Latest / The Animal Advocate / Miranda's Rescue: How 138 Dogs Disappeared After Being "Saved"

Transcript

Miranda's Rescue: How 138 Dogs Disappeared After Being "Saved" · The Animal Advocate

0:01
On April 25th, a man in Fortuna, California
0:05
sent a text to a shelter worker in Oakland. Attached was a
0:09
photograph of a dog named Zora on a leash with a message that said,
0:13
Zora adopted. Days later,
0:17
2 women dug into a burial site behind Miranda's Rescue
0:21
and recovered the bodies of 8 dogs. Zora
0:25
was one of them. She had not been adopted.
0:30
According to a sheriff's affidavit, the man who sent the text with the adoption
0:33
photo later admitted that he had shot her.
0:38
Investigators say he also admitted sending false adoption messages
0:42
about other dogs he'd killed, explaining that he did it
0:46
to protect feelings. Now, Miranda's Rescue was
0:50
a registered nonprofit that described itself as a no-kill
0:54
rescue and sanctuary. Shelters across California
0:58
sent it some of their most difficult dogs, and in many cases
1:01
paid the rescue between $400 and $1,000 for
1:05
each dog it accepted. Investigators have since
1:09
recovered the remains of at least
1:11
138 dogs, along with hundreds
1:15
of additional bones from the property. The question
1:19
I want to explore today isn't just how one person could
1:23
do something this horrific. It's how a system
1:27
filled with people who believed they were saving dogs
1:30
delivered animals and money to that property for years
1:35
without any reliable way to know what happened next.
1:43
Welcome to The Animal Advocate, where we arm animal lovers
1:47
with the information and inspiration you need to become effective
1:51
advocates. I'm your host, Penny Ellison, and I've taught
1:55
animal law and advocacy at the University of Pennsylvania since
1:58
2006. If you've ever thought, someone
2:02
should do something about that, I'm here to guide you on your
2:06
journey to being that someone. You can find us on the
2:10
web at animaladvocacyacademy.com.
2:13
And that's where you'll find show notes and
2:17
resources, and you can send us your comments on
2:21
episodes and ideas for topics you'd like to hear
2:24
on future shows. So, on to today's topic. The
2:28
discovery of 138 dogs buried at Miranda's
2:31
Rescue did not come out of nowhere. For years,
2:35
animal advocates had heard concerns that dogs
2:38
sent to Miranda's seemed to disappear.
2:42
Jennifer Raymond became so suspicious that in
2:45
2023, she bought the property next door so she
2:49
could observe what was happening behind the
2:52
rescue's fences. From her home, she watched
2:56
dogs arrive and then vanish from the kennels.
2:59
When she asked about particular animals, she
3:03
said she was often told they'd been adopted or
3:07
were unavailable. At the same time, A Solano
3:10
County shelter volunteer named Sabrina Woods
3:14
was also noticing something else that didn't
3:17
add up. Dogs that shelters had
3:21
struggled to place, including difficult
3:24
behavioral cases, were reportedly being adopted
3:27
soon after arriving at Miranda's Rescue, even
3:31
though there was little visible effort to advertise
3:35
them. Raymond and Woods began seeking shelter
3:38
records showing how many dogs had been sent to the
3:42
rescue How much money had been paid, and what
3:45
outcomes had been reported. The records were
3:48
staggering. Miranda's Rescue had taken in more than
3:52
900 dogs just since the beginning of 2023, yet
3:55
investigators could initially confirm only about
3:59
100 adoptions. Hundreds of dogs, and eventually
4:02
more than 700 by the sheriff's count, remained
4:06
unaccounted for. Then Raymond saw a fresh mound of
4:10
dirt near the edge of the property. On April 12th, she
4:13
entered the property and dug into it. She uncovered
4:17
the body of a dog. She and another
4:21
advocate, Jenna Moore, then positioned
4:24
motion-activated cameras toward that field.
4:28
2 weeks later, the cameras reportedly captured activity around
4:31
another burial site. Raymond and Moore returned
4:35
with shovels, headlamps, and a microchip
4:39
scanner. They recovered 8
4:42
recently buried dogs. 6 had
4:46
microchips. One was Zora,
4:51
the dog whose adoption photo had gone out the day before.
4:55
She was never adopted. She was in the ground. While a
4:59
shelter worker in Oakland looked at that photo and celebrated
5:03
her happy ending. This case
5:07
goes way beyond any lack of transparency.
