<![CDATA[Paws4Change®

<![CDATA[Paws4Change® - Blog]]>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 09:07:40 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[Communicating for the Sake of Animals]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 19:22:58 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/communicating-for-the-sake-of-animalsI’ve been thinking a lot about words and language recently as it relates to advocacy for animals and how we communicate with others. Language is an amazing thing in both in spoken and written form. It has the power to educate, inform, heal, shock, harm, inspire, motivate, persuade, surprise, alienate, control and to frame reality. The words and tone we choose to communicate with others as we seek better for animals is incredibly important. An otherwise rational and logical approach loses its value if we are screaming. And our arguments are of little, if any value, if we do not focus on communicating in a respectful manner with others, even those with whom we disagree.

Communicating with elected and appointed officials

Local Officials

Animal advocates typically communicate with local elected and appointed officials when they want some change regarding how animals are treated. Examples are changing the way the local animal shelter operates, putting guardrails in place so local retail pet stores can only source animals from shelters or rescue groups (and not sell dogs and cats imported from mills), creating standards for local animal breeders, etc. How you communicate with these officials is incredibly important.

Make sure you are well versed in your subject before you reach out. An informed advocate is a more effect advocate. If you seek reform of the local animal shelter, please consider adding to your education using the sources in this blog.
Complaints alone won’t get you far. Be prepared to share what you want that includes specific recommendations. This may require you to seek advice from others who have had success at the local level.
Communicate effectively. Most of these people are incredibly busy and will not read or respond to a long email message. You will likely do better to seek a meeting to explain what you want and engage in direct discussion.
If you are meeting with elected officials, be mindful that you can only meet with a limited number at a time, so you are not violating open meetings rules.
Come to the meeting prepared. Have notes and be ready to express yourself succinctly and while using logic and not emotion. The subject of animals is emotional but you won't get far if you focus on how you feel and not what you want.
Always communicate with those who serve and govern us with respect and diplomacy. Doing otherwise serves only to alienate the very people from whom you need cooperation.
Focus more on municipal accountability than on specific people with whom you may have issues. Even if you privately hope a poorly performing shelter director will be replaced, the odds of that happening are low and even if it did, that would not resolve systemic issues that must be addressed.
Even if the people with whom you communicate are not receptive to your efforts, the only reasonable reaction is to thank them for their time and for their service to the public and then consider a course of action for the future. Take the high road for the sake of your credibility.

State Officials

Communicating with state officials and existing or proposed laws requires the same considerations as those for local officials and includes other considerations.

You cannot communicate about existing laws unless you have done your homework on those laws. Some state laws are not well organized; animal laws may appear in different titles and in separate chapters. The easiest way to learn about the animal laws in your state is by using the information on the Animal Legal Defense Fund website.
If you want to strengthen or modify existing laws, you must be very clear about what you hope to accomplish and be prepared to explain how the proposals you want would be equitably enforced and paid for. It helps if you draft a document to explain what you want as it relates to the existing laws.
Know the opposition. Enacting laws about animals can be incredibly challenging depending on the state in which you live. If yours is an agricultural state, laws about companion animals will often be opposed using the “slippery slope” argument that claims that a dog focused solely on dogs and cats may somehow later be applied to livestock.
If you are not personally promoting new laws and are supporting those efforts by others, think for yourself. If you support a new law, please make sure that is based on your own understanding and not what you were told by someone else. As unfortunate as it may be, many people who promote new laws related to animals do so to gain public favor and are often sharing information with the public that is incorrect. Do not presume that a new law is always a good thing just because someone else said so.
No matter what happens with the proposed new law, it is never – ever – a good idea to harass, threaten or try to bully elected officials. We had a law passed in our state recently that was highly contested, and many legislators voted against it for valid reasons. Rather than take the win, many people who supported the law went on a vengeance tour in which they harassed the very elected officials from whom they will no doubt need cooperation in the future. You can support other candidates whose values more closely resemble your own for future efforts.
I once had a state senator tell me that the behavior of supporters of a state bill behaved so badly after the bill failed to get out of committee that it had "poisoned the well for any animal laws for the foreseeable future." Don't give any state representative or senator reason to believe we are all "crazy animal people," because you lost your ability to filter how you communicate when you are disappointed.

