Current Status of the Case of Dogs Held in the Olsztyn Animal Shelter
Background and Course of Events
In September 2023, six dogs belonging to Mr. Bartosz Bogacki were controversially taken away. These were American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT)-type dogs named Skif, Zen, Sisi, Zonda, Lola, and the female dog Titania [1][2]. The owner temporarily entrusted the care of his dogs to the Save All Animals Foundation, entering into an oral agreement only that the dogs would be cared for, not transferred into ownership [3]. However, on 6 September 2023 the foundation—without the owner’s knowledge or consent—transported all the dogs to the Municipal Animal Shelter in Olsztyn [4]. In practice, the dogs were “deceptively taken” and delivered to the shelter, even though no formal procedure by public authorities to seize them was underway at the time [2].
Unfortunately, soon after this event, tragedy occurred. The female dog Titania died as a result of shock or neglect—the foundation claimed she died on the third day after the seizure [5]. Alarmingly, her death was not documented by any veterinary report or necropsy, and the relevant authorities were not officially notified of the death [6]. The lack of any documentation confirming the circumstances of Titania’s death raises the question, “did she really die?”—which suggests the scale of irregularities and possible cover-up [6].
The remaining five dogs of Mr. Bogacki were taken to the Olsztyn shelter and remain held there to this day. These dogs have been isolated from the others and, for nearly two years now, have not left their shelter pens [2]. Importantly, they arrived at the shelter in excellent condition—they were healthy, well-fed, and well cared for, which is typical for APBTs [1]. Paradoxically, those responsible for taking them tried to present their excellent condition as… evidence of alleged neglect and starvation, which the owner views as manipulation and a lack of knowledge about the breed [7].
Actions of the Shelter and the Position of Institutions
From the moment the dogs were taken in, the Olsztyn municipal shelter (managed by Director Anna Barańska) has consistently refused to release the animals to the owner or to anyone else. The dogs remain locked in isolation, with no possibility of adoption or even visits from outside caregivers [8]. According to the owner, the shelter director “blocks the retrieval of the dogs—torturing them with isolation and preventing the satisfaction of basic needs” [8]. While these are strong accusations, it is a fact that keeping animals in isolation for so long negatively affects their physical and mental health.
Crucially, the entire intervention has never been sanctioned by any administrative or court decision. This is confirmed by internal documents and by statements from officials. In July 2025, the owner received an official letter from the Olsztyn Animal Shelter, signed by Director Anna Barańska, explicitly stating that “in connection with the voluntary transfer of rights to the aforementioned animals by their owner, no administrative decision was issued” [9]. In other words, the shelter stated that because the animals were allegedly voluntarily surrendered, there was no need to initiate a formal administrative seizure procedure. This was used to give a veneer of legality to a situation in which the dogs ended up in the shelter without legal basis.
The shelter’s position therefore rests on the claim that the owner himself relinquished his dogs. Mr. Bogacki categorically denies this, pointing out that he never expressed any will to give up his animals and only temporarily entrusted them to the foundation for care [3]. The entire transfer of the dogs thus took place outside the legal framework—no decision was issued for seizure due to cruelty or homelessness, there was no prosecutor’s order treating the dogs as evidence, etc. As a result, the current legal status of the animals is unclear: formally, they are no longer recognized as the owner’s property (since the shelter claims the rights were transferred), yet no statutory grounds have arisen for the municipality to hold them.
In practice, this means the dogs are being kept in the shelter without legal basis. This fact was even noted in documents at the central level—in the record of a parliamentary committee it was stated: “the dogs remain in the shelter without legal basis, they are one-third of the way to natural death, euthanasia due to aggression” [10]. In other words, keeping these animals is de facto outside the law, and prolonged isolation risks their death due to deteriorating health or the necessity of euthanasia if behavioral problems (aggression) develop.
Reactions of Municipal Officials and Local Authorities
For a long time, local authorities remained silent about this case. The previous mayor did not respond publicly, and after the autumn 2023 elections, the new Mayor of Olsztyn, Robert Szewczyk, also avoided addressing the issue until the summer of 2025. Only under growing social-media pressure did the mayor take a position—and in a rather informal way. In a discussion with residents under a social-media post, Robert Szewczyk admitted he had known about the dogs being held in the shelter for almost two years [11]. Moreover, in response to a public question, he confirmed that the dogs are in the shelter without any decision—i.e., no official ruling on their fate has been made to this day [11].
