When a rescue hands a dog to another rescue, it does so because it believes that dog is moving towards something better. Perhaps there is more space, a better chance of adoption or simply somewhere able to offer what an overwhelmed organisation cannot. Resources within one organisation are, for the most part finite. Space can be limited & even manpower may not always be readily available. Whatever the circumstances, there is always trust involved. Someone else is taking responsibility for a dog you have been protecting & you hand your dog over after a process of due diligence, believing that they will not let your dog down.
That is what makes the latest development in the Miranda’s Rescue investigation in Humboldt County, California, so difficult.
Rocket Dog Rescue says it transferred three dogs, Paddington, Paulie and Scooby to Miranda’s Rescue on 1 March 2026. A fee was paid for each dog and, like so many dogs transferred between organisations, they left one rescue in the care of another. That is not unusual in the rescue world. Many of us work together & it works well. Nobody expects to experience the level of betrayal & cruelty that is unfolding at Miranda’s right now.
All three of Rocket Dog Rescue’s dogs have now reportedly been identified among the dogs recovered dead from the Miranda’s Rescue property. I have no idea how anybody comes back from that. The very thought of anybody harming one of our dogs sends my mind to a place of utter torment & misery.
At least 918 dogs are known to have entered Miranda’s Rescue between January 2025 and April 2026. More than 700 were initially unaccounted for. That figure is more than alarming. During excavation work in June, investigators recovered 117 intact canine remains, 21 skulls and hundreds of additional bones. My heart sinks as I type this. More than 117 dogs, vulnerable & in need of protection gone without a trace until now.
Rocket Dog Rescue has filed a civil lawsuit against Shannon Miranda alleging negligence, fraud, animal cruelty and trespass to chattels. As of 16 August, that complaint had not yet been served and the civil case is only beginning. Those of you who regularly read my reports will notice that my writing is quite different today. Normally, pre any trial or lawsuit I am very cautious with my words. Today I am not. Whatever is alleged & yet to be proven in the courts they is no denying that more than 117 dogs were found buried at the property. We are told there were gunshot wounds. We accept that dogs do pass away, we accept that dogs do need to be pts when terminal conditions reach a point where pain can no longer be controlled. What we do not accept is shooting dogs as a routine means of disposing of animals entrusted to a rescue's care. Trust me, no rescuer dedicated to their animals & motivated to do their job by love does that to a little one under their care.
At the same time, Humboldt County has taken further action against Miranda’s Rescue. On 14 August, the county suspended the organisation’s conditional use permit. Miranda’s Rescue cannot currently take in animals or adopt animals out while that suspension remains in place.
The county says rescue operations had spread across six parcels despite the permit covering only two. One of those additional parcels contains the red barn that has become central to the investigation and the area where dogs were buried.
Investigators reported finding blood spatter, spent .22-calibre cartridges and more than 600 collars inside that barn. At this point tears are rolling down my cheeks. 600 collars. What happened to the dogs that had been wearing them? Where are they? Were they killed & disposed of too? If they died of natural causes where is the record, where is the vet report? If they were pts, how, who & why? If they were shot & buried, actually my mind cannot even go there. That place is too dark for any of us to comprehend. The county has now said that particular parcel cannot be used for rescue operations even if the permit is eventually reinstated. Those words make me pause. Eventually reinstated. How is any of this going to be okay? How could any of this be presented as acceptable? It’s the stuff of nightmares.
There is a dispute over the interpretation of the original permit, including what restrictions concerning euthanasia and burial actually allowed. Miranda’s lawyer is challenging the county’s interpretation and those arguments will follow their proper course. There is an enormous difference between humane veterinary euthanasia carried out because an animal is suffering and the alleged shooting of dogs entrusted to a rescue. We should not allow the language of “euthanasia” to blur that distinction. Whatever the outcome, further investigation, consultation & policy change is needed urgently.
Meanwhile, the work of finding out exactly what happened to the dogs continues. And that is where our attention needs to remain. It would be very easy, particularly online, for the identification of dogs transferred by another rescue to become an invitation to turn on the organisations that sent animals to Miranda’s Rescue. That would be unforgivable. Orgs carry out due diligence, they form relationships with those they work with.
Organisations work together because they have to. The sheer volume of animals unwanted entering the system every day is enormous. Shelters reach capacity. Rescues take dogs from other rescues. Transport networks move animals across enormous distances. Foster organisations step in. Specialist organisations accept difficult cases. People make decisions with the information available to them because leaving a dog exactly where it is may not be an option either.
What Miranda’s Rescue should make us consider is how that trust can be better protected.
Paddington, Paulie and Scooby were not paperwork, they weren’t cases or numbers. They were dogs. Somebody knew them before they arrived at Miranda’s Rescue. Somebody loved them & cared about what happened to them and handed them over believing another organisation would continue that care as they had.
There are hundreds more dogs whose stories still need to be established.
The investigation has also begun reaching much further into the history of Miranda’s Rescue. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported allegations from former teenage worker Jesse Armstrong dating back to 2004. Armstrong described seeing multiple dead dogs being transported in a tractor bucket and dumped into the Eel River. He also described later encountering another group of dead dogs inside the barn before leaving the organisation.
If concerns surrounding dead dogs existed more than twenty years ago, it inevitably raises questions about how long problems may have existed and what opportunities there might have been to identify them earlier. Why did nobody go to the authorities. What stopped them. Did they think that dumping dead dogs in to a river was acceptable practice in rescue? Were they afraid to speak out?
Those are questions for investigators, regulators and the organisations responsible for the systems through which animals are transferred.
The lesson here should be about strengthening the protection around dogs as they move between organisations. There should be records capable of following an animal from one organisation to another. There should be ways for the organisation sending a dog to know that the receiving rescue remains able to provide the care promised for as long as that dog needs it. And there should be safeguards capable of recognising when large numbers of animals are entering somewhere without corresponding outcomes being recorded.
That protects dogs. It also protects the rescues that entrust them to others.
Rocket Dog Rescue now finds itself learning that three dogs it handed into another rescue’s care have reportedly been recovered among the dead. Other organisations may eventually receive the same devastating news.
There may be people who transported these dogs, fostered them, treated them, photographed them, advocated for them or said goodbye believing they were heading towards another chance. A chance of finding a home or in the case of dogs not suitable for rehoming, a place where they could be safe & feel loved for the rest of their natural lives.
For them, the enormous investigation taking place in Humboldt County is not simply about establishing how many dogs died. It is about discovering whether one of those dogs was theirs. Imagine handing over one of your dogs thinking they were going to a place of safety, Trusting. And them finding yourself in limbo not knowing where that dog was or what happened to them. It’s utterly unbearable. If anyone harmed one of my little ones I would lose my mind.
The criminal investigation remains active and involves the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office alongside state and federal agencies, including the FBI and California Attorney General’s Office. As of 16 August, criminal charges against Shannon Miranda have not been announced. Identifying remains and tracing the histories of hundreds of dogs will take time.
But three of those dogs now have names, dogs entrusted to Miranda’s by people who believed they were doing the right thing by their dogs. Paddington, Paulie, Scooby.
Now they have been found among the dead.
This has been an unbearably difficult blog to write not just because we love dogs but because we rescue them. They come in to our care from the most dangerous & difficult circumstances & it is our job to protect them & give them a healthy happy future. I cannot even begin to think how much pain other rescuers who sent their dogs to Miranda’s are in right now.
Our thoughts are with everybody affected, not just the little ones but everyone who loved them.
Our hope is that an incident such as this is never allowed to happen again.