Communicating with the public

I have written before about the chasm that exists between the public and many people in animal shelter and animal rescue circles. News flash: The public is not your enemy.

You cannot bash, rant about or otherwise blame the irresponsible public for your frustrations and then expect that same public to adopt animals from you, foster animals for you, volunteer to help you or donate to your rescue. You can’t have it both ways.
Recognize privately that some people are awful, but don’t treat us all that way. We have plenty of options when it comes to which organizations we deal with and support. If you are too toxic, we will just put our support toward a more friendly shelter or rescue that doesn't view all people in the same negative light.
Animal sheltering and rescue is not what the public thinks. Whether people in the shelter and rescue community want to acknowledge it or not, most of the public has no clue of the challenges faced by shelters and rescues related to companion animals because it's just not on their personal radar. Should the public know more about what is happening when it comes to how their personal behavior affects shelters and rescue groups? Probably. But. They. Don't.
You cannot slap someone across the face with your words and expect adoration or cooperation in return. If you want to modify public behavior, please suspend your judgment and check your attitude at the door. Instead try helping people so they make better choices and so there are fewer animals entering shelters or in need of rescue.
If you want to help animals, you must be willing to help people at the same time. Most people mean well even if the choices they make aren't always what you expect. It helps to check your judgment at the door and focus on both short and long term solutions.
Recognize that a lot of people are struggling to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. Proving assistance is often all that is needed to keep a pet in an existing home where it is loved and provides emotional support when life is tough.

Communicating with each other

This topic is the motivation for this blog. It’s been a difficult year for me personally thanks to people who advocate for animals but have zero tolerance for other advocates who are not in lock step with their views. I’ve been called so many names this year that I ended up making a list. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t bother me, but maybe not the way you think. As an Army veteran who’s been through some life challenges, I consider myself pretty tough. I’m less upset by the name calling that I am just annoyed because it harms the causes of animal welfare.

We are all entitled to our opinions about how best to help animals using laws.
We are all entitled to free speech.
I have many contacts with whom I have strong relationships even though we disagree on many subjects. We find common ground through mutual respect. And I would like to think we are better people for having done so.
When I express an opinion on a subject, I tend to do so based on decades of experience in both the legal world and in animal shelter reform and animal welfare advocacy. I think for myself without the assistance of AI and I am quite capable of admitting when I am wrong.
You are entitled to your personal opinions of other advocates, including me.
You are not entitled to engage in defamation of others using social media (libel) or by “bashing” them in public (slander). Defamation is actionable in civil courts. Despite what you may think, Facebook is not a safe haven in which you can say anything you want about another person “because this is America” (as I was told by one person earlier this year). It’s called cyber libel.

Harassing communication is a crime in all 50 states. It relates not to physical contact or use of profanity, but to engaging in harassment that is “likely to harass or cause alarm.” In my state, this is Class A Misdemeanor.
Calling other advocates names or inviting them to be ridiculed is not just juvenile - it serves no purpose because you are not addressing the issues themselves.
Many people who have harassed me this year are quick to say that we should just all get along. Their behavior makes it clear this means, “we should all just get along and that starts when you suspend your critical thinking skills and agree with me.” Uh, no.
Consider the possibility that the person with whom you do not agree may have valid opinions based on knowledge or experience you lack. Reach out to that person to try to find common ground and to listen more than you speak. You may learn something new or reconsider your previously held opinions.
The next time you are about to make accusations about someone who does not share all of your opinions or call that person names, take a beat and ask yourself what you hope to accomplish through that behavior and if it’s something of which your mother would be proud.

Just something to think about. Great leaders talk about standing on the shoulders of those who came before them to honor the contributions of others and the foundations created. They don't brag about trampling over the bodies of those they claim to have defeated in the functional equivalent of a middle school inspired, hair pulling, biting and kicking tantrum in the form of a social media rant.

