace in an otherwise very challenging world.

We hear all the time from people in the animal shelter industry that "nobody wants to kill animals." After a couple of decades of advocacy for shelter animals generally, and for dogs unfairly labeled as "aggressive" or a risk to public safety and then destroyed, I'm not so sure I believe those claims. Actions speak louder than words. Denver is seen as one of the most progressive cities in the country. It seems wholly antithetical for the City of Denver to end the life of a dog against advice of an expert and when there is placement available that will help you fulfill your public safety goals.

Please take action to safe the life of this dog while also reconsidering your city code. The dog whose life is at risk today is Thunder. But tomorrow it could be a dog who is a beloved member of your family or the family of someone you know.

Thank you for your time and your compassion towards animals.

Aubrie E. Kavanaugh, Paws4Change

(image courtesy of Base Camp Eden)

]]><![CDATA[Your Animal Advocacy Questions Answered]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:02:08 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/your-animal-advocacy-questions-answeredIn my June 7, 2026, blog I invited followers to send me questions on a variety of topics. I was surprised at the range of subjects people wanted to know about. Thank you to all who submitted questions and the time you took to participate. If you don't see your exact question here, it is because someone else submitted a similar question or I answered your question directly. You are welcome to contact me any time to ask questions about animal welfare advocacy and the topics I cover on my website as long as you are not seeking my help to take or place specific animals; I lack the ability to do that.

Q: The city where I live just made a new law that makes people pay a $250 penalty to reclaim a lost dog and also charges a daily fee. The reclaim penalty goes up to $500 for a second offense. How are people supposed to afford to pay that much money? M.G. in Alabama

A: Fees like this are often put in place by elected officials whose focus is more on punishing the public than helping the public. The theory is that if fines are high enough, people will work harder to keep their pets from getting loose. The problem with this approach is that not every dog we see running loose is the result of people who do not care. Accidents happen. Gates get left open by contractors, children leave doors open, dogs flee their property when scared (by fireworks or other loud noises), dogs dig out from under and climb over fencing and the batteries in dogs’ electronic fence collars wear out. A lot of people simply cannot pay what amounts to ransom to reclaim a lost dog because they cannot afford it. It doesn't matter how much they love their animals - when making decisions about what may be limited resources, paying rent, feeding children and keeping the power on will always take priority over paying hundreds of dollars to reclaim a lost pet. This means the city in which you live will no doubt end up spending lots of money to impound, house and care for an animal before ending the life of that animal which is absurd.

Every instance of a lost pet should be addressed on a case by case basis to determine what happened and how to keep it from happening again, even if that means setting up a fund (perhaps using donations) to give people resources like run lines and pavers (to reinforce fencing) to keep dogs from getting loose. Cities like yours should also create a fee waiver policy so that people who genuinely cannot afford to pay reclaim fees and penalties can get their dog back when the alternative is the city spending money to end the life of that dog. Any city that treats the public like the enemy will never gain the cooperation of the public and be able to encourage them to make better choices or accept help to prevent animals from entering the shelter. I encourage you to band together with other residents of the city and engage respectfully with members of the city council to get this new policy reversed. It is not uncommon for a city to charge a nominal reclaim fee, but these amounts are so punitive that it will affect not just citizens but the shelter operation.

Q: I know there are rescue groups who go to dog auctions to buy dogs and I know you don't approve of that. Don't you think the lives of those dogs are worth saving? P.C. in Florida

A: I think the lives of all dogs have value. In my opinion, the problem with your question relates to use of the word "save."

There was a time when dog auctions were attended by two groups of people: the breeders selling dogs and the brokers buying dogs. There were people in rescue circles who acquired unsold "stock" after auctions ended based on relationships they had curated with breeders and with no money changing hands. It was a quiet exchange out of the pubic eye that put a dog or puppy in the hands of a rescuer while doing the breeder the favor of taking a dog who may be sick or lacking certain breed traits while keeping the breeder from using a bullet, a shovel or a bucket to end the life of the dog. All that changed years ago when people in the rescue community began attending auctions to buy dogs and calling it rescue. As Kim Kavin explored in depth in her Washington Post article, the presence of rescuers in the auction tent forever changed the commercial dog breeding industry for the worse. Much worse. There was nothing quiet or curated about this new relationship as rescuers made not only their presence at auctions known but also their willingness to pay whatever it took to buy dogs from the auction block. Rather than giving unsold dogs to rescue groups after the auction and as part of a quiet exchange, breeders began to see rescuers as a potential revenue source, sometimes breeding dogs specifically for the rescue community to make huge sums of money. According to Kavin's April 2018 article, one particular Alabama-based breed specific rescue paid more than $400,000 to buy 172 dogs over a period of four years for, "an average price of $2,365 per dog. Last year, more than half the dogs the nonprofit group says it saved were bought at auction." The article goes on to recount an event in which an Alabama rescuer offered to pay $24,000 for two dogs a breeder named Will Yoder had just bought for a little over 8k. And she did. Sounds crazy, right? Since the article was published in April of 2018 with who knows how much money being spent to buy dogs in the last 7 years. I shudder to think how that money was used to expand breeding operations to be able to breed more and more dogs.

I don't see this as "saving" dogs at all. I see this as enriching the very industry rescuers claim to abhor, making it more profitable than ever and leading to the breeding of more and more puppies while the breeder "stock" potentially suffers out of view of the auction tent. It may not be popular to say so, but I will: I think it is the height of human arrogance to focus solely on purchasing a specific dog (or dogs) at an auction to be able to say that dog was "saved" or "rescued while remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that the money used to buy that one dog will be used to breed or purchase many more dogs in its place, thereby perpetuating the industry. Rescuers can and should focus on saving animals most in need of rescue in their own areas and without going to auctions at all.

Q: Why are you against mandatory spay neuter since there are states in the northeast where it is mandatory? P.B. in Wisconsin.

A: Despite what you may have been told, there are no states in the northeastern part of the United States where spay/neuter is mandatory for owned animals. The reason more pets are sterilized in those places is because promotion of spay/neuter has been a priority for years and it is more easily accessible than it is in other parts of the country. There are some areas of the country where there are veterinary deserts and there is no veterinarian to which people can take a pet to be spayed or neutered. That is not the case in the northeast. There are also places where veterinarians charge hundreds of dollars for a procedure which can be done for much less at a non-profit clinic that focuses on just spay/neuter. Most states mandate spay/neuter of animals adopted from shelters and rescues as a means of controlling animal populations and to avoid having the offspring of adopted animals enter the shelter, leading to more spending. Even though spay/neuter of adopted animals is the law in most places, there are numerous animal shelters that adopt out intact animals using "the promise method" (in which people promise to have the surgery performed but never do). There are also numerous rescue groups that fault the public for "pet overpopulation" but allow unsterilized animals to be adopted and then lament the number of animals they are asked to help.

To learn more about opposition to spay/neuter which extends far beyond my website, please take a few minutes to read about it here. If we are prepared to punish people who can least afford to have their pets "fixed," we do better to just help those people instead and create relationships with them that extend beyond a single surgery.

Q: What is the biggest mistake you've made when it comes to your advocacy to try to help animals? J.S. in North Carolina

A: I've certainly made a lot of mistakes along the way as I've advocated for animals and systemic change. The mistake that bothers me the most was more of a calculation than anything. I totally underestimated the former shelter director of Huntsville Animal Services in Alabama which was the focus of much of my advocacy for more than 2 decades. Like most people, I presumed that her status as a licensed veterinarian meant she would would be open to ideas on how to save the lives of more animals; there were years when more than 7 thousand animals died in her facility under her leadership. Yes, you read that correctly. I failed to appreciate how fiercely she would fight to maintain the status quo for what was likely the sake of her own mental health. It must be incredibly difficult to realize that so many animals died when they could have been saved. Had I known how hard it would be to get her to embrace a new culture for her city department, the approach used by No Kill Huntsville to try to affect change might have shifted somewhat. We still would have focused on municipal accountability, but could have used different methods to try to gain her cooperation with more sensitivity to her struggle between her past actions and the potential future of Huntsville as a No Kill community. I am proud of what was achieved in Huntsville which is now one of the safest places for animals in the state and even in the country. Did we do the hard work? No. But we changed the history of the city by banding together, speaking out, harnessing the compassion of the public and pushing the city to create a new culture which made it possible for a newe director to be hired whose values are in keeping with those of the public he serves.

Q: I'm worried about the number of puppy mills in the state where I live. It's not obvious where they are located. What's the best place to get information to learn more about mills in my state? A.M. in Wisconsin

A: This is an easy one. Bailing Out Benji, led by Mindi Callison from Iowa. I first learned of Mindi a few years ago through a mutual contact who was saving mill dogs (not by purchasing them) and then when she appeared in a film executive produced by another contact of mine called Dog by Dog which I blogged about before and I recommend everyone watch. The film is just as relevant today as it was when it was released and has national implications. You can watch the film on Google play, Pluto TV or Youtube.

Bailing Out Benji has become one of the most reliable sources of information about the commercial dog breeding industry (as is Harley's Dream) and provides a national map that tracks USDA licensed breeders and brokers by state. Each brown circle on the map represents a broker and each blue circle represents a breeder. You can see details about the licensee by clicking on the circle. For example, the Fairmont Acre Kennel in Ephrata, Pennsyvania, has 154 adult dogs and a history of compliance issues. If you know of a breeding operation that is not on the map, that means it is not licensed by the USDA (although having a license is not indicator of how well the dogs or their offspring are cared for). Humane World (formerly the Humane Society of the United States) tracks the 100 worst dog breeding operations annually.

