When the UK government first announced its ban on American XL Bully-type dogs, the decision sent shockwaves through the dog-owning and animal welfare communities.In this Dog Desk Radio conversation, Michelle Robertson of Dog Desk Animal Action is joined by Meredith Festa of Paws Unite People to discuss the introduction of the ban, the consequences for dogs and their families, and the serious questions surrounding breed-specific legislation.Recorded when the ban was first announced, this conversation captures the concerns being raised at the time, before the full consequences of the legislation became apparent.Now, almost three years later, those questions deserve to be revisited.Has the ban made the public safer? What has happened to the dogs affected? And could a different approach have protected both people and animals?Read our latest investigation into the XL Bully ban below

Dog Desk Animal Action is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In Humboldt County, California, a rescue organisation that promised animals safety and sanctuary became the centre of a disturbing investigation after the discovery of dogs buried on its property.

Miranda’s Rescue had accepted animals from shelters, rescue organisations and individuals who believed they were giving those animals another chance. Some paid substantial sums for that assurance. But the discovery of the burial site raised serious questions about what had happened to dogs entrusted to its care, including animals whose original shelters had reportedly been told they were adopted.

Jennifer Raymond had been questioning the activities of Miranda’s Rescue for years. In March 2025, she took possession of a neighbouring property overlooking areas of the rescue that were not ordinarily visible to the public. From there, she began documenting what she observed.

Her investigation eventually led to the discovery of buried dogs. Jennifer and her colleague Jenna recovered eight bodies, including two puppies, and scanned them for microchips. Those identification records became an important part of tracing the animals back to the organisations that had transferred them.

A subsequent law enforcement investigation recovered many more animal remains.

In this interview, Jennifer describes the events that brought her to Miranda’s Rescue, the evidence she helped uncover and her continuing concerns about the treatment of animals held in rescue facilities.

We also examine a wider problem that Dog Desk Animal Action has encountered repeatedly in its international investigations: the absence of reliable, publicly accessible records showing what happens to animals after they enter institutional care.

The circumstances surrounding Miranda’s Rescue are the subject of a law enforcement investigation. Jennifer’s testimony includes her first hand observations, evidence she helped recover and allegations that must be distinguished from established findings.

But the questions raised by this case extend beyond the investigation itself.

What records should rescue organisations be required to maintain? Who verifies reported adoptions and transfers? What happens when concerns are raised repeatedly but meaningful intervention does not follow?

At Dog Desk Animal Action, we believe that accountability must follow an animal throughout its life, including when responsibility passes from one organisation to another. Rescue should never be the end of the paper trail.

Dog Desk Animal Action is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.