5:11
This was a rescue manufacturing false happy endings,
5:14
adoption stories built to stop anyone from asking any questions.
5:19
A dog can leave a shelter alive, be counted as a
5:22
successful transfer, And then disappear almost
5:26
completely from view. To understand
5:29
how that happens, you have to follow the money. And the
5:33
money starts with people who love animals.
5:37
When a dog is facing euthanasia in a crowded shelter, money
5:41
can seem like the answer. People pledge money for the
5:45
rescue that'll save the dog, so it can be used for transportation,
5:49
medical treatment, boarding, training, whatever's
5:53
necessary. And rescue costs a lot of money, so
5:57
sometimes that money makes a life-saving placement
6:00
possible. But money
6:04
can also move a dog without securing a safe
6:08
destination. A funded transfer
6:12
is not necessarily a rescue. The critical
6:15
question is not simply whether enough money was raised to get the dog out
6:19
of the shelter. It's where the dog's going, whether
6:23
the organization has the capacity to provide what it's promising,
6:27
and how anyone will know what ultimately happened.
6:31
That distinction is at the heart of this case and the problem that it
6:35
illustrates. In Oakland alone, the
6:38
nonprofit affiliated with the city shelter reportedly paid
6:42
Miranda's Rescue approximately $376,000
6:46
$100,000 over several years. Much of that
6:50
money came from donors who believed they were helping hard
6:53
dogs leave the shelter and start a new life.
6:57
In the ordinary shelter-rescue relationship, the
7:01
rescue agrees to take responsibility for a dog because it
7:05
believes that it has a foster home, adopter, a
7:08
treatment plan, or other viable placement like their own kennel.
7:13
Often, and usually I think, no money changes hands. In
7:17
some systems, and increasingly recently with shelters
7:20
around the country desperate to create space, an overwhelmed
7:24
shelter or its donors or
7:28
funders might pay a rescue to accept
7:31
animals that they've been unable to place. Now, that
7:35
arrangement is not inherently improper. It may pay for
7:39
all of those expenses of accepting a medically or behaviorally difficult
7:43
dog, but it creates an incentive
7:47
that has to be recognized. If the rescue is
7:50
paid when the dog arrives, the financial reward is
7:54
tied to intake, not outcome.
7:58
Once the payment has been made, every additional day of food,
8:02
housing, Vet care, staffing costs
8:06
the rescue more money. A responsible rescue
8:09
accepts those costs because caring for and appropriately placing the
8:13
dog is its mission. An
8:16
unscrupulous operator can make more money by
8:20
taking in more dogs and spending less on each one.
8:26
That doesn't mean, of course, that every paid transfer is suspicious.
8:30
It means a system that pays at intake without requiring any
8:34
credible outcome records is relying almost
8:37
entirely on trust. At
8:41
Miranda's rescue, that trust appears to have been exploited in the
8:44
most brutal way possible. How does a
8:48
dog go from a municipal shelter surrounded by
8:51
staff and volunteers to a hidden
8:55
grave Behind her rescue? There's no single
8:59
cause. Several forces pushed in the same
9:02
direction, and each one looks understandable
9:06
when you view it alone. The first was the
9:10
law. California's Hayden Act
9:13
requires a shelter to release an animal scheduled for euthanasia to
9:17
a qualifying nonprofit rescue that requests the animal
9:21
before the euthanasia occurs. Now, the statute uses the word
9:25
shall— shall transfer— and a court has held that that
9:28
duty is mandatory. The legislature considered
9:32
limiting that requirement to animals the shelter considered adoptable or
9:36
treatable, but it didn't. Now,
9:40
the law serves an important purpose. It prevents a shelter
9:43
from killing an animal when a legitimate rescue is ready
9:47
and able to take responsibility for that animal. But
9:51
that mandate creates pressure when the dog has a
9:55
bite history or presents risks that the shelter does not
9:59
believe it can safely manage. A rescue may appear
10:03
and say it specializes in exactly those cases. So, the
10:07
law favors release. The shelter's
10:11
desire to avoid euthanasia favors release.
10:15
The public pressure to save the dog Favors release.
10:20
The rescue becomes the answer to a problem that
10:24
no one wants to deal with. Now, the second force at
10:28
play is the way shelters measure success.
10:32
The live release rate is the percentage of animals who leave a
10:35
shelter alive through adoption, return to an
10:39
owner, or transfer to another organization.