(capture of interactive map courtesy of Bailing Out Benji)

Q: I see a lot of negativity on social media about the No Kill movement, some of it by very prominent people. they have called the movement a scam that has led to animal suffering. Why is this happening? J.F. in Texas

A: Let's get to the scam part first. The No Kill movement is a social movement for which we should all be grateful. We have the movement to thank for the fact that our country no longer kills 16 to 17 million animals in animal shelters every year and that number is now less than 1 million. That is still too many, but we've come a very long way. In my opinion, the negativity about the movement is led by people who have not learned the history of animal sheltering in our country to better understand how we got to this point in history and the obstacles overcome to get here. There are opponents of the movement who associate it with a specific organization or platform like the Best Friends Animal Society or Human Animal Support Services. The movement does not belong to those organizations no matter how much money they have or how large their platform may be. They do not own it. The movement is made up of people like you and me. People in the trenches of advocacy seeking change in their own communities because they view saving the lives of shelter animals as a moral imperative. Focusing on specific organizations and then faulting the movement takes the focus off of our core values in which there are no excuses for killing healthy and treatable animals and the focus is not on math (the 90% reference) but on method. Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center addressed in a recent Substack article in which he wrote:

I am hearing rescuers and advocates regurgitating excuses for killing we debunked in the 1990s and 2000s: pet overpopulation, irresponsible public, need for a 'no birth' and not No Kill nation. . .When we call for a No Kill nation, we are specifically referring to the promise and success of open-admission No Kill Equation sheltering. We are referring to a shelter in the dictionary sense of the word: “an establishment providing food, protection from danger, and temporary housing for stray or unwanted animals.” The door is always open and animals find a new beginning, instead of the end of the line. We are NOT referring to the fundraising scam where “managed intake,” “community sheltering,” and “Human Animal Support Services” are euphemisms for “no entry” and increases in placement rates are dependent on animals being turned away, abandoned, and left to suffer.

If the goal of a No Kill nation is to truly mean something, we must stay rooted in reality: a placement rate cannot be considered ethical if it comes at the cost of abandoning the very animals shelter staff are responsible for protecting. These animals do not cease to exist simply because municipal shelters fail to count them. They are still suffering, still dying, and their lives still matter."

Q: I've heard there are countries where having a pet spayed or neutered is considered barbaric. Why does the U.S. focus so much on that?

A: You are correct. Some German and Scandinavian countries (including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) have restrictive policies on neutering. In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act prohibits neutering, except for health reasons or to control populations. In Norway, neutering is illegal unless strictly necessary. The removal of ovaries and testicles is considered to be mutilation, no different from cropping ears and docking tails. The focus on spaying and neutering in the United States is based on our history. There was a time when 16 to 17 millions animals died in animal shelters every year, regardless of age or health. Focusing on spay and neuter as a positive way to keep pet populations from growing while potentially extending the life of the sterilized pet has become a cultural norm while still allowing pet owners to make choices for themselves.

Q: You say that every place is capable of becoming a No Kill community but not every place is ready for that. What does that mean? C.V. in Georgia

A: Every community has limited resources and every community has collective values that represent the priorities of the people that live there. I believe every community in which the lives of companion animals are valued has the capacity to save all healthy and treatable animals - regardless of resources - by inviting the public to create a new culture that balances public safety with saving lives. Many of the programs that save the lives of shelter animals cost nothing and even those that do require some cost can be addressed using the "pay me now v. pay me later" approach. An example is investing funding into making spay/neuter of pets accessible and affordable (or free) for low income residents. Communities that invest in population control pay up front for surgeries, but pay less long-term because fewer animals enter tax-funded shelter.

Not every place is ready to be a No Kill community because there are many places where the lives of dogs and cats are not valued. If animals are treated as expendable, and the public supports that, there is no incentive elected officials to ensure the tax-funded shelter is managed differently. If a shelter even exists. People who live in those places who do value the lives of animals can focus on getting people elected to represent their values and do what they can in the present to help animals in need. But sometimes we have to follow the advice in the book Twelve by Twelve to see, be, do as we wait for a time when change is possible. Animal shelter reform cannot always be forced through logic, respectful dialogue and political advocacy no matter how much we want it.

]]><![CDATA[Taking Questions about Companion Animal Advocacy - Ask Me (Almost) Anything]]>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 15:34:30 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/taking-questions-about-companion-animal-advocacy-ask-me-anythingI am sometimes contacted by followers of my website asking why I focus so much on No Kill animal shelter philosophies and animal welfare advocacy. The answer is two-fold: 1) because those subjects are important to me; and 2) because I hope to educate others from things I have learned in the last couple of decades. I became an animal welfare advocate following the passing of our dog, Snake, and had the very unwelcome epiphany about how most animal shelters in our country operate and it changed my life in ways I never expected. I've learned a lot along the way; I was wrong about many things and oblivious to others. I firmly believe that the best way we can all help companion animals is to educate ourselves on issues that affect them. I also believe the best way we help reform our animal shelter system is to learn the history of that system so we don't repeat mistakes from the past and we don't get fooled by people who claim to seek better for animals when they are actually engaged in virtue signaling or focused on self-promotion.

My website includes content related to puppy mills, breed bans, aggression in dogs, chaining, adoption, spay and neuter and animal politics because all of those subjects are all related in some way to the subject of what takes place in our animal shelters using our money. Which often bears no relation to what people think happens at their local shelter. Unless you live in what is called a No Kill community (a place where tax dollars are not used to destroy healthy and treatable animals), your shelter is likely destroying the vast majority of animals entrusted to its care and is blaming you for those deaths because you are part of "the irresponsible public." Animals enter the building, some are adopted out and the rest are destroyed, having been given no individual consideration at all. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Unlike many other bloggers, I do not use AI to write. I confess that I sometimes use AI generated images because I lack any graphic design skills and it can be fun to use something other than a traditional photograph - like the image you see here that looks a lot like our dog who obviously cannot type. I realize AI is here and is not going away; I chose to share content I write and research myself so I know it is accurate and is based on facts and real-world experiences. Call me old school, I guess. Like my book, I make no money from my website and I seek only to share with those interested in reading and perhaps learning something new. When the time comes that I am no longer helping people, I will stop writing and will go on about my life, knowing that I made a difference in many ways and that I left things better than I found them.

I am taking questions from followers to share in a future "ask me anything" blog including (but not limited to) these general subject areas.

my book
political advocacy in Huntsville, Alabama, focused on the operation of the tax-funded animal shelter
my personal advocacy beyond Huntsville related to promoting (or opposing) local ordinances and state laws to help animals
why the phrase "No Kill" is important and should not be euphemized by another description
my promotion of No Kill Equation programs and philosophies
my opinions about organizations that use the phrase "No Kill" as a weapon or to seek public favor while warehousing or neglecting animals
engaging with local elected and appointed officials in seeking change to help companion animals
lessons learned from 20 years of companion animal advocacy
why there is so much conflict between people who seek to help or advocate for companion animals
my opinions about the role of large animal welfare organizations in changing our society to help animals
my opinions about the future of animal welfare in America
what you can to do help companion animals in need in your own community

Please submit one question per person no later than Friday, June 26, 2026 using the form below. I plan to answer 10 questions depending on the complexity of the questions. I plan to share questions and answers using your initials (unless you allow use of your full name), organization (if applicable) and your city and state.

NOTE: Please keep in mind that I am not a veterinarian or attorney (although I worked as a litigation paralegal for more than 30 years) and I cannot address questions about individual animal placements, behavior or health challenges.

]]><![CDATA[191 Dogs and Only 4 Criminal Charges in Alabama]]>Thu, 21 May 2026 14:41:16 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/191-dogs-and-only-4-criminal-charges-in-alabama

In late March of 2026, authorities from Lauderdale County, Alabama seized 191 dogs from a rural property owned by an elderly couple. The couple (and their son) were arrested more than 6 weeks later for 4 charges of animal cruelty as a Class A misdemeanor. People are outraged. They demand that more charges be brought for the sake of the dogs. Many of these same people promoted a new law that goes into effect on October 1, 2026, called Beau’s Law. Under this new law first offenses will be charged as a Class C misdemeanor, two levels below the current punishment of Class A? So, what happened? We must start with the history.

In 2023, authorities from the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office began interacting with a family breeding dogs in a rural part of the county. There were numerous dogs housed two to a kennel and there were multiple people providing them with care. There were a lot of dogs but nothing illegal was taking place. Most of dogs were large breeds with several being identified as “Doodles.”

Fast forward to 2025. Authorities began working with the owners and reached an agreement for them to reduce overcrowding of dogs on the property. This led to the owners surrendering 74 dogs to the Florence Lauderdale Animal Shelter over a period of months. It is unclear how many dogs were left behind or if dogs continued to be bred and sold.

Fast forward to 2026. Investigators with the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office executed a search warrant (which was issued by a judge based on a search warrant affidavit) on the property where dogs were confined around the property, in a detached garage and in a basement. Many dogs were kept in crates with limited access to food and water and they were surrounded by feces. Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant James Distefano told the media, “I'd be lying if I didn't say I was overwhelmed not only by the number of dogs but by the smell.” He noted it was the largest number of dogs he remembered being seized from a single resident in more than twenty years. The dogs were taken to the Florence Lauderdale animal shelter after they were seized. They were cared for and later transferred to rescue groups after the owners surrendered them weeks after they were seized.

Little about this whole process is known beyond what has been reported by the media.

What should have happened? A plan should have been developed to execute the search warrant following the same evidence protocols that are used in other criminal cases while still providing for the needs of the dogs. Yes, this evidence is alive but the evidence in support of a case becomes the backbone of the prosecution. It is typical for large seizures like this to be set up as an assembly line operation using veterinarians, vet techs, investigators, deputies and shelter staff, sometimes working in concert with the District Attorney’s Office. The process requires meticulous documentation, secure evidence collection, and strict adherence to a continuous chain of custody to ensure the evidence is admissible in court. Every dog should have been examined by a veterinarian on site with a record created of that examination and multiple photographs taken of each dog. Because dogs were seized, whether it was 5 dogs or 191 dogs, the owners should have been arrested and charged with animal cruelty at that time. To the extent some dogs require any type of veterinary care following the initial examination - emergency care or otherwise - that should have been fully documented to be used in making prosecution determinations.