]]><![CDATA[Your Money, Your Trust and the GBHS]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 16:34:00 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/your-money-your-trust-and-the-gbhs

Donors Beware

I have long believed that when it comes to making charitable donations to animal-oriented nonprofits, your money is best gifted in support of either small, local organizations in your own backyard or in support of organizations led with full transparency and with a clearly defined mission. Some recent drama in my state reinforced my beliefs related to a large, well-respected organization that enjoys a stellar public reputation for reasons I have never understood. More on that later.

The only national organization I support financially related to companion animals is the No Kill Advocacy Center founded by Nathan and Jennifer Winograd. Reading Nathan’s book about the myth of pet overpopulation (as an excuse for the killing of healthy and treatable shelter animals) and how to save the lives of shelter animals using the No Kill Equation was a game changer for me. I also donate to small nonprofit organizations led by people I know personally and those supported by my family members. You are welcome to give your money to any organization you choose. I implore you, however, to not rely solely on the reputation of an organization as a litmus test for it being worthy of your support. Just because an organization has been around a long time does not mean it is efficiently operated. It is a betrayal of the public trust for animal-oriented nonprofits to put themselves forth as being champions for animals when they are not. This is a national issue.

So, what’s a donor to do? I encourage you to do a little homework first to learn more about the organization and how your money may be used before using logging into your Paypal account or opening your checkbook. You can search on the IRS website to determine if the organization you wish to support is actually a nonprofit; many are not. Registering with the Secretary of State alone does not a nonprofit make. You can also perform a search on Propublica to learn more about the financials of the organization. You may decide that an organization has so much money already that your donation may be better used elsewhere. I also recommend you take a look at the website for the organization, do a basic internet search about the organization to look for any red flags and ask other people you know about the organization.

The Greater Birmingham Humane Society, Inc.

I have taken great pains over the many years of my advocacy to avoid engaging in behavior that may lead to litigation and to focus on facts as they are known to me. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit that person must be able to prove what is called “actual malice” through publication of false statements that damage reputation. Truth is a defense against litigation but that doesn’t mean you won’t get sued. I have written indirectly about the Greater Birmingham Humane Society in Alabama in the past but have not taken on the topic directly because the CEO has a reputation for threatening litigation and it just was not worth the risk. I would argue the time has come to be more direct because any damage to the reputation of the organization is the result of its own behavior and not the result of any facts I share. I hold no malice toward GBHS; I would refer to it more as profound disappointment for lost opportunities and lost lives. I am writing about GBHS to provide some facts so people in my region can make their own decisions about this organization and so people in other regions will think twice before supporting organizations that may not conduct themselves in ways of which they approve. More information about GBHS can be found on the Alabama Animal Advocates website.

GBHS first came on my radar back in 2017 when it was promoting a bill to create a state dog and cat breeders commission. The organization promoting the bill called itself the Alabama Puppy Mill Project but the website for APMP used email and physical addresses for the GBHS and people were encouraged to donate to GBHS in support of the bill. I did not support the bill. I felt it was too ambitious, would be almost impossible to enforce and many breeders would just ignore it. It was my opinion then, and now, that a standards-based bill would mean more because violations would be a crime. After the bill failed, those supporting it engaged in a campaign against the senators who did not advance the bill out of committee. I found the behavior embarrassing and potentially damaging to the causes of animal welfare and told the senators as much. When a bill fails, it makes little sense to go on a public campaign to vilify and shame the very elected officials with whom you likely will need positive relationships in the future. One senator told me the behavior of bill supporters had “poisoned the well for any animal legislation for the foreseeable future.” After the bill failed, GBHS - through the APMP - began electioneering to replace senators; this is prohibited conduct about which I reported GBHS to both the IRS and the Alabama Attorney General.

More information about the GBHS came to light in 2018 as the result of reporting by No Kill Movement about statistics that were misrepresented, threats of litigation, marketing off of animals prior to ending their lives, growing animal control contracts, alleged misuse of funds and disaster profiteering. Donald Watkins wrote about the GBHS ties to a rescue group that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for dogs at auctions and then sued people for comments made on social media, political campaign activity, gaslighting, financial improprieties and being a killing zone for animals. I'm not sure if Mr. Watkins was ever threatened with litigation. Mike Fry of No Kill Movement told me he received a cease and desist request by a GBHS attorney to which he essentially replied, "bring it on."

