![\"San](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_25-06-13_19-22-05-989-e1749867758856.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 SAN DIEGO, \u00a0California\u2013\u2013<\/strong>San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal on June 9,\u00a0 2025 ended the long-running \u201ccat control trial of the century\u201d with a final ruling that the San Diego Humane Society has sufficiently amended how it handles cats found at large to comply with California state law.<\/p>\n Judge Bacal issued a preliminary ruling against how the San Diego Humane Society practiced \u201creturn to field\u201d cat population management in December 2024.<\/p>\n When the San Diego Humane Society continued to practice \u201creturn-to-field\u201d without amendment,\u00a0 Judge Bacal reinforced her previous ruling with a preliminary injunction in February 2025.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Judge Bacal\u2019s final verdict concludes a case brought against the San Diego Humane Society in May 2021 by the Southern California animal rescue charities Pet Assistance Foundation and Paw Protectors.<\/p>\n The case from the beginning focused on defining the difference between \u201creturn-to-field\u201d and TNR,\u00a0 two superficially similar animal control techniques.<\/p>\n TNR,\u00a0 short for trap-neuter-return,\u00a0 is also sometimes called TNVR,\u00a0 to emphasize that vaccination is an essential part of it.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n TNR,\u00a0 introduced by Walt Disney Inc. in 1955 to manage feral cats at Disneyland,\u00a0 has become popularized as a feral cat control method since circa 1990.<\/p>\n The same basic idea, as a method of managing street dog populations,\u00a0 was separately introduced by the Blue Cross of India in 1966 under the name ABC,\u00a0 for Animal Birth Control.<\/p>\n Whether called TNR,\u00a0 TNVR,\u00a0 or ABC,\u00a0 the technique is now legally mandated in India and several other nations,\u00a0 and is commonly practiced worldwide.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cReturn-to-field,\u201d\u00a0 by contract,\u00a0 is the practice of releasing tame,\u00a0 friendly cats and kittens, \u00a0with clear indications of having been pets,\u00a0 back where they were found, \u00a0on the theory that they will find their own way home.<\/p>\n \u201cReturn-to-field,\u201d\u00a0 promoted by the no-kill foundation Maddie\u2019s Fund and the Best Friends Animal Society,\u00a0 was introduced less than a dozen years ago by Kate Hurley of the Koret Shelter Medicine program at the University of California,\u00a0 Davis campus.<\/p>\n Hurley testified at trial for the San Diego Humane Society.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Though Judge Bacal\u2019s preliminary verdict compelled the San Diego Humane Society to substantially amend its \u201creturn-to-field\u201d procedures,\u00a0 San Diego Humane Society media contact Nina Thompson on June 10,\u00a0 2025 issued a statement proclaiming the society \u201cdelighted with\u201d Bacal\u2019s final decision.<\/p>\n \u201cIn her ruling,\u201d\u00a0 Thompson said, \u00a0\u201cBacal explicitly affirmed the legality of the organization\u2019s lifesaving Community Cat Program.\u201d<\/p>\n Thompson did not mention,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 that the San Diego Humane Society Community Cat Program as result of the lawsuit is now not the same program that it was when Bacal ruled in December 2024 that it violated California Penal Code section \u00a7 597s.<\/p>\n That section of the California Penal Code states simply that,\u00a0\u00a0\u201cEvery person who willfully abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe San Diego Humane Society will continue operating its program exactly as they have been since February 2025,\u201d\u00a0 Thompson crowed.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ruling outright rejects,\u201d\u00a0 Thompson said, \u00a0\u201cplaintiff\u2019s request that a cat\u2019s socialization status be considered when determining a cat\u2019s eligibility for the program \u2013 the issue at the heart of the case all along.\u201d<\/p>\n Actually,\u00a0 pointed out both City News Service and the Times of San Diego<\/em>,\u00a0 \u201cBacal wrote that the humane society has since revised its Community Cat Program policies in a way that now complies with state law.<\/p>\n \u201cThose revisions include new considerations that San Diego Humane Society officials should take into account when considering whether a cat has an owner, \u00a0including if the cat has indentations around his or her neck to indicate the recent presence of a collar or signs that the feline has received recent veterinary or medical treatment. \u00a0If sufficient signs of ownership are found, \u00a0the cat should be admitted into a shelter, \u00a0the ruling states.\u201d<\/p>\n Bryan Pease.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/em>(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Said San Diego Humane Society president Gary Weitzman,\u00a0 via Thompson,\u00a0 \u201cThis ruling is a resounding endorsement of our evidence-based, expert-endorsed, \u00a0lifesaving approach to community cats.\u00a0 It allows us to continue providing critical medical care,\u00a0 spay\/neuter,\u00a0 and safe return for unowned cats while reserving shelter space for animals who truly need it.\u201d<\/p>\n Responded plaintiffs\u2019 attorney Bryan Pease,\u00a0 \u201cTrue to form, \u00a0the San Diego Humane Society is now claiming to have \u2018won\u2019 the case they just lost, \u00a0in which the court put them under a permanent injunction to stop their unlawful business practices of dumping cats on the streets without food, \u00a0water, \u00a0or monitoring unless there was \u2018verifiable proof\u2019 of prior ownership.<\/p>\n \u201cThe only reason the court found their current practices to be lawful ,\u201d\u00a0 Pease pointed out,\u00a0 \u201cis that we have had them under a preliminary injunction,\u201d\u00a0 now made permanent, \u00a0\u201csince February.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cFor nearly five years,\u201d\u00a0 Pease continued,\u00a0 \u201cthe San Diego Humane Society had been releasing virtually all cats brought in outdoors with no monitoring or caretakers, \u00a0to be eaten by coyotes, \u00a0killed by cars, \u00a0or to starve and dehydrate to death.