In this case, only 4 charges were brought related to 191 dogs. Only the district attorney’s office knows why. It is reasonable to presume either that 1) evidence was not handled property (which may mean it was not collected at all or there was a delay in collecting evidence until weeks later when the dogs were in better condition) or 2) most of the dogs were not in particularly bad shape when they were seized.

The defendants were arrested more than six weeks after the dogs were seized were charged with 4 counts of cruelty to animals which is a Class A misdemeanor. This is an older law that applies to animals generally and is not specific to dogs and cats. It could be argued the defendants should have been charged with cruelty to animals under the Pet Protection Act which is a newer series of laws specific to dogs and cats. Using this law which would have put in motion due process provisions of the law that call for a disposition hearing regarding the dogs to be held within 20 days of them being seized (but could have been held much sooner) and has built-in provisions to recoup costs to care for the dogs. It is unknown if any of the dogs required some type of emergency treatment to save their lives. If that was the case, that could be considered aggravated cruelty and cases regarding those dogs could be brought not just as a Class A misdemeanor but as a Class C felony.

After local media reported only 4 charges had been brought, people took to social media to express their outrage. They wrote about how people had worked so hard to help the dogs by grooming them, caring for them and helping the shelter get them to rescue groups. A local city council member posted on Facebook that, “Countless people worked tirelessly, without compensation, to help these animals begin to heal.” Another person started a petition called Justice for the 191 Dogs of Lauderdale County which states:

We are calling on District Attorney Angie Hamilton to aggressively prosecute animal abuse cases and pursue the strongest charges possible when nearly 200 animals are found suffering in horrific conditions. And the community is also demanding FULL RESTITUTION for the THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS spent by Lauderdale County, local shelters, rescues, and taxpayers as a direct result of the accused individuals’ actions. The people of this community should not be forced to carry the financial burden of this cruelty. 🐾 We are demanding accountability. 🐾 We are demanding stronger action. 🐾 We are demanding justice for these dogs.”

I was curious about the number of criminal charges and the laws used so I reached out to the district attorney’s office. I was provided with limited information as I expected because the cases are in their early stages and it would not be appropriate for authorities to share investigative information with me or information about prosecution strategy. I was told that the defendants were charged with the law about animals generally because it was decided that the law in the Pet Protection Act that would have covered these circumstances (Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-241(b)) calls for intent and it was decided intent on the part of the owners was lacking. They were overwhelmed and had too many dogs. The ADA and I agreed to disagree on that interpretation of the statute. The law about torture of a dog or cat uses the word “intentionally.” The law regarding cruelty to a dog or cat does not use that same word even though it could easily have been included by the legislature. (The explanation I was given helps me understand why a woman from whom more than 100 dogs were seized last year was charged using the older law, leading to the dogs being housed in the shelter for many months.) I hope two things for the future. Regarding the 191 dogs resulting in 4 cases, I hope the cases will not be dismissed simply because the dogs were surrendered and that the DA will seek mandatory mental health counseling for the defendants in addition to having the court order a pet ban or limit for any probationary period. Regarding interpretation of the law, I hope the DA’s office will interact with other prosecutors in the state to compare notes on interpretation of the law regarding intent. No one wants another large seizure of animals who sit in a shelter for months because they are living evidence, causing terrible overcrowding, staff burnout and who knows how much spending.

If you see a situation regarding companion animals you think rises to the level of animal neglect or cruelty, report it. You may be asked to submit a written complaint and testify in court. When animals are neglected - whether it is because of intent, the owners becoming overwhelmed or the owners having a mental health issue – those situations seldom get better on their own. You can be the change you seek by owning your outrage and making sure authorities know what is happening and why you are concerned.

It may be that what you see is not at all criminal even if it doesn’t meet your standards for how you treat your own pets. I live in an area where lots of dogs live outside all the time no matter how hot it is, how cold it is or how hard it rains. One lives right across the street from us in a fenced area with a wooden doghouse. He gets little, if any, attention, is not walked and while I wish the family would surrender the dog to a rescue group, they see nothing wrong with how the dog is treated and cared for. I have to remind myself almost daily, “that is not our dog.”

If a large animal seizure by law enforcement happens in the area where you live and you are not satisfied with the results of that process, you can reach out and to authorities and ask questions, but you will never know all the details. That is not owed to you. I know of no prosecutors who respond to demands, let alone petitions. These are criminal cases in which legal decisions are made based on laws and evidence. Prosecutors and defense attorneys present information to the court. No one owes you answers. If you want to help animals taken to a shelter as a result of some legal action, please volunteer. But don’t expect anyone to give you a medal for that. Helping shelter animals in need should be its own reward and is likely to be met with only a “thank you.”

Back to the new law. Beau’s Law goes into effect in Alabama on October 1, 2026. The law only pertains to dogs and covers many of the same subjects already in the Pet Protection Act that has been in effect for more than a quarter of a century. If these arrests had happened after October of this year instead of the end of March, the defendants could have been charged not with Class A misdemeanors (punishable by up to a year in county jail and a $6,000 fine) but with Class C misdemeanors (punishable only by up to 3 months in jail and a 500 fine). I wonder what the outrage will be when cases are brought 5 months from now and offenders get what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Or are not charged at all because enforcement and prosecution resources are limited and will always be used to enforce crimes against people before crimes against animals.

(image of dogs at top of blog courtesy of WHNT)

]]><![CDATA[About Banks and the Power of Compassion]]>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:36:47 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/about-banks-and-the-power-of-compassion

It was a typical Wednesday at the office in June of 2017 when our receptionist forwarded a not-so-typical phone call to me. “This is Aubrie, “I answered, “how may I help you?” The response was unexpected. “My name is Shirley Schofield, I run the Food Bank of North Alabama, and I’m hoping you can help me with a cat.” Because I was known as “the animal person” in my firm, it was not uncommon for co-workers to ask for help re-homing a pet, seek referral to a veterinarian or to ask some question about unusual dog behavior. I was sometimes contacted by people outside the firm who worked in the building or by one of our security team, but it was unusual to be contacted by people from other businesses or organizations not on our property. I’m not sure how Shirley got my name; I guess word gets around.

Cat sightings in our area were not uncommon. Our office is near to a large apartment complex, and we felt confident most of the cats who came to our property were lost, had been left behind or just needed more to eat. We had a small colony of cats who lived on/near our parcel that our cat care team had been supporting for years - the cats were fed and watered daily and had insulated houses. When a newcomer was spotted, he or she was trapped toward getting the cat back home, into a new home or back out onto the habitat after being sterilized, vaccinated and left-ear tipped. The Food Bank of North Alabama, Inc. warehouse was on the parcel west of ours and the cat had not made it inside our fence, at least that we noticed. Shirley explained she needed help with a small cat who had been hanging around in their parking lot for a few days, hiding under cars, and who seemed to be in trouble. She wanted to take him inside but could not (because of food storage) so she was looking for some help. “Sure,” I told her, “If you can have someone bring him over, I’ll put him in my office until the rescue group can get him.” And so began the story of a young cat in need of help who was later named “Banks O’Malley” in honor of the Food Bank of North Alabama.

Banks was a pitiful sight to behold that first day. He was small, did not vocalize and seemed dehydrated and weak. He seemed social to people, but it was impossible to tell considering his condition. I put him under a table in my office and offered him bowls of water and kitten chow. He wanted nothing to do with them as he curled up in a ball and went to sleep. Thankfully he wasn’t with us for long. The rescue group which has helped the folks at my office with community cats for going on 20 years now – Forgotten Felines, Inc. – came within an hours and whisked Banks away to get him the veterinary care he needed. We were later told Banks was about 2 years old and had road rash and an abscess on one of his back legs. It was likely he had trouble moving, probably after having been hit by a car, and it was a miracle he was still alive. It took Banks months to recover.

Fast forward and Banks was a sight to behold with his mouse-tache, green eyes and his “shirt and suit" coloring. We joked at work that all he needed was an eye monocle, a top hat and maybe a classic banker’s lamp with a green glass shade to complete the image. He was adopted by a woman from northern Florida along with another cat named Q-Tip and the woman’s sister adopted a third cat. For all the jokes about his name, Banks had won the cat lottery and went on to lead a great life with his new family. Until a few weeks ago when his life took a sudden turn.

Banks' adopter was traveling north with her fiance and their cats on a move to Pennsylvania. They were stopped at a rest stop at the South/North Carolina border when Banks escaped. They looked for him for hours and when they could not find them, they begrudgingly moved on, hoping someone else would find and help him. Luckily for Banks, another family was also traveling north, stopped at the rest stop that same evening and found Banks. They knew from his condition that he had to belong to someone and rather than leave him, they decided to take him with them for the rest of their trip home to Michigan. They took Banks to a veterinarian after they got home to see if he was chipped and he was – the microchip was registered to Forgotten Felines, Inc. The family called the rescue group to report they had Banks, Michelle Maroon of the rescue group (a genuine rocket scientist) reached out to the very relieved adopter and a plan was forged for them to travel from Pennsylvania to Michigan to get him. “We’ll do whatever it takes to get him back,” Michelle was told. I am happy to share that Banks is safely back home with his loving family in Pennsylvania. He will see snow for the first time in his life.

When Michelle called me to tell me about Banks’ adventure almost 10 years after he was found, three things came to mind. The first thing is that people are inherently good. Shirley and her team could have just ignored Banks or presumed he would leave the parking lot eventually. They saw he was in trouble and reached out for assistance. They showed compassion. Our amazing partners with Forgotten Felines, Inc. jumped into action to help Banks right away, They showed compassion, as they have for so many years in support of our local cats. The family traveling to Michigan could have left Banks where they found him, but they did not. They correctly presumed he had been lost by another family traveling north and they took it upon themselves to make sure he would be safe, even if his family was never found. They were willing to adopt him if it came to that. They showed him compassion.