This open admission by the municipal authorities that the animals have been unlawfully detained for so long demonstrates the seriousness of the negligence. The mayor declared he was aware of the case but did not indicate any specific remedial actions. It appears that for many months City Hall did not undertake any intervention—neither an internal audit of the shelter nor mediation with the owner. Only when the case gained publicity did the authorities begin to react.
In early September 2025, the Olsztyn City Council organized the first open meeting with residents in its history, giving people the opportunity to speak on important local issues [12]. It is no secret that one of the topics raised by citizens was the situation of Mr. Bogacki’s dogs. One could say the case was placed “on the Council’s table,” which only months earlier seemed impossible. Bringing residents into the dialogue forced officials to confront the allegations of unlawful detention of the animals.
Nevertheless, the official position of the authorities remains guarded. Mayor Szewczyk has not yet (according to available information) issued any press release or ordinance resolving the problem. The public sphere is marked by institutional silence—apart from the mayor’s comment, there are no explanations from City Hall or the Environmental Department. Meanwhile, the case has taken on a nationwide dimension as an example of a legal gap in protecting the rights of animal owners.
The Role of the Foundation and Public Figures
A key actor in this case is the Save All Animals Foundation, as well as individuals associated with OTOZ Animals (the Polish National Animal Protection Society). It was precisely an animal-protection activist/inspector who participated in taking the dogs from Mr. Bogacki. The owner accuses these entities of collusion and abuse of trust. From his perspective, the foundation that was supposed to help became the tool for taking the animals—“five of my dogs were stolen by the Save All Animals Foundation and then illegally transferred to the Olsztyn shelter” [1]. In other words, an organization that advertises itself as rescuing animals served as a channel to take animals from their rightful caretaker.
Personal threads also emerge. The shelter’s director, Anna Barańska, is indicated as personally responsible for maintaining this state of affairs. In a public petition, the Olsztyn shelter was even called a “center of terror” operating under the banner of help, and the management was accused of deliberately tormenting the dogs through isolation [8]. These are very strong words that show the scale of the conflict between the owner and the shelter’s authorities. As the released documents show, Director Barańska took part in crafting the official defense line (she signed the letter invoking the “voluntary transfer of rights” to the dogs) [9]. She has not, however, spoken publicly—she remains silent in the media and does not comment on the accusations.
There is also discord among animal-rights advocates. On the one hand, OTOZ-affiliated individuals took part in the intervention against Bogacki (suggesting they were rescuing mistreated dogs); on the other, the situation has turned into a potential scandal that undermines trust in animal-welfare NGOs. As the owner reveals, “those responsible claim that the dogs’ excellent condition was proof of neglect,” which he presents as an obvious falsehood and evidence of incompetence [7]. Such actions cast a shadow over NGOs working in animal welfare, and may indicate overreach by volunteer animal inspectors and a lack of proper oversight over their actions.
Public figures at the national level have also been indirectly involved. The issue echoed in pro-animal circles, reaching social activists and politicians. This is evidenced by the fact that the problem was signaled during one of the Sejm committee meetings—as noted above, the official bulletin included a reference confirming the unlawful detention of dogs in the shelter [10]. One may assume that MPs interested in animal protection or the rule of law (possibly opposition MPs highlighting abuses) submitted interpellations or questions in this matter.
Behind-the-Scenes Actions, Meetings, and Leaks
Although institutions present a uniform “wall of silence” to the outside, much indicates that frantic activity is taking place inside. Recently there was a controlled leak from shelter/foundation circles revealing that those responsible know the legal construct of this case is collapsing [13][14]. According to an informant, the officially adopted tactic is to “wait it out in silence,” hoping the issue will fade over time [14]. Behind the scenes, however, panic has set in—there are nervous arrangements in the shelter and the foundation over “who will take responsibility” for the irregularities [14]. In other words, various entities are beginning to shift blame for what has happened.