10:43
That number becomes very important Because it matters to the
10:46
public, to funders, to government officials,
10:51
and to shelter leadership. It's also— it's an
10:54
understandable measure. People want to know whether animals entering
10:58
a shelter are leaving alive. But a transfer
11:02
is counted as a live outcome when the dog leaves the shelter.
11:06
That does not mean the shelter is claiming to know that
11:10
that dog will live safely for the rest of its natural
11:14
life. It means the shelter's responsibility has been
11:18
transferred to another organization. Open-intake
11:21
shelters could not function if they were expected to
11:25
follow every animal through every later foster home,
11:29
adoption, return, veterinary decision, change in
11:32
circumstance. The problem arises when a transfer is
11:36
publicly understood as proof that the dog was saved
11:40
While the receiving organization's outcomes remain
11:43
invisible. The third force at play was the payment
11:47
structure. Miranda's Rescue was paid, as we said,
11:50
about $400 for an ordinary dog and as much as $1,000 for
11:54
a dog with a bite history. The more difficult the dog,
11:58
the more money the rescue got. Those dogs were also the
12:02
easiest to make disappear. And I'll tell you
12:05
why. A friendly, adoptable dog probably has
12:09
people watching— volunteers, potential
12:12
adopters, social media followers tracking his
12:16
story. A dog with a bite history often has no one.
12:19
And when word finally comes that a dog like that
12:23
found a home, the people who'd worried about him
12:26
are usually so relieved, so thrilled to hear that
12:30
he made it, that the last thing they'd think to do is
12:34
to ask a hard follow-up question. A live outcome
12:38
for the hardest dog feels like a gift. You don't
12:41
interrogate a gift. Miranda's Rescue was
12:44
reportedly paid the most for precisely the dogs
12:48
least likely to have someone looking for them. And
12:52
then there was the 4th force. Almost
12:56
everything depended on the rescue truthfully reporting what happened.
13:00
A message arrived saying, Zora adopted. It included a
13:04
photograph of Zora on a leash. The message was apparently
13:07
designed to answer the question before anyone asked another one.
13:12
The deception worked because the system was built to confirm transfers
13:16
more carefully than outcomes. Shelters recorded the dogs
13:20
leaving. Donors funded that rescue. The
13:23
receiving organization supplied the ending.
13:27
Zora adopted. So, the
13:30
shelter had that live release for its statistics. The donor
13:34
was thrilled that their donation helped Zora get a happy ending.
13:38
The rescue got its money. The only participant in the
13:42
transaction who didn't get the outcome they needed was Zora.
13:48
There's another argument surrounding this case that I want to address directly.
13:52
Some people have responded that these were dangerous dogs
13:56
and that euthanasia may have been the appropriate outcome for them,
14:00
implying, you know, something like no harm, no foul.
14:04
Some of the dogs may in fact have presented serious and
14:08
unmanageable safety risks, and behavioral euthanasia
14:11
is sometimes necessary. It wouldn't be honest to
14:15
claim that every dog can be safely placed.
14:19
But that does not excuse what happened here. When
14:23
a shelter determines that a dog is too dangerous to release,
14:27
that decision should be made openly based on the individual
14:30
dog's behavior and other available evidence. It should be
14:34
documented, counted, and owned by the organization
14:38
responsible for making it. What appears to have happened here
14:42
was the opposite. The decision was laundered. The dog
14:46
left the shelter as a recorded live release. A rescue accepted
14:50
money based on the representation that it would assume responsibility for
14:53
the dog. Donors believed they were supporting rescue
14:57
rather than euthanasia. Then,
15:01
according to the allegations, some dogs were neglected,
15:05
killed in secret, and buried while false adoption
15:08
reports were sent to the people who might otherwise have asked what happened.
15:13
A transparent euthanasia decision can be reviewed,
15:16
questioned, counted, and criticized.
15:21
A transfer followed by a secret killing converts a recorded
15:25
save into an invisible death.
15:29
The problem isn't simply that some difficult dogs may ultimately have to be
15:33
euthanized. That happens. The problem is that those
15:37
deaths were concealed. From the donors, from the public,
15:40
and even from the shelter that sent the dog.
