Dogpatch Press

People love a business run by and for their community. A place that knows you and welcomes your friends, run by people you trust, who answer your concerns.

Seattle’s Slightly Furry cultivated that look for their cider making brand, while reaping support like $73,000 in donations to their for-profit business. It lifted them above fandom by converting popularity into sales, getting their product in stores and bars, with mainstream news and festival prizes.

As Slightly Furry promoted being ambassadors for the furry fandom to the public, watchdogs started raising concerns about shady management that ignored community interest. Initial complaint emerged from ConStaffWatch on July 16, then was reported by professional investigator Naia Ōkami on August 3, after she was banned and censored for trying to engage them for questions. Dogpatch Press also sent questions on August 12, which were knowingly received with no answer, then published a report on August 22.

Facing a shocking story, dodging, then pushing ahead

The August 22 story featured activism against animal abusers and their secret presence in the community. The outstanding example was Adam Britton, a formerly respected zoologist exposed as a serial killer of pet dogs. Britton gained collaboration by networking with other zoophiles. Some emerged among Pacific Northwest furries. One was a co-owner of Slightly Furry, named K0mpy. Although Britton and K0mpy were not known to have direct interaction in the iceberg that spawned them, it’s beside the point. The point is, conscious networking between zoophiles at all raises demand for abuse, and it deserves a solution without conflict of interest. [Edited for clarity.]

Instead of addressing questions for the story, Slightly Furry posted a Code of Conduct for their followers at the time given for answers before publishing. The terms of it showed a bias to shrug off the networking as a “personal problem,” while punishing the sharing of evidence. Critics characterized it as a tactical PR move; they would play ambassadors when convenient, but sidestep when one of their owners was corrupt.

Meanwhile, in 2023, Slightly Furry had won a prize at Cider Swig Festival, an annual event with dozens of vendors. Assuming the problem was swept away, they were on track for more goodwill and sales with an advertised return to the September 2024 event.

Trouble behind the scenes, and wavering support, while direct action raised the pressure

The tactical PR move didn’t succeed in deflecting protest towards Slightly Furry. Many community members circulated bewares, while activists went beyond unproductive engagement to contact the Cider Swig festival, asking them to drop support. Soon, the direct action made impact.

The festival removed Slightly Furry from their channels, with proof from the sponsor:

This must have REALLY stirred things up and forced crisis management. And then… a reversal.

The festival resumed promoting them in the lineup. A few weeks later, Slightly Furry finally posted a response to the controversy, just before the festival. Like the Code of Conduct coincided with a publication deadline, the timing implies the reason was crisis management about public pressure to the festival.

Slightly Furry’s response.

Sep 25 – Breaking our silence

Hiya folks, we want to acknowledge the concerns raised within our community and have taken time to reflect, consult experts, and make decisions with the well-being of our members in mind and apologize for not responding sooner. While our personal relationships and feelings are deeply valid, we are committed to handling this situation objectively, ensuring that all decisions serve the best interest of our entire community.

Since July 1st, K0mpy has not been involved with Slightly Furry in any capacity, and there are no plans for future involvement. We are filing updates with the State of Washington to reflect the change in ownership which takes time to process and be reflected in public record.

Slightly Furry has always been, and continues to be, a space where harmful behaviors such as zoophilia, zoosadism, or any form of harm or exploitation have no place. We remain committed to maintaining spaces where all members of our community feel safe and respected. Our mission is to ensure the Slightly Furry community is inclusive, safe, and welcome to all. We are dedicated to continually improving our policies and practices to maintain this commitment. In situations where potential harm is raised, we will act swiftly and decisively, ensuring that the space remains a positive environment for all. We heard your feedback about our code of conduct and are working to simplify the wording and make it more accessible to all.

Slightly Furry moderates all spaces with community safety as our top priority. If any reports of harmful or dangerous behaviors are brought to our attention, we will take swift action, including removal from our virtual and in-person spaces, if necessary. We understand that rebuilding trust takes time, and we are committed to ongoing reflection and improvement to ensure our spaces remain inclusive, safe, and supportive. We welcome feedback and are open to continue conversations on how we can do better.

Take a moment to feel the reasonable goodwill, then let’s pull out a puzzling detail.

LAST MINUTE EDIT: THE ABOVE LINE WAS STEALTH-REMOVED FROM THEIR STATEMENT ON SEPT 28 – WHILE THIS STORY WAS ON TRACK TO PUBLISH AND THEY WERE AT THE FESTIVAL.

PROOF IT WAS THERE

Sounds legit, but… July 1?

Separation from K0mpy on July 1 (with no reason given) would be weeks before ANYONE said ANYTHING, when initial complaints rose on July 16.

If July 1 was true timing, it makes grudging response hard to explain as a need to wait for legal clearance to say K0mpy was already gone. They could have headed off controversy by mentioning his separation at any step between multiple sources of concerns for many weeks, instead of publishing a sketchy Code of Conduct for PR while dodging questions. There has been no formal correction sent in response to reporting that K0mpy was an owner in August. Think hard about why the festival dropped support in September, and what had to be done to get it back.