The second thing was that microchipping works. I have heard many stories before of companion animals lost while traveling and later found thousands of miles away, sometimes years later. This was the first time a cat I knew traveled almost 2,000 miles and made it back to his family. I know a lot of people don’t have their cats chipped because they live inside. All cats and dogs should be microchipped to help them get back home as quickly as possible, no matter where they end up. (There is also the added benefit of being able to prove a lost animal belongs to you and not someone else).

The third thing was that TNR – trap, neuter, return - works. We began doing TNR in 2009 after some landscapers disturbed a kitten nest and a frantic co-worker told me to "come quick!" before the kittens were injured. We originally helped cats in two locations for many years - on our property and a property to our east - after we learned the cats were moving between the two parcels through the storm drain system. We learned right away that TNR helps not just feral cats but socialized cats who have been pets. Banks (and many of the other cats and kittens we helped) was not trapped and he was not the only one. Some cats helped by Forgotten Felines were so tired or sick they let us pick them up. But for our reputation in the area and relationship with the rescue group, we likely would not have been contacted by Shirley and we would not have been in a position to help Banks. In all the years of doing TNR at our office and the dozens of cats we helped, more than 90% of them were pet cats. Some were lost. Some were sick. One had a shattered leg that could have been amputated but was saved through orthopedic surgery. There were a handful of cats who were genuinely feral and who were put back in their habitat where they were born and had lived for a long time. There were some cats who were so sick or injured when we found them that the most humane thing to do was for them to be euthanized. But for cats like Chloe, Abernathy, Channing, Ford, Lanier, Sweetpea, Tumbleweed, Latte, Romey, Audobon, Squeaky, Minny, Locke, Sky, Larry and Murphy, being attracted to our feeding station saved their lives and helped them find new homes when their former homes could not be found.

Banks has traveled more in the last month than many of us have traveled in years. It warms my heart to know he is safely back his family. I’m thinking of sending him a bow tie. And maybe a small briefcase for travel.

]]><![CDATA[Animal Law Lessons]]>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 05:00:00 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/animal-law-lessonsThe Alabama 30-day legislative session ended on April 9, 2026. It was exhausting even though I never set foot inside the Montgomery State Capitol. As I process what happened in the last couple of weeks, I wanted to write about those events to help myself decompress and to also share for the benefit of others so they can consider state laws being promoted, modified or passed where they live. I am working on a local ordinance in the city where I live and will write about that process in a later blog.

The short story is that this session was filled with passion on the part of animal welfare advocates, much bad behavior toward people by those same advocates, lessons about the legislative process and lessons about unintended consequences when seeking new laws. Since my goal is to help others, I'll cover lessons learned first and will then share about what happened here. But a little background first.

Law Levels

There are three levels of animal laws, all of which are separate (much like other legal issues related to people).

The primary federal animal protection law is the Animal Welfare Act signed into law in 1966. The AWA relates mostly to animals kept in zoos and used in laboratories as well as animals who are bred and sold commercially like dogs from puppy mills. Other federal laws include the "28 Hour Law," the "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act," and the "Endangered Species Act":
Every state has animal laws that relate to both livestock and companion animals. The scope of these laws varies by state. In some states (but not all), the Department of Agriculture or some other organization exercises oversight regarding companion animals in shelters and regarding rescue groups and animal nonprofits. In some states, the state animal laws apply everywhere in the state. In other states, the laws apply in county areas and outside of city limits where laws are enacted just for that city. The easiest say to learn about animal laws in your state is to visit the website for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The ALDF has a separate page established for every state that includes the animal laws for that state. For example, the landing page for the animal laws of Georgia is found here. You can also visit the website for your state legislature to learn about the laws in your state. Word of warning, however, that animal laws are not always organized neatly on state websites and they can be hard to find. Using the ALDF research is much easier.
Cities and towns have their own laws ordinarily enacted by ordinance. The general rule is that city laws can be more strict that state laws, but cannot conflict with state laws. The easiest way to learn about the laws in the city where you live is to visit the website for the city, which should have a link to the city code. Many, but not all, cities have their codes available in a library on Municode. For example, the laws in Cedar Hill, Texas, are found here.
To determine the relationship between state and local laws where you live, you can contact city or town officials to determine if they have adopted the state laws as offenses against the city. You can also contact the League of Municipalities for your state but they may tell you they only help cities and cannot help you.

How Laws Get Enacted

I feel pretty confident that a lot of people aren't familiar how most laws are enacted at state level, including laws that may be important to them on a variety of subjects: animals, children, voting, education, criminal laws, driving and transportation, business and commerce, public health and safety, etc. We all vote and we all see ballot measures when we vote, but the vast majority of laws are not put to a vote and are handled by those we elect to represent us. Many laws are enacted without people knowing about them at all and they may only learn about them if the see or read a story on the news or they end up on the wrong side of a new law they knew nothing about. The process by which a bill becomes law varies by state but is pretty similar for the most part: a bill is filed by a state elected official - a senator or a representative - and it is assigned to a committee for consideration. It can either die in committee (meaning no action is taken) or get a favorable vote (with or without changes being made) and then it is considered by the chamber in which it was introduced (house or senate). If it makes it through that chamber, the process repeats itself in the other chamber using a mirror image bill which must be the same. The bill then dies or advances. If the bill gets through the second chamber, it goes to the governor to sign or veto. The process is more detailed than that and involves more steps, but that’s the general sequence. Some bills seek creation of new laws. Many bills seek to amend - or change - existing laws.

Learning about the laws in your state can take time. Time many people lack. I have issues with the state rankings issued by the ALDF each year, but I applaud the research done by ALDF to make the laws readily available to anyone interested in reading them. When laws are handled by the state legislature and not put to a vote, it can be easy to go along with something you see on social media or are told by another person, even if that information is wrong. Our bonds with our animals are emotional. It stands to reason that the subject of laws about how animals are treated is equally emotional and it doesn't take much for people to lose sight of the goals of some laws. Most people with whom I interact believe that any law about animals must be a good law. As I wrote about last May, some bills are good and some bills are bad. Some bills have both good and bad and when that happens we have to weigh the risks of changing laws we have which is not always for the better.

Lessons Learned

If you are interested in new laws (or changes to existing laws) in your state related to companion animals, I encourage you to consider the following. No one expects you to be an attorney. I do hope you will learn and speak for yourself if you want to be taken seriously and you want to help companion animals in your state.

Read your current laws so you understand them for yourself and not based on something you are told or read on social media. Most laws are pretty straightforward because they are intended to be understood the same way by everyone who reads them. That may not be the case for complex subjects like tax law, but when it comes to laws about companion animals, the wording is pretty direct on purpose. When laws are written each word included in the law is supposed to be there. If words are not included, that is with intent.
Determine who your elected officials are and how to contact them. You should be able to do this using the Secretary of State website for your state. Many of these websites let you search by address to make the process simple. You can also perform a search on Ballotpedia and get results that include images.
Learn when your state legislature is in session and how many days that session lasts. In my state, the session is 30 days long. There are typically two legislative days a week but sometimes there are three legislative days a week. The California Legislature operates on a two-year session, known as a biennial session, which begins on the first Monday in December of even-numbered years and ends on November 30 of the following even-numbered year. The session is broken into two yearly parts, with the Legislature typically meeting from January to late summer. The Texas Legislature meets in a regular session for 140 calendar days every two years (odd-numbered years), starting on the second Tuesday in January and lasting about five months.
Learn about animal bills pending in your state. You can do this using the website for your state legislature or by using a tracker like Fast Democracy. Read the bills yourself to understand if they establish new laws or change existing laws. There are times when a bill is filed that should change existing laws but is treated as if the law is new. You will know when that happens by learning the animal laws in your state to begin with. The state pdfs prepared by ALDF are searchable so that makes it easy to compare the bill you are reading to existing laws.
Learn about organizations that have historically opposed new or changed animal laws in your state. In Alabama, there has historically been opposition from the Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA) and the Alabama Cattleman's Association related to control of dogs used in farming. Claims have been made using the "slippery slope" argument that laws specific to dogs and cats may be applied to livestock. There has also been opposition in the past from the American Kennel Club related to legislation it believes unfairly restricts the rights of owners and breeders. You can learn about opposition using standard internet searches.
If you have an opinion about an animal bill, contact the sponsor(s) of the bill and your own state legislators to share your thoughts. If you have questions about a bill you have read, ask the sponsor(s) to help you understand what they want to accomplish through the bill. Always be respectful in your communication; do not let emotions control your tone or choice of words. Diplomacy goes a long way in communicating with any elected official about any subject that is important to you.
Take what you hear from others and read on social media with a grain of salt. It's no secret that social media can be a toxic place full of misinformation and people who hide behind fake accounts and act with impunity. Much of what you hear or read may come from people who have not read the proposed law and who presume the law is good because it is about animals. I know people who have rallied in support of an animal bill without having read the bill first. I know people who have read a bill about animals but who have not read the existing laws so they don't understand the bill may weaken existing laws that were hard won. I also know people who don't ask themselves the very basic question of how the law would be enforced and it is likely it would be enforced equitably to apply to all people or if it could unfairly target people who are poor, marginalized or part of the BIPOC community (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). As easy as it may be to presume that all laws are applied to all people evenly, we know that is just not the case when it comes to laws about people, let alone laws about animals owned by people.
Do not allow your emotions get the best of you and engage in any form of disrespectful behavior or defamation. You are entitled to your opinion about proposed laws and the people or organizations who may support or oppose them. You are entitled to your opinion about the people elected to serve in your state government. You are not allowed, however, to make defamatory comments about others who do not agree with you by engaging in name calling, making accusations about them, lashing out at them on social media or in a public place in ways that may harm that person's reputation or make them fear for their personal safety.

My Issues with Beau's Law (SB 361)

Alabama enacted a law called Beau's Law which was named after a dog named Beau who was found outside in the snow in Jefferson County, Alabama, with only cardboard for shelter. The law sets standards of care for dogs who are outside, conditions for tethering dogs, provides exemptions to the law and provides punishments. The process that led to this new law was complicated and I won't try to explain the whole thing here because it's not important for the sake of trying to help others. The following summary may be of some value to you.