<\/p>\n \u201cThis week\u2019s ruling makes the injunction permanent, prohibiting the San Diego Humane Society from going back to its old policy,\u201d \u00a0Pease emphasized.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a major victory for the plaintiffs and the public,\u201d\u00a0 Pease assessed, \u00a0\u201cincluding the many witnesses who testified at trial, \u00a0in holding San Diego Humane Society accountable for its illegal actions in abandoning cats outdoors.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court found that the San Diego Humane Society\u2019s actions were illegal and issued a permanent injunction requiring them to admit stray and abandoned cats into the shelter for care and adoption services,\u201d\u00a0 Pease repeated, \u00a0\u201cwhom the San Diego Humane Society previously would have dumped out on the street like garbage.\u201d<\/p>\n (See San Diego cat control trial verdict & L.A. shelter fine expose \u201cno kill\u201d failures.<\/a>)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Ed Boks & friend.\u00a0 (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Agreed Animal Politics<\/em> blogger Ed Boks in a June 12,\u00a0 2025 installment entitled Legal Defeat, PR Victory: How the San Diego Humane Society Spun a Court Rebuke Into a Win<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0 \u201cFar from affirming SDHS\u2019 past practices, Judge Katherine Bacal found that the organization\u2019s former intake protocols were unlawfully narrow, \u00a0resulting in the release of cats with clear signs of ownership. \u00a0It was only after SDHS revised those protocols\u2014under legal pressure and in the midst of litigation\u2014that the court deemed the program compliant with state law.\u00a0 This was not a vindication.\u00a0 It was a judicial intervention that compelled reform.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court declined to require the San Diego Humane Society to admit all \u201cfriendly\u201d cats or restrict releases to registered caretakers,\u201d\u00a0 Boks conceded,\u00a0 \u201cruling that sociability is not a legally relevant factor in determining abandonment under California law.\u201d<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n However,\u00a0 Boks continued,\u00a0 \u201cThe court held that the San Diego Humane Society\u2019s prior requirement for \u2018verifiable proof of ownership\u2019 was unlawfully restrictive. \u00a0By demanding hard evidence\u2014like registered microchips or documented owners\u2014the San Diego Humane Society excluded cats who showed clear signs of prior ownership, \u00a0such as being sterilized without an ear-tip or having an unregistered chip.<\/p>\n \u201cThe implication is significant: \u00a0shelters cannot use rigid intake policies to turn away animals who by law must be sheltered. \u00a0The ruling clarifies that objective signs of ownership\u2014however incomplete\u2014must now trigger a legal duty to admit the animal,\u201d\u00a0 instead of placing the animal in a neuter\/return program, \u00a0which by definition is meant to accommodate self-sufficient feral animals.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe revised protocol now requires the admission of all kittens under 12 weeks of age,\u201d\u00a0 Boks noted, \u00a0\u201cand mandates staff err on the side of sheltering kittens up to six months old unless they are clearly able to survive on their own.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>Importantly,\u201d\u00a0 Boks wrote, \u201c the court did not reject TNR programs outright. \u00a0Instead, it drew a necessary legal line\u2014upholding the release of truly unowned, \u00a0free-roaming, \u00a0feral cats while prohibiting shelters from using TNR as a loophole to abandon socialized or formerly owned animals.<\/p>\n \u201cThis distinction is critical: \u00a0the ruling helps preserve TNR\u2019s original purpose\u2014reducing feral cat populations humanely\u2014without allowing shelters to offload their legal and moral responsibilities by co-opting this important program.\u201d<\/p>\n [See Best Friends Animal Society cofounder and former CEO Gregory Castle, 83<\/a>.]\u00a0 \u00a0(Beth Clifton collage<\/strong><\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Concluded Boks,\u00a0 who for more than 30 years headed the animal care and control agencies serving Maricopa and Yavapai counties in Arizona,\u00a0 New York City,\u00a0 and Los Angeles,\u00a0 \u201cWhat stands out most in the aftermath, however, \u00a0is the San Diego Humane Society\u2019s response.<\/p>\n \u201cRather than acknowledge the court\u2019s intervention and the reforms it compelled, \u00a0the organization doubled down on its public relations narrative, \u00a0seeking to\u00a0transform a legal correction into a public relations victory.<\/p>\n \u201cThe attempt to rebrand a legal rebuke as validation mirrors a growing trend in the animal welfare world,\u201d\u00a0 Boks lamented,\u00a0 combining \u201cinstitutional denial and deflection of responsibility.<\/p>\n (See Cold, hard evidence re small mammals missing from humane societies.<\/a>)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\nNo more dumping kittens or cats with clear signs of ownership,\u00a0 orders judge<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nReturn-to-field vs. TNR<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nABC:\u00a0 TNR for street dogs<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cReturn-to-field\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSpin-doctoring<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSan Diego Humane Society statement ignores court-mandated policy changes<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cClaiming to have \u2018won\u2019 case they just lost\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSan Diego Humane Society enjoined from reverting<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cNot a vindication,\u201d\u00a0 agrees Ed Boks<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cPrior requirement was unlawfully restrictive\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nNow required to admit kittens<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cInstitutional denial & defection of responsibility\u201d<\/h2>\n