It can be inferred that meetings were held with municipal lawyers, shelter management, and foundation representatives. The stakes of these behind-the-scenes talks are to avoid legal and reputational consequences. There is a risk that, if the case escalates, someone may face charges of overstepping authority or animal abuse (in the context of Titania’s death). Institutions are likely preparing defensive moves—e.g., gathering documents to justify their actions or looking for post factum legal bases. A quiet solution may also be considered, such as trying to persuade the owner to a settlement (giving the dogs up for adoption in exchange for the municipality avoiding financial liability).
Leaks indicate that various scenarios have been considered: transferring the animals to another facility, or even possible euthanasia if the dogs were deemed aggressive and unadoptable [10]. Such solutions would be extremely controversial and would likely further worsen the situation of those responsible. For now, there are no signals that attempts have actually been made to remove the dogs from Olsztyn; nevertheless, the very presence of such rumors indicates rising tension.
The owner is using all available legal and social means to prevent the case from being “swept under the rug.” He files complaints, presses the prosecutor’s office (which confirmed that at the stage of taking the animals he was not formally recognized as a party to the proceedings, which in itself violates his rights) [15], publicizes the matter online, and mobilizes public opinion. This determination has clearly surprised institutions accustomed to similar interventions passing without consequence. As the injured party himself put it, “for 22 months I have been fighting for their release… I have been completely deprived of my rights as the owner, while all actions related to their detention are unlawful” [16]. This fight is beginning to yield results in the form of cracks in the silence and mutual behind-the-scenes accusations.
Public Response and Local Media
The case is gradually breaking into public awareness, although initially it encountered a lack of interest from traditional media. Local media (press, TV) remained silent for a long time—probably due to the lack of official statements or fear of conflict with city authorities. Only in recent months of 2025 have social media and independent portals begun to take an interest. In local Facebook groups (e.g., Ogłoszenia Olsztyn, Ruch Ludzi Praw Zwierząt) information about irregularities and documents were published, such as the aforementioned letter from the shelter director or the background of court sessions [17][14]. The comments sections show a growing wave of residents’ outrage—many express disbelief that such shocking practices could occur in a municipal unit.
Significantly, the case has also taken on a nationwide dimension thanks to the internet. Mr. Bogacki launched a petition on Change.org, presenting the entire story in Polish and English and appealing for help in the fight against the “system” and lawlessness [18]. The petition titled “This is a fight for truth—a war against a SYSTEM that operates under the banner of help” has already garnered hundreds of signatures from Poland and abroad. The author emphasizes that this is not only his private problem—“this affects all of us—every dog owner, every citizen who trusts that institutions act honestly” [18]. Publicizing the case is intended to prevent a precedent in which foundations, shelters, or officials can take other people’s animals outside the law with impunity.
Public reactions are putting increasing pressure on the authorities. For now, the official profiles of the city and the shelter on social media do not directly address the allegations—moreover, the lack of denial by the institutions de facto confirms many of the activists’ findings (including the lack of an administrative decision [9]). As mentioned, the strategy of silence is consciously adopted to “quiet the matter” [14]. However, silence only fuels speculation and public anger. More and more people are asking: how is it possible that in a European city the rights of animals and owners can be so violated?
Local online portals are beginning to plan investigative pieces—there are hints that the nationwide TV program UWAGA! TVN may take up the topic (suggested by the hashtag #tematdlauwagi used in posts) [19]. If such coverage appears, the case will gain nationwide publicity, making it even harder to sweep under the rug. It is foreseeable that under pressure from the media and public opinion, the authorities will finally have to respond substantively—e.g., commission an independent audit, impose disciplinary consequences on those responsible for negligence, or ultimately secure the release or return of the dogs.
At present, the situation remains at an impasse: the dogs are still behind the shelter bars, and the owner is fighting a heroic battle to recover them. The growing publicity—from leaks, through petitions, to discussions at the City Council forum—indicates, however, that “the system is cracking.” Institutions can no longer hide behind a façade of silence, as each passing day without a solution deepens the crisis of trust and the potential legal liability of officials. The case of Mr. Bogacki’s dogs has become a symbol of an individual’s fight against a bureaucratic machine—a fight for respect for the law, empathy toward animals, and simple human justice.