Through the end of 2025, Alabama had criminal laws regarding livestock, regarding cockfighting, regarding animals generally and regarding dogs and cats specifically. Crimes against dogs and cats were punishable by a Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in county jail [or hard labor] and a maximum fine of $6,000) at least and Class C Felony (punishable by 1 year and 1 day to 10 years in prison and fines up to $15,000) at worst. The Pet Protection Act (PPA) which is specific to dogs and cats was enacted in 2000. It took 12 years to get the PPA passed. The law regarding cruelty to “animals” which is not specific to dogs and cats was first enacted in 1977 and was later amended in 2013 to bring the penalty level in line with the PPA.

Representatives Phil Ensler and Neil Rafferty brought House Bill 446 that set certain standards of care for dogs outside, required certain methods be used when confining or tethering a dog and would require criminal penalties for violations. The bill did not seek to amend the PPA. Senator Garlan Gudger brought Senate Bill 361 almost 20 days later. It covered the same subjects but still not seek to amend the PPA. The Senate bill made it through committee and the Senate in 3 days, crossed over to the house and became the leading bill. The bill was amended in the House committee before being brought to the House floor on the 29th day of the session. Eleven amendment to the bill were proposed, 6 were adopted, the bill crossed back over to the Senate and was signed by Governor Ivey as Beau's Law. People were told this was the first time an animal law had made it through the legislative gauntlet in 26 years (which is not accurate) and began making plans for it to be enforced when it goes into effect on October 1, 2026. People celebrated. People cheered. I was not one of those people.

Each time a bill was filed or substituted, I read it thoroughly, compared it to existing state laws and communicated my concerns about each bill (both HB 446 and SB 361) to bill sponsors and my own legislators based on my knowledge of statutory law from more than 30 years in the legal field. I felt the bills could weaken existing laws, may have provisions that were unenforceable, may be confusing and may be ignored in some places. To be clear, I fully support adequate care of dogs. That should go without saying. I wrote and promoted an ordinance in the city where I live about a decade ago that covers many of the same topics as these bills which has been in effect a long time and is working well. There is, however, a world of difference between a state law and a local law that has been considered by the city council and adopted as setting forth the standards inside the city that will be enforced by the police department.
I expressed concerns about the following topics in the bills:

the bill would reduce the penalty from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C misdemeanor for a first offense; because the bill did not amend the PPA, a defense attorney could argue the different penalties are confusing and the legislature intended for all crimes to start as a Class C misdemeanor;

the bill would give authority to civilians who are not certified as law enforcement officers to go on private property to seize a dog without a certified officer being present which I thought may be dangerous; seizing animals is a "taking" under the 4th Amendment and should only be done by officers who are armed, trained on de-escalation techniques, trained on the U.S. Constitution and trained on making cases to be prosecuted (including report writing and evidence collection);
the bill required dogs to have "continuous" access to food which I don't believe is healthy for any dog and may cause serious health issues;
enclosures used to confine dogs had to be large enough for the dog to run; most commercially sold kennels are 10 x 10 which may be large enough for a Yorkie to run, but not a Labrador; I suggested this should be changed to "walk and move about freely";
the bill included repeated references to “species requirements” which do not exist and can vary based on age, weight and health status; there were also references to “as directed by a veterinarian” when most veterinarians do not make recommendations regarding food and water;
the bill included phrases that were not defined in the bill or in any other place in existing state law: public animal shelter, private animal shelter and logging chain;
the possibility that the law may be inequitably enforced in poor, marginalized or BIPOC communities;
people "in the industry" who enforce laws, build cases and prosecute laws were not consulted in creation of the bill;
people were told the law would apply everywhere in the state and I'm not sure that is correct; it will apply in county areas but the Alabama League of Municipalities may have to weigh in on application at municipal level in places that have not adopted state offenses by ordinance as offenses against the municipality.
supporters of the bill were sharing images on social media of obviously abused dogs on heavy chains, with no shelter, confined to small crates or so emaciated as to be near death while claiming all those things are legal when they are not. All are actionable using laws that have existed for many years.

Many of my concerns about the bill language were addressed in the amendments to SB 361 that were approved on the House floor (11 amendments were proposed and 6 were approved). The final bill which is now Beau's Law kept the reduced penalties: a first offense is a Class C misdemeanor (punishable by punishable by up to three months in jail and a fine of up to $500), a second offense is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by punishable by up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $3,000) and third and subsequent offenses are a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in county jail (or hard labor) and a maximum fine of $6,000). Beau's Law still includes references to continuous access to food, does not define phrases and takes away the authority of animal control officers to issue orders to animal owners to comply with the law, making that the strict purview of certified officers. The final vote in the House was 63 ayes, 23 nays and 9 representatives abstained from voting. It was hardly a landslide. Based on the number of amendments and the opposition in the House, I thought the bill may return to a Senate committee for consideration but it did not. One of the state Representatives who voted no, told me this about his decision:

Simply put - my concerns with the legislation outweighed even the love I have for dogs. I’m worried most issues with animal cruelty is lack of enforcement of current laws. That’s not a criticism of law enforcement, it’s just the reality. Most law enforcement agencies prioritize human crime that they deem is the most important to address with their limited resources. Most counties and cities cannot afford to increase their animal control staff. I was worried this bill could be an unfunded mandate on cities and counties. I also feel like some of the awful stories I heard about dogs not having proper shelter and tethering should fall under our existing cruelty laws. I’m not sure adding more regulations would fix the issue. In fact I was worried about people just abandoning their dogs to avoid dealing with the new laws. And animal abandonment is an issue you and I communicated about before and tried to solve because we both know it’s an issue. Like with the animal abandonment bill, I noticed animal rights advocates not fully agreeing if SB 361 was good or bad. I also just had practical application concerns about private property, probable cause, etc that lead me to eventually vote no. "

Despite rumors to the contrary, I never tried to "kill" a bill. The fact that people accused me of that, as if I have that type of influence, is comical. I communicated with elected officials about bills (which is an exercise of my Free Speech under the First Amendment) just as I have in past years. Sometimes I received responses, sometimes I did not. The officials to whom I wrote no doubt shared my messages with primary supporters of the bill. I would expect no less. What I did not expect was to be subject to cyber libel on social media. Allison Black Cornelius (the CEO of the Greater Birmingham Humane Society, an organization that does not have a good track record keeping dogs alive) accused me of being a negative, ignorant, jealous, bitter extremist, causing our state to be stuck and helping special interest groups in their opposition to new animal laws. Wendy Michelle Montealegre (a rescuer who does tremendous work saving animals in Blount County) accused me of going on a secret campaign to kill and sabotage the bill by calling shelters (which I did not). Chapel King (who was recently elected to the City of Florence City Council) wrote that if I was not willing to support the bill that I should not take actions to harm the bill. My requests to her to remove defamatory comments about me on a social media page she admins have gone unanswered. A woman who goes by Patricia N TheMutts wrote that I was creating dissension, chaos and bad feelings, defeating the cause of helping animals. Deanna Nicholas (who works with Rock Creek Rescue in Madison County) called me selfish, saying I was upset because I did not get anything done when I was in animal rights advocacy so I was standing in the way of forward momentum. When I reached out to Ms. Nicholas to ask her to remove her social media comment about me, she went further, calling me an attention seeking, washed up, non-effective person who was blocking a bill that could save lives and accusing me of wanting dogs to die on chains. She also claimed that because this is America, she can say anything she wants about me. Uh, wrong. I have long believed that personal attacks are desperate attempts by people who would rather result to defamation than to address the actual issues at hand. I really am allowed to have my own opinions about proposed laws that are not in lockstep with the opinions of others and as they misrepresent - intentional or not - existing laws.

Enforcement Issues With Beau's Law

The laws in Alabama regarding companion animals are quite strong no matter how the state is ranked compared to other states. Our dog fighting law is considered the third most strict law in the country. What is lacking is enforcement of existing laws. There are different cultures in Alabama regarding dogs as pets compared to dogs who perform a service function or protect livestock. One state representative who spoke on the House floor about the bill said, "no one should go to jail for a damn dog." I was hopeful the bill sponsor would point out that people already go to jail for animal crimes that have been punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor for not less than a quarter of a century. He did not. In areas of Alabama where existing laws are not enforced, it seems illogical that more or newer laws would be enforced more. Certified officers currently receive no mandatory training on the state's animal laws (even though they are part of the criminal code) and most animal control officers receive no training at all. It is typical for an ACO to only be required to have a driver's license and a high school diploma or GED before being handed a catch pole and told to go to work. There are certainly certified officers and ACOs who have sought out training for themselves but there is no standard training curriculum for either position.

As is the case in every state, every law enforcement agency has a finite number of certified personnel on duty at any given time and calls are prioritized. Responses to crimes against people will always be handled before crimes against animals and laws viewed as "lesser" laws will always receive less attention than crimes considered more serious. The same goes for prosecution. There are finite resources to make and bring cases before courts and decisions on those cases are prioritized based on the culture in the jurisdiction. A former city fire captain is facing trial in Madison County for killing a puppy and was charged with a Class C felony under 13A-11-14.1 which applies to animals generally. The ADA told me he used that statute because the dog was dead and he wanted to be able to use the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Would the same crime be charged at all in Washington County? Perhaps not. Add to all of this that of the 67 counties in Alabama, 39 counties have not adopted the state dog confinement law. This means dogs essentially run loose, even in counties where there have been human deaths in dog attacks. Of the 67 counties in Alabama, 29 counties have no animal control services and no pound as required by state law. A 30th county has animal control services but no pound. Where do dogs seized under the new law in those places go and what happens to them?

I have long believed a bad bill is worse than no bill. If we can all agree that animal problems are people problems and that we want the best possible care for animals, it is worth our time to develop laws that do not compromise those we already have, that are enforceable and that actually help animals. Beau's Law already reduced the criminal penalty. Will it prove to be enforceable and help animals not just in some counties but across the state without leading to the death of more dogs in animal shelters? Time will tell.