These are facts:
History, Reputation and Resources

In the summer of 2014, Allison Black Cornelius (through her consulting firm BlackFish) was hired by GBHS to work with the existing leadership team. A few months later, Ms. Cornelius was named the new leader of GBHS, giving herself the title of CEO.
The GBHS CEO and the GBHS Board later make a concerted effort to win the bid to run the Animal Control facility for Jefferson County. GBHS won the bid and took over Animal Control in January of 2015.
GBHS provides animal shelter services for the City of Birmingham because the impound facility owned by Jefferson County is in the City of Birmingham.
As part of their contract with Jefferson County, GBHS serves the following municipalities with under 5,000 residents: Adamsville, Brighton, Brookside, Cardiff, County Line, Graysville, Hueytown, Kimberly, Lipscomb, Maytown, Morris, Mulga, North Johns, Sylvan Springs, Trafford, Warrior, and West Jefferson.
The Jefferson County contract was the beginning of an expansion of the nonprofit organization over a wider geographic area. GBHS has since acquired contracts with the cities of Clay, Fairfield, Fultondale, Irondale, Midfield, Pinson, Jasper, Pell City, Trussville and for the counties of Walker and St. Clair.
GBHS continues to seek work outside its contracted service areas and serves as a hub for animals helped by The Bissell Pet Foundation, a fact confirmed in a conversation I had with Cathy Bissell last year.
Based on available reports, GBHS has 24 million dollars in total assets (having received almost 7 million dollars in contributions and grants in the fiscal year ending 2024 alone) and the CEO is paid almost $190,000 a year.
GBHS enjoys the support of an auxiliary and has a board comprised of dozens of respected businesspeople.
The GBHS CEO frequently creates social media video content as an expert on issues related to companion animals and has received a variety of awards. She has been called upon to testify in animal cruelty cases in areas outside her contract area.

Recent Legislative Activity

The GBHS CEO was the face of recent bills in the Alabama legislature promoting standards of care for dogs who live outside. To garner support for the bill, people were shown images of dogs on heavy chains, dogs in small crates and dogs outside with no shelter; these conditions are already actionable under existing criminal laws and have been for decades. The bills have since become Beau’s law that weakens existing laws that have been in effect for more than a quarter of a century. Prior to Beau's Law being enacted, no animal crime was punishable by less than a Class A misdemeanor and some can be charged as a Class C felony. Beau's Law reduced that level to a Class C misdemeanor for offenses covered by the new law.
There are many people who believe Beau's Law outlaws chaining when it does not. The definition of a tether includes a chain. What it does make illegal is use of a "logging chain," choke collar or pinch collar.
After I expressed concerns with the bill language not publicly but to bill sponsors, the GBHS CEO thought it was appropriate to describe me in a social media post as a bitter, jealous, ignorant extremist who thinks I know more than anyone else and believe it is my way or “no way.” This led to additional libelous remarks about me on social media made by others in which I was accused of trying to kill the bills (as if I have that type of influence); accused of creating dissension, chaos and bad feelings; and calling me a washed-up, ineffective person who wants dogs to die on chains.
Legislators I interacted with after Beau's Law passed who had voted no reported having been harassed repeatedly, including name calling. One local legislator told me, "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. . .I also just had practical application concerns about private property, probable cause, etc. that lead me to eventually vote no," Another legislator told me, "I did talk with a DA who is one of the biggest pet protectors I know, and who absolutely did not agree with the bill citing the same issues about which [I] was concerned."