Sources: Official letter of the Olsztyn Animal Shelter (25.07.2025) [9]; posts and statements on social media (FB: PIT Core Poland, Ogłoszenia Olsztyn, Ruch Ludzi Praw Zwierząt) [17][11][14]; public petition on Change.org by Bartosz Bogacki [16][1]; excerpt from a Sejm committee record regarding unlawful animal detention [10]. All these sources consistently indicate gross irregularities—the dogs have been unlawfully detained in the Olsztyn shelter for nearly two years, with the authorities’ passive stance and amid a growing scandal. Without immediate remedial actions, this risks further animal suffering and a serious crisis of public trust in institutions tasked with protecting both animals and citizens’ rights [10][16].
EVERY DONATION SUPPORTS THE FIGHT
https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/E87HALG6N6TGW
References:
[1] [5] [7] [8] [16] [18] Petition · This is a fight for truth — a war against a SYSTEM that operates under the banner of HELP – Olsztyn, Poland · Change.org
https://www.change.org/p/this-is-a-fight-for-truth-a-war-against-a-system-that-operates-under-the-banner-of-help
[2] A POINT THAT CANNOT BE ERASED… – Facebook
https://m.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/posts/-death-a-point-that-cannot-be-erased-this-is-no-longer-just-about-the-unlawful-s/757420363712606/
[3] Inspektor OTOZ kradnie psy na zlecenie? – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1176972702366848/posts/inspektor-otoz-kradnie-psy-na-zlecenie/24255062224131236/
[4] BOGACKI vs UKŁAD… – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/posts/-raport-ko%C5%84cowy-krzywy-odbior-akcja-z%C5%82amanie-cz%C5%82owieka-bogacki-vs-uk%C5%82ad-to-nie-j/723248713796438/
[6] FINAL REPORT – THE STOLEN SEIZURE OPERATION… – Facebook
https://m.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/posts/-final-report-the-stolen-seizure-operation-break-the-man-bogacki-71skifhttpspedi/723262453795064/
[9] OFICJALNE PISMO vs. OFICJALNY POST – SPRZECZNOŚĆ… – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/posts/-oficjalne-pismo-vs-oficjalny-post-sprzeczno%C5%9B%C4%87-czarno-na-bia%C5%82ym25072025-r-otrzym/771573315630644/
[10] [PDF] KANCELARIA SEJMU – Biuro Komisji Sejmowych
https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/zapisy10.nsf/0/71CD71ACE4898474C1258C36003E4341/%24File/0132410.pdf
[11] PRZYZNANIE SCHRONISKA: PSY PRZETRZYMYWANE BEZ… – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/posts/-przyznanie-schroniska-psy-przetrzymywane-bez-decyzji-administracyjnej-od-22-mie/735703399217636/
[12] City of Olsztyn – City Council invites residents to the first open meeting
https://olsztyn.eu/o-olsztynie/aktualnosci/article/rada-miasta-zaprasza-mieszkacw-na-pierwsze-otwarte-spotkanie-17023.html
[13] PIT – Leak from the inside… (photo) – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/photos/-przeciek-z-wewn%C4%85trz-oni-sami-ju%C5%BC-wiedz%C4%85-%C5%BCe-to-si%C4%99-sypie-raport-wewn%C4%99trzny-1-syt/756748493779793/
[14] Leak from the inside… (post) – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/PITCOREPOLAND/posts/-przeciek-z-wewn%C4%85trz-oni-sami-ju%C5%BC-wiedz%C4%85-%C5%BCe-to-si%C4%99-sypie-raport-wewn%C4%99trzny-1-syt/756748550446454/
[15] PIT – Prosecutor confirmed I was not a party… – Facebook
https://m.facebook.com/100083339470432/photos/737895408998435/?fpr=1
[17] ILE PSÓW JEST PRZETRZYMYWANYCH… – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/RuchLudziPrawaZwierzat/posts/ile-ps%C3%B3w-jest-przetrzymywanych-w-schroniskach-azylach-domach-tymczasowych-itd-bo/806812361908586/
[19] Ogłoszenia Olsztyn – Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ogloszenia24.olsztyn/posts/9957991920987883/