15:46
So, what should shelters have done differently? It's
15:50
tempting to say they should have investigated the rescue more thoroughly before
15:54
transferring animals. They should have confirmed its nonprofit
15:58
status, spoken with other shelters, checked references,
16:02
toured the property, and verified that it had been providing good
16:06
veterinary care to the animals there. Those are all reasonable
16:09
precautions. But the uncomfortable lesson from this case
16:13
is that Miranda's rescue looks as if it probably would have passed those usual
16:17
due diligence tests. It wasn't some newly created
16:21
organization operating from an unknown address. It held
16:25
government contracts. It had a large property.
16:28
Shelter representatives toured it and saw living dogs.
16:32
Other organizations Gave them favorable references.
16:36
The operation had enough external legitimacy to reassure
16:40
people who made reasonable efforts to evaluate it.
16:44
That's why the answer can't just be to screen harder at the front end.
16:48
Nearly all the scrutiny in this system pointed at the front end.
16:53
Almost none of it pointed at outcomes.
16:57
So what would? catch this kind of thing?
17:02
Not more front-door screening. What catches it is finding
17:05
some way to monitor what happened after the rescue took the
17:09
dog. And the good news is, we don't have to invent it.
17:13
At least one state has been doing it for the last 26 years.
17:19
Colorado licenses shelters and rescues, both,
17:22
including the foster-based ones with no building. If you handle
17:26
more than 24 animals in a year, you're licensed, or you're
17:30
supposed to be. And once a year, you file a report on
17:34
every animal that came through your hands. The state posts it online,
17:38
and anyone can pull it up. I went and looked at it,
17:42
and I want to tell you what's on it because it's simple enough to explain
17:45
in about 30 seconds. For each rescue, the state
17:49
publishes how many dogs you had on January 1st, How
17:52
many you took in. Where they came from:
17:56
stray, owner surrender, transferred from another Colorado group, or
18:00
transferred from out of state. Then,
18:04
how each of those animals left you: adopted,
18:08
returned to owner, transferred out,
18:11
died, euthanized, missing.
18:16
And finally, how many you still had on December
18:19
31st. Start of the year, in,
18:23
out, end of the year. That's a ledger, and a
18:27
ledger has to balance. If a rescue reports
18:30
900 dogs in, 100 adopted,
18:34
0 deaths, 0 euthanasias, and 20 animals on hand at the end of the year,
18:39
that arithmetic doesn't add up, and anybody can see it. You don't
18:43
need an investigator, you just need a calculator. Colorado even
18:47
publishes a column for animals that went missing.
18:51
Now, here's what's reported in my own state, Pennsylvania.
18:54
Pennsylvania licenses rescues too, including
18:57
foster-based ones, which is great and not necessarily
19:01
common. We call them Rescue Network Kennels, and the
19:05
foster homes register under the license. The state
19:08
inspects them and puts the inspection reports online,
19:12
free, searchable, for anyone. I pulled one at random, a
19:15
boxer rescue up near Scranton. The report tells me the
19:19
license class, which is generally how many dogs, uh, pass
19:23
through the facility in one year, the inspection date,
19:26
that the records were kept properly, and a table of dog
19:30
counts. And that's where it stops. There's no column for
19:34
adopted, died, euthanized. Pennsylvania tells you
19:37
publicly how many dogs went into a rescue, But not about
19:41
the outcomes. So picture what that report
19:45
would've looked like for Miranda's rescue. A satisfactory
19:49
on the records kept, and every dog buried in that field
19:53
invisible in the public record. So in Pennsylvania,
19:57
the ask is almost embarrassingly small. The database
20:01
exists. The rescue is already filing. The
20:04
inspector is already visiting. The form already
20:08
has a table with numbers on it. Just add columns to
20:12
show the outcomes. That would be great.
20:16
But I also want to be honest about the limits, including Colorado's.
20:21
It's now July of 2026. The most recent report
20:25
Colorado has published covers 2024.
20:29
That's a year and a half old. And depending on when you check,
20:33
It can be closer to 2.5. Think about what that means for our
20:36
story. Miranda's took in more than 900 dogs starting
20:40
in January of 2025. Under Colorado's
20:44
timeline, not one of those dogs would appear in a public
20:47
report yet. The scheme ran and
20:50
collapsed and got dug up entirely
20:54
inside that reporting gap. So the Ledger was right.
20:58
But the clock is wrong. A rescue moving hundreds of dogs a
21:02
year knows its numbers every month. It has to. That's how you know
21:06
whether you can say yes to the next one. Filing
21:09
those numbers 4 times a year instead of just once, and posting
21:13
those reports as soon as they arrive, should be achievable.