Animal Census Reports

Alabama enacted the Animal Census Reporting Act in 2015 that requires each animal shelter in the state to prepare a monthly animal census report to be made available upon request without limitation. The report requires set data points for animal intakes and outcomes (among other information).
GBHS posted animal census reports on its website on an Information drop-down page called FAQs for several years before removing the reports from the website entirely. The last time I accessed the reports from the GBHS website was in 2018 when I inquired about a report category called “Surrender Prevention – Yes Save.)
The monthly reports later dropped off the GBHS website. From what I can tell from an Internet Archive called The Wayback Machine, they were last on the website on March 7, 2022.
Dating back to at least 2018, GBHS has co-mingled data about animal intakes/outcomes with services provided to owned animals, a practice which artificially inflates the live release rate because services provided for owned animals always result in a positive outcome. The industry standard is that shelters providing services to owned animals should keep data on those services but should separate the data.
I (and other contacts of mine) submitted multiple requests for copies of the GBHS census reports directly from the organization and from Jefferson County and was only able to obtain the reports once. In response to my most recent request, Jefferson County send me hundreds of pages of invoices and spreadsheets and essentially told me to figure it out myself.
After Kristin Yarbrough of Alabama Animal Advocates posted on social media on July 28, 2026, that GBHS was noncompliant with the state law, the GBHS CEO later complained of “attacks.” She claimed the reports were on the GBHS website and always had been (in an apparent attempt to gaslight me and others) even though Alabama Animal Advocates provided proof that the reports were not added to the website until after Kristin's July 28, 2026 post. A lengthy post by the CEO on the topic ended with, “I simply do not do bullying. I can't stand em'. And I know one when I see one.” So do I.

The GBHS Data

In 2015, the live release rate in the GBHS system was 38.9 as a combined rate for both dogs and cats.
In 2016, the live release rate in the GBHS system was 58.6% as a combined rate for both dogs and cats.
In 2017, the live release rate in the GBHS system was 61% as a combined rate for both dogs and cats.
In 2018, the live release rate in the GBHS system was 61.66% for dogs and 49.4% for cats. It was in July of 2018 that GBHS began combining data about services for owned animals with data for shelter animals.
The live release rates for dogs and cats are not know from the years 2019 through 2023 because not all the reports for each month are available.
In 2024, the live release rate in the entire GBHS system was 48.9% for dogs and 52.9% for cats.
In 2025, the live release rate in the entire GBHS system was 51.9% for dogs and 65.5% for cats.
In 2026, the live release rate in the entire GBHS system through June was 54.8% for dogs and 58.7% for cats.
The CEO has referred to GBHS as 10th or 11th in the nation for animal intakes, stating recently that the intake is approximately 29 thousand animals per year. The actual intake in 2024 was 17,620 animals (with services provided for an additional 15,854 animals). The actual intake in 2025 was 20,561 animals (with services provided for an additional 14,827 animals). To the extent the actual intake is high compared to other places in the country, that is a result of empire building as GBHS continues to seek more county contracts.

My Opinions

My focus on the GBHS so far in this blog has been on the facts. I am allowed to have my own opinions based on my knowledge and experience even when they are not in lockstep with others.

I do not support the Greater Birmingham Humane Society, Inc. and will not donate to add my money to its already robust coffers. If you find the organization functions consistent with your values and you want to support GBHS financially or otherwise, by all means do just that.