(image courtesy of Kristin Yarbrough of Alabama Animal Advocates)

]]><![CDATA[The Audacity of Hope and Compassionate Animal Shelter Leadership]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 05:00:00 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/the-audacity-of-hope-and-compassionate-animal-shelter-leadershipThe last couple years have been difficult years for the animal shelter reform advocacy. There were many voices speaking out against the No Kill movement (some more well known than others), as if working to balance public safety with saving the lives of shelter animals is somehow a bad thing. I cannot count the number of times I was tagged on social media to defend No Kill philosophies only to be told I was uninformed, clueless, naïve or just wrong. I know it can be really hard for some people to believe that change is possible and that the lives of shelter animals can be saved. So many animals have died for so long that many people have, unfortunately, become reconciled to that. But here’s the thing: you can’t say it’s not possible to save the lives of animals in a responsible way if it happens across the country. It is. Having resources helps for sure. But I believe even shelters with resource challenges can make small changes over time – with the help of an engaged public – to save lives. I also believe a time will come, perhaps years from now, when all shelters are No Kill shelters whether they use those specific words or not; the lives of healthy and treatable animals will be saved because that is what the public wants and expects.

There are certainly many progressive shelters across the country to which we can look for inspiration as we learn about the magic they perform each day for the sake of the people they serve and the animals entrusted to their care. I have chosen to highlight four municipal shelter operations located in Colorado, Texas, Alabama and Florida led by people I know and respect. I encourage anyone interested in leading their shelter in a more progressive way (or encouraging their local shelter to do better) to learn about the kinds of programs that make that possible. I don’t care what words you use to label or describe the shelter. What matters is the power of compassionate leadership driving the programs that matter. Examine the current shelter operation to learn what’s working and what isn’t. Learn about the No Kill Equation. Reach out to people who are doing great things. Change takes courage, but every life saved is a victory and a step toward a new future.

Humane Society of Fremont County; Canon City, Colorado

The Humane Society of Fremont County holds several municipal contracts. It serves the people and pets of Fremont and Custer Cuonties; roughly 56,000 neighbors across Canon city, Florence, Coal Creek, Westcliffe and Silver Cliff (7 separate counties). The median household income is approximately 63k and approximately 15% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is Doug Rae.

I consider HSFC to be one of the most progressive, if not the most, animal shelters in the country. The shelter became a No Kill facility overnight under the leadership of Doug Rae who “planted a flag” in September 2014 and never wavered in the commitment to lifesaving. The shelter has consistently maintained an incredibly high live release rate despite the pandemic and serving rural areas. As Doug told me, “Through the chaos of a global pandemic, staffing crises, decreased donations, and a rising tide of need, we never blinked. While some shelters used the pandemic as an excuse to backslide, we looked in the mirror and doubled down. Our combined live-release rate never dipped below 97%, and it often sits closer to 99%.” The live release rates for 2021 through 2025 are shown below:

2021: cat 98.18%, dog 99.16%
2022: cat 96.46%, dog 99.17%
2023: cat 99.27%, dog 98.55%
2024: cat 97.39%, dog 98.50%
2025: cat 97.89%, dog 98.56%

Some of the programs offered by the HSFC include:

Low-cost pet vaccination days for $25 to help the public get a series of vaccinations for much lower cost than they would otherwise pay.
Low-cost microchipping days to help lost pets get back home faster.
The Myron “Smitty” Smith Community Pet Food Program which provides free feed food on an emergency and supplemental basis until people can get back on their feet as well as a six-month program to help people get pet food for a limited time.
Periodic events to keep the public engaged and emotionally invested in the operation of the shelter like “The Largest Yard Sale in Fremont County,” and the “Rescue Runway” event in which “fashion meets compassion.”

Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter; Georgetown, Texas

The Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter in Texas serves Williamson County, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Hutto, Leander and Georgetown. The population served by the shelter is approximately 727,000 people. The median income is approximately 111k and approximately 5% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is Misty Valenta, who took over leadership of the shelter following the retirement of Cheryl Schneider in May of 2020.

Much like the HSFC, I consider Williamson County one of the most progressive shelters in the country. Misty didn’t miss a beat when Cheryl passed her the baton of lifesaving in 2020, a difficult year for many tax-funded shelters. The shelter publishes an annual report; I found this statement from Misty in the most recent report reflective of her tremendous leadership: ”Welcoming people is not passive. It is active. By being present and accepting the help as it comes, we are participating in that flow of cooperation. It is an example of our belief that the shelter is not a destination but an intersection of resources. Our goal is to make each visit to our shelter a transformative one.”

The live release rates for the shelter dating back to 2020 are shown below.

2020-2021: dog 98%, cat 91%
2021-2022: dog 98%, cat 92%
2022-2023: dog 98%, cat 92%
2023-2024: dog 98%, cat 91%

Some of the programs offered by the WCRAS include:

A Doggy Day Out program in which dogs are taken out of the shelter for the day and returned to the shelter at night. The program offers dogs the opportunity to experience different settings and engage with the public, which improves their chances of being adopted. Dogs can be taken to parks, on walks, to local events, to pet friendly cafes or to a home to hang out for a day and relieve stress.
Free spay/neuter service for stray/feral or free-roaming cats to keep the population of community cats in check.
Help with microchipping to help lost pets get back home faster. Microchips are only $15, and not only will WCRAS staff members implant the microchip during the appointment, but they will also register the microchip with the owner's current information.
PetHub Tags that contain a QR code that includes contact information, multiple emergency contacts and medical information. The PetHub tag offers the convenience of a collar tag combined with the privacy feature that microchips provide but without the need for a microchip scanner. The shelter sells PetHub tags for $5.
Vaccine clinics in which some vaccines and a microchip are free and in which rabies vaccines are provided for $5.
Projects for both Eagle Scouts and Girl Scouts to help improve the shelter and the animals in the shelter.
Publication of a Preventing Euthanasia List on social media as a call to action to the community in times of the highest need. Instead of presenting a list that demands action or else, the shelter presents a list to invoke action and invites the community to be co-life changers.
Offsite adoptions at Petco, Petsmart and Tomlinson’s retail stores to take animals in need of homes out to the community to make it easier for people to adopt animals where the live and work.

Huntsville Animal Services; Huntsville, Alabama

Huntsville Animal Services in Huntsville, Alabama, is operated by the City of Huntsville. It serves all of Madison County, Alabama, except for the City of Madison which handles its own animal control and sheltering. The population served by HAS is approximately 360,000 people. The median household income is approximately 86k and approximately 10% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is John Fischer.

HAS is also one of the most progressive shelters in the country thanks to John’s leadership. The shelter first began using progressive shelter programs in 2014 under the guidance of the city administrator. to drastically increase the life release rate but struggled in later years with issues related to dog behavior euthanasia and public trust. John took over operation of the shelter in late 2024 and hit the ground running to change the culture at the shelter in less than a year by empowering his staff (whom he describes as “helpers”) and by engaging with the public in creative and positive ways. As of the end of 2024, the live release rate for both dogs and cats was 93%. The dog live release rates in January and February 2026 were 97% and 95%, respectively.

Some of the program highlights at HAS are:

The city invests in a voucher program to provide spay/neuter services to low-income residents who live in the city and there is a corresponding program to help residents who live in county areas outside city limits (within the HAS service area). These programs have helped cut the shelter intake in half over a period of years.
A working cat program to place spayed/neutered/vaccinated cats for free to provide “organic rodent control” for barns, breweries, sheds, garages, outbuildings and gardens.
The city uses an interactive GIS map which shows dogs and cats picked up within the service area. Information about each animal includes an image, gender, the date impounded, primary colors and the kennel at the shelter in which the animal is housed. I wish more municipalities use this wonderful tool.
Animal control officers are assigned zones in the service area to develop relationships with the public being served and to become familiar with the animals living in the zone to which they are assigned to help get lost pets back home faster.
The shelter developed a color-coded capacity system to make it easy for the public to know about the current capacity at the shelter, so it is easy to understand when help is needed the most.

The shelter has a pet food bank to help families in need and periodically hosts drive-through events so people can get pet food without even getting out of their vehicle.
The shelter has a robust presence on social media to market animals, utilizes billboards to communicate with the public and uses the media to help highlight not just events but times of crisis so the public can step up to help.

Lake County Animal Shelter; Tavares, Florida

The Lake County Animal Shelter serves all of Lake County, Florida, consisting of approximately 444,000 people and covering approximately 1,157 square miles. Key cities are Mount Dora, Eustis, Tavares, Lessburg, Sorrento and Howey-in-the-Hills. Approximately 80% of the population live in urban areas while 20% live in rural areas. The median household income is approximately 73k and approximately 9% of the population lives in poverty. The current shelter director is Whitney Boylston. My dear friend and fellow animal welfare advocate, Alan Rosenberg, sang the praises of the LCAS many times on his New Jersey Animal Observer website before his untimely passing last October.

Lake County had some issues with shelter leadership for years. Following advocacy by local residents, voters elected new members to the Board of County Commissioners in 2016 who supported No Kill philosophies. The County Commission took over operation of the shelter from the sheriff on January 15, 2017, and began operating it as a No Kill facility immediately. The county has since invested in a new, modern facility to better serve the needs of both the people being served and the animals.