21:19
And one more caveat: Colorado doesn't audit
21:22
these numbers. The state says so right on the
21:26
page. The numbers come from the facilities,
21:29
and if you have questions, ask the facility.
21:33
So, a determined liar, like Miranda, can file
21:37
whatever he wants, and the arithmetic will
21:40
balance if he's not stupid. But he has to file it
21:44
every year under his license on a public page
21:48
where the shelters who sent him dogs can read
21:51
it. And a claim of 900 adoptions is 900 claims
21:55
that somebody, somewhere, took a specific dog
21:58
home. That's a lot of people to invent.
22:02
And if a shelter asks questions and there's that many
22:06
made-up outcomes, they're going to figure it
22:09
out. It's not a foolproof system, but it's a lot
22:13
better than what we have now. So that's what a state can
22:16
do. But we don't have to wait for the legislature to act, thank God,
22:21
and neither does a shelter transferring dogs to rescues. There are 2
22:24
things a shelter can do right now, and neither one requires
22:28
following a dog for the rest of his life. The first
22:32
is to tighten the transfer agreement. It should say what the rescue
22:36
can and can't do with the animal. No euthanizing a
22:40
dog just to make space. No handing the dog off to a
22:43
third party you never approved. Because a shelter can
22:47
decide not to send dogs to a particular rescue and
22:50
still have its dogs end up there, routed through some other
22:54
group acting as a middleman. And it should
22:57
require the rescue to register the adopter on the microchip when the dog
23:01
is placed, with the rescue staying on as backup so they're
23:05
still reachable if the dog is ever lost. That
23:09
one line does 2 things: it gets the dog home if she
23:13
gets out, and it means every adoption should be recorded somewhere
23:17
other than the rescue's own files. The second thing
23:21
shelters can do is a spot check. A
23:24
shelter can't track every dog, and it doesn't have to.
23:28
It only has to check enough of them to make lying dangerous.
23:32
Pull a handful of dogs a high-volume partner reported as adopted
23:37
and see whether the chip registrations ever moved. That's free
23:41
and it doesn't take long. If they didn't move, start asking.
23:45
Who adopted her? If the dog is supposed to still be in sanctuary,
23:49
can someone confirm she's actually still there? A few
23:53
calls, maybe a quarter. One fabricated adoption
23:57
is reason for a much closer look. A pattern of
24:01
unchanged chips and adopters nobody can reach is
24:04
reason to stop sending dogs. It just makes sense.
24:09
It's what you'd do with any organization you're handing vulnerable animals
24:13
to, and in some cases, paying to take them.
24:17
So some shelters saw this story and they're already doing
24:21
exactly this: rewriting their agreements,
24:24
reviewing every rescue on their list, building in a system
24:28
of verification. The point is not to make transfers
24:32
so burdensome that shelters lose the partners they depend on.
24:36
Open-intake shelters need those partnerships. A lot of dogs are
24:40
alive because a rescue said yes when a shelter ran out of safe
24:44
and humane options. But there's a wide gulf between
24:47
demanding that a shelter follow every animal forever and taking a
24:51
paid transfer operation's word for it every time, forever.
24:56
A contract, honest records, a chip registered to the
25:00
right person, And a few calls are not unreasonable
25:04
burdens. A good rescue is already doing all of it, and
25:08
they'll be glad you asked. It only troubles the operation that can't answer
25:11
the question. And there's also a lesson here
25:15
for the people who share urgent rescue pleas online, and there are
25:19
millions of them. When a dog lands on a euthanasia
25:23
list, someone inevitably tags some nationally known
25:26
sanctuary. You know the kind. They have a great website,
25:30
millions of followers, videos of dramatic
25:34
transformations. People repeat the name because they've seen
25:37
the content so often that the organization feels familiar.
25:42
But knowing the brand is not knowing the rescue. A
25:46
polished social media presence can show real and important work.
25:50
It can also show only the part of the operation that someone chose to put
25:54
in front of a camera. And be especially careful
25:58
with the ones advertising themselves as a sanctuary.
26:03
Sanctuary is the most expensive promise in this field.
26:07
Long-term care for the animals nobody else will take, which
26:11
for an old or sick or dangerous dog means trained
26:14
staff, vet treatment, medication, housing
26:19
for years. It's also the promise least likely
26:22
to be checked, because the dogs are supposed to still be there. There's no new
26:26
outcome to check, so nobody goes looking.