I continue to be confused as to why this organization is seen as a champion for animals in our state considering the tremendous difficulty it has keeping animals for which it is responsible alive despite multiple lucrative county and city contracts and tremendous resources.
I am also confused as to why the CEO is seen as a voice of authority considering how many animals lose their lives under her leadership and considering her legislative efforts which led to a new law that is weaker than what we already had and will likely create conflict for law enforcement officials, prosecutors and courts as they try to make charging decisions.
It is my opinion that the pursuit of so many municipal contracts by GBHS over a period of more than a decade has been to the detriment of animals entering the GBHS system, the donors who support GBHS and the board that serves GBHS. Why seek so many contracts when the organization has documented issues handling the animals already entrusted to its care? Had GBHS focused on its nonprofit mission without seeking so many contracts, we may see better use of its money and resources.
The mission of GBHS is to "to promote the humane treatment of people and animals through education, advocacy and services." To that end, GBHS does a lot of good for a lot of animals, many of them owned animals.
I don't think we can applaud the good work done by GBHS for owned animals while ignoring the number of shelter animals whose lives are ended by the organization or somehow forgive the level of death as some fait accompli. Those deaths are just numbers of a report, but they represent living, breathing animals who (in most cases) either were or could have been someone's beloved companion.
I think it is reasonable to presume that this ever-expanding list of contracts is an attempt to create an empire in the state, perhaps as a steppingstone for the CEO to be appointed to a position within state government through her relationships with some members of the legislature.
Alabama animal shelters generally cannot provide general veterinary care for privately owned animals in the shelter setting due to rules promulgated by the Alabama State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
Any shelter or nonprofit organization that provides services for owned animals is to be applauded for that work. It serves to prevent intakes from happening and creates relationships with communities being served. To the extent any shelter includes that data in a monthly report – when the outcomes will always be positive – it is artificially inflating the data.
Data is data. It represents past events. All data is subject to some interpretation based on the industry. This is true for the finance, marketing and healthcare industries among others.
Data alone never shows the complete picture of what is happening in any animal shelter. It is a tool to be used to evaluate trends and identify problems related to owner surrenders, returns to owner, adoptions and deaths. It is also a tool for taxpayers and donors to better understand what is happening in a shelter. To the extent some organizations focus on a 90% live release rate as a goal, that does disservice to the shelter and the public. That figure was an ordinary byproduct of the percentage of animals being saved almost 20 years ago but has been used by some organizations either for fundraising or to gain public favor. There are some shelters that save as many as 98% of the animals entering the system. There may be times when that rate drops dramatically if the shelter does a mass intake from a collector, breeder, dog fighter.
While data is a tool, consistently low live release rates are something about which we should all be concerned. GBHS's own reports show high numbers for animals destroyed due to overcrowding and incredibly high numbers of animals destroyed who were deemed unhealthy and untreatable. I honestly wonder who is making those decisions and based on what criteria.
I fully support standards of care for dogs who live outside. I promoted an ordinance in the city where I live about a decade ago that has provisions very similar to Beau's Law. The difference is that our local law has the full support of my mayor, my city council and the police department tasked with enforcing it equitably. It can be used as an education tool in all but the most egregious cases. We also have a Paw It Forward fund to help people comply by providing run lines, dog houses and wheat straw.
Alabama actually has strong state laws for animal crimes. Our dog fighting law is one of the strongest in the country. There is room for improvement like making the penalty for bird fighting a Class C felony which is the punishment level for dog fighting. I personally know law enforcement officials who have successfully brought animal crimes cases for decades without issue; you collect evidence and make your case. What we lack is enforcement of those laws which is more of a challenge at state level than it is a city level. I am not convinced enacting a new law will lead to that law being enforced any better. It is what is called an unfunded mandate and while it may be enforced in some areas, there are other areas where it likely will not be enforced at all in consideration of areas that lack shelters or animal control and areas where dogs are around to run at large. Add to that my opinion that Beau's Law should have amended existing laws to avoid creating confusion by having laws with conflicting penalties. The penalties we have now were hard won and we should never weaken existing laws for the sake of a "win." Time will tell if offenses now classified as a Class C misdemeanor will be enforced or simply pled out.

Supporters Beware

I started this blog with a warning for donors. I will end it with a warning for supporters of animal welfare organizations. I think most people presume the best of organizations that profess to care about and provide support for companion animals. Most organizations do wonderful work, and most small organizations are led by people who are not compensated and often lack life-balance because they are trying to hard to help. Not all organizations are what we believe them to be. We need look no further than to recent news coverage about the animal sanctuary in California where bodies of more than 100 dogs were found in two primary dig sites following execution of two search warrants. People are horrified that animals they sent to a sanctuary ended up in a mass grave. In my state, we need look no further than the Greater Birmingham Humane Society as an example of an organization that enjoys a stellar pubic reputation when that reputation may not be deserved. The GBHS does not have mass graves, but it has "euthanized" thousands of animals for many years (sometimes over 1,000 in a single month) with very few people calling that conduct into question. Which is nothing short of a tragedy for the animals and people who place their trust in the organization.

