Welfare advocates, long highly critical of the San Jose animal shelter, are warning of a potential legal fight if the agency fails to improve animal care — accusing the city of neglect, gross negligence and repeating violations of state law.
Advocates have been at odds with the city for years over the state of their beloved shelter, prompting an audit that confirmed the validity of many of their concerns about mismanagement, operating over capacity and inadequate care.
While the city claims it has made progress in implementing the audit’s recommendations, volunteers, rescue and foster groups and former employees paint a different picture: animals left without food or water, a lack of training, regular shortages of critical supplies, botched routine surgeries leading to deaths and the euthanasia of adoptable pets or those with treatable conditions. The latter, advocates say, constitute a violation of the state’s Hayden Act.
“We have exhausted all standard protocols for elevating concerns,” Partners in Animal Care & Compassion founder Kit O’Doherty said in an interview with Bay Area News Group. “I just saw and directly experienced a very predictable pattern, no matter what the concern was. It could be a very small concern to a very grave one and the pattern is: deflect, deny, dismiss, delay, patronize, gaslight and ultimately concludes with some nonsensical explanation.”
Ryther Law Group, acting on behalf of Partners in Animal Care & Compassion, a nonprofit animal rescue group, notified the city in a demand letter that it will pursue all legal remedies unless the city adequately addresses the deficiencies outlined in the audit and complies with applicable state laws.
In a statement to this news organization, City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood said it would be premature to comment on the specifics of the demand letter but added that the city values the community’s advocacy and perspective and was grateful for the supporters and partners caring for the animals.
“The city remains actively focused on meeting the needs of the animal shelter and providing the highest level of humane care possible,” Alcala Wood said. “Our most recent annual report reflects meaningful improvements in animal care and conditions. While progress takes time, the health, safety, and well-being of animals in our care remains our foremost priority.”
Complaints about the shelter showed that problems have festered for years, reaching a breaking point after a rise in animal deaths led the agency to lose its no-kill status and city officials to call for an audit.
The audit’s key findings affirmed that the shelter was at times kept in substandard condition, faced an increased risk of disease and had outdated or nonexistent protocols. The shelter also had problems serving the existing community, taking in fewer animals due to difficulties moving them through adoption or rescue, and placing greater emphasis on caring for sick or injured animals.
The audit also noted that the shelter had failed to expand medical care, including trap-neuter-return services.
As a result, the city auditor issued 39 recommendations — one of the largest calls for improvement ever issued by the office — that included updated training and protocols, improved community engagement, strengthened record-keeping, and increased trap-neuter-return services.
Shelter officials said at last month’s Neighborhood Services Committee meeting that all recommendations were expected to be submitted for review by the end of 2025. They also noted that the shelter was now operating at appropriate population levels, the average length of stay had decreased, and the live release rate had risen to 89% for all animals, after previously operating above capacity.
“The shelter is in a much better state in terms of our capacity for care — more space for the animals, less stress for them — and that’s us working really hard at our intake unit and ensuring that the shelter is the right place for that animal,” division manager Kiska Icard said last month.
But advocates argued that merely checking a box to satisfy an audit does not necessarily mean improvements in animal welfare, as evidenced by several troubling incidents that occurred last year, which is why advocates want greater transparency into how the city is fulfilling its obligations.
They assert that, at a minimum, the issues at the shelter constitute civil violations that could ultimately rise to the level of criminal conduct.
“It’s a clown show, if we’re honest,” O’Doherty said. “This letter is demanding ‘Let’s move away from the clown show and let’s get some actual results.’”
In one particular incident, a dog named Lola suffering from organ failure was left unattended in her kennel with a leash still attached and an IV in her leg. An animal care attendant, who highlighted the lack of training she received, later found the dog strangled by the leash. The dog passed away later that evening.
California Civil Code also requires the shelter to provide “necessary and prompt veterinary care, adequate nutrition and water, and shelter,” as well as humane treatment. Yet, shelter advocates have documented issues within the medical department about animals needlessly dying, prompting demands for continuous medical monitoring and sufficient veterinarian and vet tech staffing
“We have evidence of routine surgeries at the shelter resulting in the suffocation of animals,” the demand letter states. “An email sent to shelter staff on November 6, 2024, by the Medical Director confirmed recent deaths of animals after surgeries due to airway obstructions. A young, healthy dog named Rufus died nearly one month later on December 3, 2024, after a routine neuter procedure. We are further aware of animals coming into the shelter in desperate need of urgent medical attention who have not been provided appropriate care or who have suffered further.”
The shelter’s decision to euthanize some animals has also faced heavy scrutiny.
In addition to accusing the city of killing animals without giving notice to rescue groups, the demand letter states that the shelter scheduled animals with treatable conditions for euthanasia in violation of the Hayden Act, which created the policy that adoptable animals should not be killed if a home can be found.
It also asserts that the shelter could face legal repercussions for turning away kittens under 12 weeks old, based on a recent legal ruling in a case against the San Diego Humane Society, which required “any kitten twelve weeks of age or under be taken in by an animal shelter; regardless of whether or not the animal appears to be owned (collar, microchip, etc.) or unowned.”
While the city has until the end of the month to respond, O’Doherty does not have high hopes that the shelter will see the error of its ways, given the runaround advocates have endured for years to have their concerns taken seriously.
“I feel it’s going to have to escalate,” O’Doherty said. “All indications are that we are not operating in a good-faith environment.”
Leave a Reply