26:31
Before you recommend that a dog be sent somewhere, especially a
26:35
sanctuary, or encourage strangers to donate,
26:40
ask yourself whether you could answer the basic questions about that
26:43
organization. How many animals are there?
26:47
How are they housed? How many people are caring for them? Are
26:51
they receiving vet care? How many were
26:54
adopted or euthanized or died in the last year?
26:59
Those aren't hostile questions. They're questions that distinguish a
27:02
rescue operation from a compelling story about
27:06
a rescue operation. And notice, the question isn't
27:10
whether the organization could answer those questions. It's
27:13
whether you can. If you can't, you don't know the
27:16
rescue. You know it's marketing. You would never
27:20
recommend a breeder just because the breeder posted
27:23
beautiful photographs of healthy puppies. Rescue
27:27
organizations shouldn't be exempt from the same basic
27:31
skepticism because their marketing appeals to
27:34
compassion instead of consumer desire. Because
27:38
operations like Miranda’s Rescue don't build
27:41
reputations alone. Their reputations get built
27:44
through social media posts and recommendations
27:48
repeated by people who know the organization only from
27:51
a distance. Every one of them was trying to help, and at
27:55
least 138 dogs paid for it.
28:09
And now, our Be the Change segment.
28:12
Here's your one Be the Change action for this week, and it doesn't take a
28:16
law degree or a single dollar. Find out what your
28:20
state requires of the private organizations that take animals.
28:24
The rescues, the sanctuaries, the foster networks, the ones with
28:28
a building and the ones without. Does your state license them at all?
28:32
And if it does, does anyone have to say what happened to the animals?
28:36
Search your state's name and animal rescue license or
28:40
kennel license, or call your state's Department of Agriculture and
28:44
ask who licenses rescues and whether the reports are public.
28:48
It's a 10-minute phone call. Then you'll know which conversation you're having.
28:53
If your state licenses rescues and publishes something, You're in
28:56
Pennsylvania's position. You have infrastructure, and your ask
29:00
is small and specific: put the outcomes on the
29:04
report. If your state licenses rescues but
29:08
publishes nothing, your ask is to make public what's already being
29:11
collected. And if your state doesn't license rescues at
29:15
all, that's your starting line. It's a bigger lift, but
29:19
you're not asking for anything crazy. You're asking for what Colorado has been
29:23
doing for more than 25 years. The most important
29:27
lesson from this case is not that shelters should stop transferring
29:30
difficult dogs or that the public should stop supporting rescues.
29:34
Both would cost a lot of lives. The lesson is
29:38
that transfer can't be the end of the story. A shelter
29:42
may never be able to know what happens to every animal for the
29:46
rest of its life, but an organization entrusted with
29:49
animals should keep credible records. The agencies that
29:53
send dogs and money should check enough of those records
29:57
to make deception risky. And the rest of us should look past
30:01
the photographs before we help an organization
30:05
grow. Because a dog leaving a shelter is an
30:08
event. It is not, by itself, an outcome.
30:14
Zora adopted was an outcome on paper. It
30:17
supplied the ending everyone wanted. The shelter worker
30:21
could believe she was safe, the rescue could close the file,
30:26
and nobody had to ask a single question. We owe
30:30
the dogs more than that. We have to follow the
30:33
dog far enough to know that the rescue was real.
30:42
That's it for today. The Animal Advocate is brought to you by the
30:46
Animal Advocacy Academy. If today's episode got you
30:49
thinking about what you can do to change things for animals,
30:53
I want to make sure you know about the 4 Cs of Legislative Advocacy for
30:57
Animals. It's a free audio series I put together
31:01
that gives you a real framework for making legislation happen.
31:05
You can find it at animaladvocacyacademy.com/4cs.
31:11
That's 4 Cs. F-O-U-R-C-S.
31:16
And you can find all our episodes and show notes at
31:19
animaladvocacyacademy.com. Subscribe so
31:22
you don't miss an episode. And if you know another animal advocate
31:26
who should be listening, send this one their way.
31:30
Questions on today's topic or anything else? Just email us at
31:34
podcast@animaladvocacyacademy.com.
31:38
We'll write back or we'll feature your question in a future episode.
31:43
Remember, compassion is great, but
31:46
compassionate action is infinitely better.
31:50
Until next week, live with compassion.