]]><![CDATA[Be The Change You Seek for Companion Animals]]>Sun, 26 Jul 2026 16:11:54 GMThttps://www.paws4change.com/blog/be-the-change-you-seek-for-companion-animals

I was recently invited to participate in a round table discussion about animal issues in Alabama next month for an Emmy-winning public television series created and hosted by naturalist-educator Doug Phillips called "Discovering Alabama." It will be the third part in a series he first created in 2022 called Animal Friends. The scope of part 1 and part 2 of the series covers a variety of topics that include animal intelligence, values in Alabama related to animals, animal laws, lack of enforcement and prosecution of those laws, lack of humane education, lack of services in different parts of Alabama (shelters and animal control), puppy mills, spay/neuter, stray animals and challenges to keeping pets. Doug covered a lot. There are a many problems in our state when it comes to companion animals, but I know Doug wants to talk not so much about what is wrong and more about solutions to the issues we face. The other participants in the roundtable have almost 200 years of experience between them in a variety of capacities that include animal shelter leadership, animal control leadership, cruelty investigation, law enforcement training, legislative expertise and veterinary medicine. I'm sure ours will be an interesting discussion. Most of us interact on a pretty regular basis already and we're a pretty lively group.

I started thinking about what I will bring to the table when we talk about solutions. I suspect the other participants will talk about things like having our certified law enforcement officers trained on the state laws (animal crimes, dangerous dogs, dog fighting), having animal control officers receive some level of mandatory training on those same subjects, state funding of the legal mandate that every county have an animal shelter, and perhaps making the state dog confinement law mandatory instead of optional. My experience is that of an advocate with a focus on political advocacy based on the foundation of my decades in the legal field. As I ponder what I hope to contribute to the discussion, I am sharing some thoughts here in the "for what it's worth" category with a mindset toward solutions as we try to be the change we seek.

Take people as you find them by accepting people completely as they are and without trying to change them. Not everyone has the same values as you or comes from your same culture. Stop judging people who behave differently than you related to their companion animals as if you are superior to them and stop expecting them to meet your standards. I know this can be really difficult for people in rescue circles. It is difficult for me as a resident of Alabama who grew up in southern California where values about companion animals were a lot different. Come to terms with the fact that not every dog you see is a pet and not every cat you see is social to people. Many dogs you see serve a function for the people who own them like guarding livestock or working on a farm to herd animals. Many cats you see are not pets and are part of the ecosystem. Many pet cats are also indoor/outdoor cats not in need of rescue.

Educate yourself about laws where you live, both local and state. I know I've said this before and it can feel kind of daunting. No one expects you to become a legal expert. You do, however, need to be generally familiar with the laws where you live so you know in general terms what is considered legal and what is not and so you can communicate with law enforcement about a situation you see if you think a law is being broken. Finding the laws for your state can be a little complicated because they typically are not well organized. I recommend you use the information compiled by the Animal Legal Defense Fund to find your state law - ALDF has a page for every state and territory to help you. Local laws are typically found on city or county websites or websites like Municode that are used by many cities across the country. Nothing takes the place of good old fashioned homework. Please do not rely on information you see on social media related to animal laws or rely on AI generated content. Much of the AI information is incorrect and much of what you see on social media is patently false because someone is trying to promote an agenda of which you may not be aware. (If you live in Alabama, you can use Alabama Animal Advocates website which is an incredible resource created by the very talented researcher/writer Kristin Yarbrough of Blount County. It has a wealth of information about laws and has a page for each of the 67 counties in the state that cover a variety of topics).
Accept the reality that breeding animals is legal. As much as you may want people to stop breeding dogs and cats, it is perfectly legal to do that either as a source of income or so those animals can be entered into competitions. My former dentist bred Black Russian Terriers and one of her dogs won Best in Breed one year at Westminster. I'm not a fan of dog shows but her dogs were cherished and none of her dogs would ever end up in a shelter. I wish most people would get their pets from shelters or rescues but many people just won't. A lot of people insist on getting their pets from a breeder so they know everything possible about the parent animals and know all about the animal's history, There is a vast difference between a responsible hobby breeder who takes excellent care of his or her animals and a backyard breeder or puppy mill where dogs are raised with a focus on profit and with little or no regard for the health of the breeding parents. There are some places with laws about animal breeding that provide for standards of care and inspections. There are also places where pet stores can only "source" dogs and cats from rescues and shelters to prevent animals from mills from being imported for sale to the public.

