The Extremist Reality of Best Friends Animal Society

A version of this article was previously published. Most of the information provided still holds true today. Western Justice is sharing to help reveal the manner in which extremist groups operate, their ties to and cooperation with other extremist groups, and the continued threat they pose to our lifestyles and livelihoods.

Many people know Best Friends Animal Society as a warm and fuzzy nonprofit devoted to pet adoption. They proudly operate the nation’s largest “no-kill” animal sanctuary, spanning 3,700 acres in Utah, and promote themselves as champions of saving shelter animals.

But behind this carefully crafted image lies a powerful and radical organization. Best Friends is not just focused on adoption—it claimed to actively restrict the public’s ability to own and purchase pets. In Utah, for example, the group pushed legislation to ban pet store puppy sales—even though pet stores in the state already complied with USDA regulations and inspections.

Origins in Extremism

Best Friends was founded in 1984 and quickly became the face of the “No Kill” and “Save Them All” movements. With a savvy staff and deep corporate and celebrity ties, they built a global reputation. Yet the group’s sanitized history omits troubling details about its roots.

Several founders—including Michael Mountain and Faith Maloney—were reportedly members of The Process Church of the Final Judgment, a cult-like group that broke away from Scientology. The Process embraced apocalyptic beliefs, claimed dogs possessed spiritual powers, and was even rumored to engage in ritual sacrifice. One of its leaders, Mary Ann de Grimston, maintained close ties to Best Friends’ early founders. There were also reports linking Best Friends’ founders to infamous cultist Charles Manson.

In 2004, the Rocky Mountain News exposed these connections, prompting Best Friends to acknowledge its history and publish its own version of the past.

Modern-Day Extremist Alliances

Best Friends’ troubling associations continue into the present. Today, it maintains close ties with other radical animal rights organizations.

Leadership links: Board member Lona Williams had worked with HSUS and local extremist groups in Los Angeles and Wyoming. Chief Experience Officer Sue Citro and Chief Development Officer Valerie Dorian both previously worked with the Nature Conservancy.

Policy influence: Best Friends partnered with politicians to advance radical agendas, such as lobbying with California Governor Gavin Newsom to ban the retail sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits.

These alliances demonstrate that Best Friends is part of a broader network seeking to undermine pet breeding and ownership.

Controversial Land Acquisitions

Best Friends has also stirred controversy in Utah over land purchases. Originally based on 3,700 acres in Kane County, the group spent $6.3 million in 2020 to acquire an additional 1,600 acres with potential quarry value. Local officials accused them of land hoarding and undermining community uses such as hunting, recreation, or development.

Kanab Councilwoman Celeste Meyeres criticized the acquisition as the work of “an environmentalist land baron,” saying locals felt like “sharecroppers in [their] own town.” Critics also noted that most of the sanctuary’s 400+ employees were hired from out of state, raising concerns that the group prioritized growth and agenda expansion over community engagement.

Lawsuits & Dangerous Policies

Best Friends faced multiple lawsuits tied to their shelter policies and partnerships:

Embedding into Municipal Shelters: In cities where Best Friends placed staff in leadership (their “embed” program), policies intended to boost “live release rates” resulted in tragedies—aggressive dogs were adopted to unsuspecting homes, strays were left on the streets, and rabies outbreaks occurred, leading to human injuries and costly lawsuits

Los Angeles Lawsuits (2016–2019): Approximately seven lawsuits were filed against Best Friends and Los Angeles Animal Services over a period when Best Friends managed a municipal shelter. These suitings stemmed from serious bite incidents involving dogs with aggressive histories, which adopters reportedly were not adequately warned about.

Policy Repercussions Elsewhere: Best Friends’ influence led to dangerous shelter practices in Indianapolis, where open-adoption policies removed criminal background checks. One former employee was fired after objecting to these changes. Conditions at the shelter were described as deplorable—kennels lined with maggots and feces, animals kept confined almost 24 hours a day

All of these lawsuits and controversies occurred before the present day, underscoring a pattern of negligent policies and community harm in pursuit of “no-kill” statistics.

Questionable Finances and Self-Dealing

Despite bringing in nearly $100 million annually, Best Friends held just a two-star rating on Charity Navigator (score: 79.91). Key financial concerns included:

Lavish perks: They owned two private planes, ostensibly for animal rescue, which also transported staff.

Potential conflicts of interest: CEO Julie Castle was married to Board Chair and CEO Emeritus Gregory Castle. In 2019, both received six-figure compensation—Julie at $238,330 and Gregory at $210,226—even though he served in an emeritus capacity.

Top-heavy spending: Nearly half of expenditures went toward executive pay, fundraising, and salaries rather than animal care.

Funnel of Donor Money to Radical Groups

Best Friends did not limit its finances to internal operations. Their 2020 annual report showed nearly $8 million transferred to “network partners and other animal welfare organizations,” many of which are known for radical activism.

Final Thoughts

Behind the glossy branding, celebrity endorsements, and sanctuary imagery lies a multimillion-dollar activist enterprise with extremist roots, questionable financial practices, and community impacts. Its pursuit of “no-kill” metrics has bred negligent policies, public safety risks, and legal liabilities.

For those who truly want to help animals, the safest path remains supporting local shelters—organizations transparent in their mission and devoted to safe, humane care rather than national agendas and risky policies.