The live release rates dating back to 2020 are as follows:

2020: dogs 98%, cats 95%, other 93%
2021: dogs 98%, cats 94%, other 99%
2022: dogs 98%, cats 95%, other 98%
2023: dogs 97%, cats 92%, other 92%
2024: dogs 96%, cats 94%, other 14%*
2025: dogs 96%, cats 95%, other 96%

Notable programs offered by the shelter include:

A Staycation Program in which fosters are matched with an appropriate animal and provided with supplies to take a pet on a “short getaway,” after which they are asked to share their adventures to “enhance our mission of finding forever homes for our adoptable dogs.”
Free dog training classes teach basic obedience and build a great relationship with an adopted pet. Adopters are welcome to attend as many times as they want.
A spay/neuter rebate program to help full-time residents with the costs of having their pets sterilized. Residents bring their pet to a licensed veterinarian to have the spay/neuter of the pet performed and then apply for a rebate of up to $50;
A Wellness Hour to help residents get vaccines, microchipping and testing for their pets in partnership with the Lake Technical College Veterinary Assisting Program.
Operation Community Caturday in which community cats are sterilized and vaccinated along with Caturday School to help teach residents learn more about the basics of TNR (trap, neuter, return), how to set traps, how to trap difficult cats and best practice for cat management.
The shelter’s foster program includes a Fosterology Class for high school students seeking service hours by fostering kittens and a Foster 911 notification program to help people receive notifications when animals are in need of foster.

*Note - in 2024, the shelter had multiple bird animal cruelty cases totaling approximately 500 birds. Unfortunately, only a handful of them were able to be placed due to mandates from the state for euthanasia following positive tests for reportable diseases.

I originally planned to write this blog as a Q&A with Doug, Misty, John and Whitney before shifting the focus to the programs I feel might inspire others. But I want to share some things Doug told me because they go to the heart of the commitment by all these amazing leaders who should inspire us all.

I planted the No Kill flag the day I started in 2014, not as a marketing brand, but as a belief system. Language matters. Integrity matters. Every last animal that crosses our doorstep is someone, not something. To me, No Kill means doing right by the animals even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard, and they need us the most. If an animal in need belonged to your daughter, your partner, or your mother, you wouldn't be asking if it's 'responsible' to save them. You’d be doing everything you could. So, we do.

I have never dreaded going to work. I love what I do with every fiber in my being. That said, I’m wicked tired of hearing other open-admission shelters say, 'No-Kill isn’t possible.' We have proven for eleven years running that it is. There are no secrets or magic spells; there’s only the choice to show up differently. Plus, how can something be impossible if it already exists?”

Amen to that. And despite what Doug says, he, Misty, John and Whitney do magic every day. I am grateful for their audacity and commitment to the communities they serve.

]]><![CDATA[No Kill Huntsville: The End of an Era]]>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 06:00:00 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/no-kill-huntsville-the-end-of-an-eraWe all face crossroads in our lives. Events which create what we consider a "before" and an "after." Life milestones. The loss of someone we love. A choice we make that puts us on a different path. I encountered one of my many crossroads almost 20 years ago when I learned that the animal shelter in the city where I worked - Huntsville, Alabama - was ending the lives of the majority of the animals entering the building for what amounted to the status quo. It had always been done and so the destruction of animals continued despite the shelter being located in one of the most progressive cities in the country. Huntsville, Alabama, is located in the northern part of the state and is the largest city in the state. It is home to the Army's Redstone Arsenal, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and Cummings Research Park with an economy internationally recognized for research and technological innovation. The city is considered as a great place for families due to its strong school systems, affordable cost of living, and a thriving job market.

All these great things about Huntsville admittedly make it atypical of the state and the region. I sometimes joke that time travel is possible; it just depends on where you go in Alabama and who you interact with. Like many places in the state, however, it was once home to a tax-funded animal shelter that killed thousands of animals a year not far from the shadow of the Saturn V replica on the west side of the interstate. I first lived in Huntsville in 1982 when I was assigned as an Army Spec 4 to what was then called "the school house" on the Arsenal, used to train "special" weapons and EOD troops. It was not until 16 years later that I returned to Huntsville to work at a civil law firm from which I retired just over a year ago. And it was not until 2006 that my heart was broken after I learned the terrible truth about the operation of the animal shelter that serves what is often called The Rocket City.

The live release rate (the number of shelter animals leaving the building alive) at Huntsville Animal Services in 2008 (the first year for which I have data) was 33% for dogs and 13% for cats. The lives of healthy and treatable animals were ended along with animals who were suffering and the irremediably ill as the process was blamed on the "irresponsible public" and the shelter director dismissed the killing of healthy animals with no more regard than the destruction of a paper plate or a broken shoelace. Both actions were called euthanasia as the shelter functioned with a first in, first out mindset in which the building was less a shelter and more of a disposal facility. The shelter director at the time was a city department head who earned a 6-figure salary and was afforded an assumption akin to "do no harm" because she was a veterinarian. "Surely," said city leaders, "the lives of animals would not be ended unless there were no other options." This level of death was not uncommon in Alabama and not uncommon at many shelters across the country due to a calcified and archaic mindset which promoted the idea that killing was kindness and that there were fates worse than death. Why were so many animals dying in this proud and progressive community? For no good reason at all.

Fast forward to 2025 when the live release rate at Huntsville Animal Services was 93% for both dogs and cats. So, what changed? Did the irresponsible public move away to be replaced by more responsible people? No. Did the shelter director or city officials examine how the shelter operated and decide to make saving lives of animals a priority? No. What happened was the functional equivalent to a slap across the face of city officials (because there is no polite way to say, "please stop killing animals needlessly) and it came in the literal form of political advocacy. A few like-minded people who were fed up with the killing got angry and then got smart and then banded together to speak with one voice to say, "we are better than this. If we can support the space program and our troops, we can keep animals alive." I formed No Kill Huntsville in January 2012, inviting dozens of people to form a coalition to seek change. It ultimately became a small group of animal advocates who worked hard to make sure the public knew what was happening using their money (through events, billboards and with the help of the media) and who had the audacity to fight city hall to change behavior that was inconsistent with public values. It wasn't easy, it wasn't pretty, it wasn't perfect and for many years it was a 7-day a week effort to promote shelter reform in the face of opposition not only from city officials, city employees and shelter volunteers but from an unlikely source: people in the animal rescue community. But our advocacy worked because we spoke publicly with one voice, we stayed on subject, we focused on municipal accountability (as opposed to specific people) and we never wavered from promotion of the programs and services of the No Kill Equation as the cure for the disease of shelter killing.

I firmly believe that any community has the capacity to become a No Kill community - a place where the lives of all healthy and treatable shelter animals are saved. Saving lives is not about the shelter building or even about spending. There are beautiful shelters across the country that cost millions of dollars to build and where most animals entering the building do not survive the experience. Saving lives is about a culture in which there are no excuses for killing healthy and treatable animals which can and should be saved and where every animal is treated as having been or being capable of being someone's beloved companion (with the exception of dog who are cognitively impaired and present a genuine public safety risk). Having said that, I understand that not every community is ready to become a No Kill community and political advocacy on behalf of shelter animals doesn't always work. It only succeeds on the foundation of public support in places where the lives of companion animals are valued. No amount of advocacy will force change through magical thinking in places where the mindset is that animals are disposable and not worth saving even if that means no additional spending. In more progressive places like Huntsville, however, advocacy can often be the difference between maintenance of the status quo and a future in which a city or county make the highest and best use of tax dollars not just for the sake of public safety but for the sake of the people served and the animal companions with which they share their lives.

I, and the other members of No Kill Huntsville, always said we sought not to be recognized but to be made irrelevant and we have for the most part. It was never about us and it was always about the animals. Always. As Shirley Marsh so aptly wrote in her March 2011 Yes Biscuit blog about what it takes to reform a community to save animals:

“In reality, [animal shelter reform] takes a group of dedicated animal advocates willing to stir things up in their own community by challenging the status quo and refusing to accept killing as a means of population control. There are consequences to such actions: old friendships may be broken, egos may be bruised, glass houses may be shattered. This ain’t no fairy tale. It’s hard work, which will be met with resistance by some. You will no longer be able to ride the I Love Everybody and Everybody Loves Me bus. You will not be nominated for homecoming queen. No soup for you. Like all things in life, working to end the killing in your community is a choice you must make for yourself. You can choose to carry on with the ‘save a few and kill the rest’ status quo. You’ll get to keep all your Facebook friends and play Farmville with them in between posting pets from kill lists. Or you can choose to reject the idea of needless killing as justifiable in any way. You’ll make some people feel uncomfortable, and they will resent you for it. But you’ll have the opportunity to educate and learn from others who are on the same path. No longer will you feel an awkward compulsion to defend those who kill friendly pets in shelters while simultaneously advocating to save shelter pets. You will have the clarity of mind that comes from knowing where you stand.”

The members of No Kill Huntsville have absolute clarity of mind. We stand behind our advocacy despite underestimating the length to which people would go to defend ending lives, despite making some people feel uncomfortable, despite having been compared to terrorists and despite having lost some people along the way we though were friends. We've made peace with that. I've made peace with that. Huntsville is now one of the safest cities for companion animals not just in Alabama and not just in the region, but in the country. We see this as the result of advocacy which led to public awareness which led to public pressure on municipal officials which led to a realization that something had to change. It was our "slap across the face" that began the process, as unwelcome as that action may have been. The city first began making progress by the end of 2014 when city officials declared healthy and treatable animals were no longer being destroyed in the shelter. The process was sustained through the first couple years of the pandemic before some decline related to "dangerous dogs" that begin in the Spring of 2022 and continued until late 2024 when the current shelter director was selected to fulfill the commitment of city leaders to make life-saving a priority in partnership with public safety. We were worried when the current shelter director was hired; we were told by contacts in Texas he opposed No Kill philosophies and we found some content online that supported that. What we learned instead was he believed the phrase No Kill had been weaponized, but he agreed with the programs and services of the No Kill Equation we had promoted with city officials for more than a decade. The new director called 2025 a "triage year." He has done an incredible job as the leader of Huntsville Animal Services and we look forward to him not only holding the line but helping other shelters in the region become more progressive.