Accept the fact that not everything you see is a crime. Just because you observe a situation regarding a dog or cat you don't like doesn't mean that what you see is criminal. All states have laws about animal cruelty that explain what constitutes cruel treatment or torture. Many states and many counties and cities have their own laws that set out standards of care for companion animals. Back to taking people as you find them - just because someone's dog lives outside all the time does not mean that dog is mistreated even if you don't approve. Just because someone is breeding dogs and you don't like the conditions in which the dogs live does not mean what you see is a crime. I know this can be difficult for a lot of people to accept but there is nothing law enforcement officials or prosecutors can do if the conduct is not violating any laws.
Accept the fact that not every dog you see roaming loose was abandoned. Dogs get lost or loose for so many reasons. A gate is left open, a contractor does not close a door, a child opens a door to go outside and an animal pushes past him or her. A dog jumps a fence following a loud noise which scares them, including fireworks or gunshots. Our default assumption may be that every dog we see running loose is someone's fault or people just don’t care enough. That is certainly the case some times, but most definitely not all of the time. If you find a lost dog, even if it comes on your property, you are not entitled to keep that dog any more than you are entitled to keep a car parked near your house with the keys in the ignition, the wallet you find when walking through a parking lot or the bicycle you see leaning against a wall outside of a business. If you knowingly keep a person’s property from them and/or later transfer that property to another person, you have committed a crime regardless of your good intentions. Think about how you would feel if it was your pet who was lost and take steps to help the animal get back home to the family who is most likely looking for a beloved companion.
Own your outrage. If a situation is important enough to you to be angry or concerned about it, act on your outrage in a constructive way. Don't just tell other people how angry you are or post about the situation on social media to vent or shame someone publicly. If you genuinely think someone is mistreating animals and is committing a crime, report that to local law enforcement authorities. There are times when you can submit a complaint anonymously but that is not always the case. You may be required to go to a police department or sheriff's office to submit a complaint in writing and you may be called upon to testify if criminal charges are filed against the animal owner(s).
Even if what you see is a crime, it is not always caused by intent. There are situations in which people are incapable of caring properly for companion animals due to resource challenges. They mean well but they may lack the physical ability or money to care for the animals properly. If you suspect what you see is caused by lack of resources, consider offering help to the pet owner if you feel you can do that safely - recognizing they may not want any help at all. There are some nonprofit organizations that focus on providing judgment free help to people to take better care of their companion animals. Do some research to see if a local group can help the owners in cases where no crime has been committed. There are also situations in which people have more animals than they can care for due to a form of mental illness called Noah Syndrome which is a form of OCD. If you suspect that is the case, it is likely the people are living in conditions that cause them harm in addition to the animals not receiving adequate care. In addition to contacting law enforcement authorities, consider contacting your local Department of Human Resources or Mental Health Department to ask them to open a case to investigate the situation toward providing help.

Seek change locally first. People talk all the time about stronger state laws to protect animals. Laws and enforcement of those laws are two different things. A strong state law is of no value if it is not enforced. I genuinely believe that change begins locally and is based on the values of the people who live in each community. If you want the animal shelter in your community to do a better job of saving lives, learn about programs that help that happen and engage with the shelter leadership and elected officials to seek support for some changes. If you want better conditions for dogs who live outside in your community, consider promoting a local law that sets standards that will be enforced by local law enforcement as a priority of the elected officials in charge. In any given state, the more communities that embrace progressive ways of functioning, the more that culture may spread and then make enacting meaningful state laws more likely. In seeking local change, keep in mind that your values may not represent those of your community and you may be in the minority. If the predominant culture in your community is that animals are disposable, are easily replaced, and are not worth spending tax dollars to help them, there is little you can do to change that. It is worth trying, but realize that magical thinking will not help bring about the change you seek. I am proud of the positive changes made in Huntsville, Alabama (where I worked), regarding how the animal shelter operates which was made possible through political advocacy. Despite 2 years of effort, I failed to convince the county commission where I live to modify a shelter SOP that says all shelter animals will be destroyed after 60 days. I tried. And I will try again if and when the culture changes or new people are elected who may be more willing to listen.

]]><![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)

]]>