As we come to the end of an era of advocacy and I look back at the hard times, the lost sleep and the self-doubt, I'm proud of what we accomplished. I proud of our audacity and our commitment to the cause. Huntsville, Alabama, will never be the same and I consider our advocacy part of my personal legacy. I wrote about the advocacy of No Kill Huntsville in my book first published in 2019 on the anniversary of the passing of our dog, Snake. I uploaded a new version recently with some post-pandemic notes and a new cover just because I wanted it to have a fresh look. The book is available on Amazon if you like to hold a book in your hand (both paperback and hardcover), but is also available as a pdf you can download. No money is made on the book so it makes sense to just give it away. I consider it an easy read. Because it was originally published before the pandemic, I am sometimes asked if anything changed as a result of the pandemic. The answer is no as it relates to the solutions we promoted. The value of the No Kill Equation which was the focus of our advocacy not only remains relevant today but we were reminded during the pandemic that the programs and services of the Equation were more important than ever to help both people and animals to keep pets in existing homes, get them home quickly if lost and get them into new homes or placed with rescues quickly. Animal problems are, and have always, been people problems. It makes perfect sense to engage in positive ways with the people who live and work in the community by providing help, providing answers and treating all people with dignity and respect.

If you oversee, lead or manage a tax-funded animal shelter where most of the animals entering the building do not survive the experience, I implore you to try something new. The public expects no less. You can spend money on a new building, but that changes little if you do not change your culture. The methods available to any community to end the needless killing of healthy and treatable animals have been known for almost 2 decades and there are just no excuses for doing the same thing over and over while blaming the public for the loss of life. Even if you implement the programs and services of the No Kill Equation over time, that is better than doing nothing. As the saying goes, nothing changes - - if nothing changes.

If you live or work in a community where most of the shelter animals are destroyed while that process is called euthanasia, please educate yourself about the No Kill Equation and consider banding together with like-minded people for the sake of your community and the animals with whom you share your lives. Every healthy and treatable animal destroyed in an animal shelter belonged to someone. That someone could be a neighbor, co-worker, your dentist or even you. The deaths are just numbers on a page until they become personal and people put their outrage into action.

We suspended our Facebook page last year and have unpublished our website (which costs money to host) but you can find it using The Wayback Machine which archives web content. The archive goes from January 14, 2013 through October 13, 2025. You get bonus points if you know the name of this internet archive is based on the characters Mr. Peabody (a dog) and Sherman (a boy) who originally appeared in a 1960s cartoon series and later in an animated film in which Sherman was Mr. Peabody's adopted son.

]]><![CDATA[Brown & Bonded: We Should Always Get to the Yes]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 06:00:00 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/brown-bonded-we-should-always-get-to-the-yesAuthor’s Note: As an animal welfare advocate, particularly a No Kill animal sheltering advocate, I’ve written about a number of topics I consider “difficult.” Talking about issues related to race and discrimination makes me feel like an impostor; my goal is to be an ally. I am not a member of the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) community. It would be totally inappropriate for me to behave as if I fully understand members of that community or their experiences. I have not walked in their shoes and I simply cannot. Writing this blog has been a challenge for me as I search for words to articulate how I feel. I will do my best and hope you will focus less on me finding the perfect words and more on what I hope to share with you.

I recently had the privilege of viewing the advanced version of an upcoming documentary about the animal shelter, animal welfare and animal rescue industry called "Brown & Bonded," a production of CARE (Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity). CARE CEO James Evans (who directed the film) shared the following about the film on the CARE website:

Being anything other than 'white' within the United States adds an unnecessary burden to life. Seeking pet companionship doesn’t prevent people of color from experiencing this hardship, as many assume it would. Despite the exhaustive challenges we face, including repeating historic injustices presently, we remain bonded with our communities, friends, and families. . .including our pets. . .Our film follows people of color who have formed deep bonds with their pets despite the challenges and obstacles they face in the pet adoption process and within Animal Welfare more broadly. Viewers will witness the struggles faced by marginalized Black and Brown communities, from remote Indigenous communities to under resourced urban Atlanta. Despite limited resources and safety nets individual pet parents face, the film highlights the power of these Brown & Bonded relationships that transcend for love’s sake.

Every day, people around the world are demonstrating compassion for companion animals. These individuals may be elderly, home insecure, or not fit the traditional Hollywood hero image. The animals being rescued, fed, and healed know help comes in different shapes and sizes. They know love cannot be seen from the outside. My enduring hope is that we learn to be as humane as our pets."

Amen to that.

As I told James in a recent call, this is one of the most consequential films I have seen in my entire life. Let me say that again for emphasis. Brown & Bonded is one of the most consequential films I have seen in my entire life. It is brilliant. It is shocking. It is joyful. It is uplifting. It is hard to watch. And it should be a game changer in our society. It is my genuine hope that millions of people will be exposed to the film and that elected officials, community stakeholders, animal shelter leadership and those in the animal rescue community examine what is happening in their own communities and take a long, hard look at their own behavior related to helping and serving the BIPOC community.

It is no secret that many in the animal sheltering industry and animal rescue community assert they want to help animals while making their loathing for people painfully obvious, something about which I have blogged many times. This comes as no surprise when we consider the decades during which most shelters have blamed “the irresponsible public” for the fact that the lives of shelter animals are ended as a population control measure while completely ignoring the fact that that the same public is vital to reducing shelter intake, getting animals adopted, fostering animals, volunteering and donating. In communities that no longer end the lives of healthy and treatable shelter animals that is not because all the irresponsible people moved away and were replaced by “better” or “more responsible people.” It is because the tax-funded animal shelter changed the culture from one of killing animals to saving animals while inviting the public - all of the public - to be part of something bigger than themselves.

It is also no secret that discrimination runs rampant in our country. We like to think we have evolved as a society. But have we really? The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, but no one would claim all people are treated equally. We need only make a modest effort to keep up with national and local news to know that much progress made in the last few decades for which people struggled and died has been lost; we now live in a time when people who once hid their racism and bias have been empowered to put it on full display while claiming they support some patriotic cause or movement. It is our public shame.

This is why films like Brown & Bonded are so very, very important. Animal problems are people problems. When we help people, we help animals. When we help animals, we help people. As former animal control officer Beunca Gainor said so eloquently in the film:

Animal rescue in my eyes is different to me because there’s so much more than just the animal. It includes the person. The community. The family. . . So when you’re rescuing in our community you’re rescuing not only pets but we’re rescuing people at the same time.”

There was a time a few decades ago when 16 to 17 million animals died in our nation’s animal shelters. That number is now less than 1 million animals a year. So consider these facts:

A 3% increase in adoptions by people of color would save 2 million pets. 2 million.
The animal welfare landscape is comprised on 83% white Americans (85% of whom are women) and 7% people of color.
25% of potential pet adopters felt they were unfairly treated based on their race or ethnicity (PetSmart Charities 2025 Racial Equity in Pet Acquisition study).
Studies have shown people of color with pets face disproportionate impacts from animal welfare laws (Racial Disparities in Animal Welfare Exploration Study).

Jo-Ann Zoll, the CEO of the Providence Animal Center and Francis Vale Home for Smaller Animals, shared these thoughts in the film:

In thinking about racial disparities and the challenges people have in being welcomed to adopt pets I think it’s’ really imperative that we ask ourselves the questions about why not, We should always get to the yes. The yes is this person deserves the same experience that anyone else wants to have and may need more and difference support, but that’s what we’re here for. It’s how we treat people. It’s the care they receive while they’re here."

There are many issues in our society related to discrimination we may never fully come to terms with. Racism is deeply rooted in our society and the disparities we see in our country are not going away any time soon. The issue of inclusion and equity in interacting with the BIPOC community to save animals (while helping people) is something we all can and should focus on not next month or next year but right now. Today. We all benefit from animal companionship and we all want the lives of shelter animals saved no matter what we look like, where we live, what we do for a living, how much money we make or what kind of car we drive, if we even have a car. We can and should chose to break away from the racism that plagues our society for the sake of ourselves, the sake of our neighbors and the sake of the animals with whom we share our lives. This means having a focus on getting to "yes". How? We can start this way.

We must remove barriers to adoption created by arbitrary criteria like having a fence, living in an apartment, how many hours the adopter works a day, the adopter's age and yes, the adopter's race. If you think people have not been turned away from adopting due to race, you are wrong. It happens each and ever day. We must also make animals more accessible to be reclaimed or adopted by having family-friendly shelter hours and not just hours when most people are at work. Many shelters are open so few hours a day it is almost impossible to reclaim a pet or adopt a pet. This doesn't necessarily mean more hours, it means different hours.
We must stop punishing and vilifying people whose pets end up in shelters due to no fault of their own and do all we can to get those animals back home quickly. Not every dog we see outside was abandoned; dogs get loose and accidents happen. If a dog found running at large enters a shelter, the focus should be on getting that dog home as quickly as possible and preventing the dog from entering the shelter again. We can help people keep dogs contained by providing run/trolley lines, reinforcing an existing fence, having the dog spayed/neutered/microchipped.
If we are prepared to spend X amount of time and Y amount of money to interact with a person about an animal, cite that person, potentially fine that person (sometimes as the result of a court appearance) care for that animal in a shelter and either end the life of the animal or place that animal in a new home or with a rescue group, it makes much more sense to use that same time and those same resources to help the family and keep that animal in a home (or with a person) where they are loved and valued.
Shelters should waive reclaim fees for those who cannot pay them. If a dog has been in a shelter for a week, the reclaim fee can be hundreds of dollars which most people can't pay. It makes zero sense to make the fees so high the family cannot pay and then turn around and give that same animal to a rescue group for free. Even establishing a payment plan is a better way to function than holding people's pets for what amounts to a ransom fee.

Please take a couple of minutes out of your day to watch this trailer for Brown & Bonded, giving some thought to what is happening in your neighborhood, your community, your city, your county. I dream of a time when our neighbors in the BIPOC community are consistently valued, respected and treated with dignity. I dream of a time when we all bond through our shared love of animals and through those bonds we develop strong relationships that stand the test of time and endure through challenges. I dream of a time when all men and women are not just created equal, but actually treated that way.

I will share more information about public release of the film when it becomes available.

(images and film trailer courtesy of CARE)

]]>

Submit Your Question

Law Levels

How Laws Get Enacted

Lessons Learned

My Issues with Beau's Law (SB 361)

Enforcement Issues With Beau's Law