Why back-date to July 1? One reason: “he’s not fired, he quit”. Face-saving PR mitigates dispute between owners, but without transparency there could have been. That lowers credibility, because is it really cutting ties or just on paper? Maintaining quiet partnership may be a familiar problem to long-time watchers.

Hold on, this isn’t just one reason to be skeptical. There’s also this, and the next part:

The good, the bad and the ugly

The Good: Activists won a statement that promises one thing they most wanted; deplatforming one shady person from some of their community influence. (UPDATE: Slightly Furry’s stealth edit leaves this up to them to further explain – if they answered questions!)

The Bad: K0mpy runs a kink events production company too. This was just one individual while a network remains in the community, with more ties than reported. Yes, there are alleged actual victims here… and a lot that hasn’t been said yet.

Reference to K0mpy’s husband by a privately verified and protected source, who does NOT typically do callouts.

The most ugly result was exposing how some Slightly Furry supporters really don’t get what’s going on, and are too grudging to even try. They’d rather spread excuses and misinformation than sincerely address zoophile networking, while attachment to alcohol business gets priority and whistleblowers get backlash.

Attitude behind the PR

Here’s misinformation posted in the Slightly Furry chat group towards the previous Dogpatch Press report:

• 2015 tweets by K0mpy: The confession to consuming zoophile media isn’t a decade+ old.
• The strange claim that 2015 was “a different time”: That would be a very naive person’s idea of a long time ago. This reporter has been reporting since 2012, and been a furry since the early 1990’s. Ask what the time was like right here.
• Zoophilia always meant sexual interest in animals. Here’s a 1998 website for furries showing no different meaning then, specifically linking to abusers. Implying that it wasn’t a problem then — so it shouldn’t be now — compares to excusing someone who used to be into pedophilia.
• Calling photos “blurry”: Omits how they were directly posted by K0mpy’s husband with an unmistakeable “zoo pride” symbol this year.
• Reporting by Patch O’Furr is falsely attributed to Naia Ōkami. Naia wrote her own separate report on her own site, and has never posted here. The reporting on this site has the byline right under the headline. Apparently they didn’t even care to read it before backlashing.
• Out-of-context character attack at Naia, to discredit reporting she didn’t do: It deceptively frames things that Naia has addressed, such as her condemnation of Matt Walsh for an ambush she is being blamed for. The attack disrespects her queer identity and omits crediting work to remove abusers from the community because of caring about victims — actual, proven community service — not just priority on alcohol sales for cronies.

This isn’t just random misinformation from an onlooker, it’s a glimpse into private attitude behind the PR. The source posts about being part of Slightly Furry operations, at least delivering product for them and allowance to enforce their group policies. Using their group to excuse zoophilia, smear watchdogs, and spread misinformation about reporters is a bad way to show goodwill and trust for problem solving. (For a kicker, recall that they made a policy against reporting with the screenshot!)

Naia’s response, and ongoing concern

Naia Ōkami:

“I’m not impressed with Slightly Furry’s statement for a number of reasons. It seems very performative and an attempt to get their attendees to return in the midst of other financial problems they have been having. They were unwilling to engage with the original whistleblowers and instead, kept them banned from their taproom and “virtual spaces”. They are not interested in collaboration against abuse, transparency regarding their operations and dealings, or doing better and it shows by their actions of making a hollow apology to the community but refusing to even speak to the individuals who blew the whistle and were most effected by their actions. Furthermore, they kept their code of conduct regarding screenshots to punish future whistleblowers. The snake is simply shedding its skin.”

You can say: “They conceded with a statement and got rid of the shady manager, what else do people want?”

How about recognition that zoophile networking is bigger than isolated individuals, while the community deserves to cut ties with it, with leaders who give more than minimal and grudging effort forced by pressure and attended by backlash.

Followup to the previous article: 60 Minutes Australia features Adam Britton

As this piece publishes, 60 Minutes Australia is airing a TV episode about Britton’s crimes. This is intensely interesting for those following the case. Britton’s silent ex-wife was a subject of heated questions about protecting her role in his life. The show trailer shows her breaking silence for the first time to condemn him for ruining hers.

Now there’s major mainstream news about animal abusing over there. And a controversy about conflict of interest on the independent fan level over here.

What more evidence can be published about zoophile networking that connects these things?

It sure would be interesting if someone does it. Especially with the perspective of a human problem like abuse scandals emerging from churches, schools or Boy Scouts, and not just a problem for PR to save face.

Keep watching the news.

__________________________

In August, the questions sent to Slightly Furry aimed to discuss a human problem like abuse scandals emerging from churches, schools or Boy Scouts. They covered positive fandom success, and tried to probe the issues with zoophilia, with broad concern about responsibility of protection that goes with claims of ambassadorship and queer representation. Queer history includes internal organizing to deplatform abusers.

Much care was put into preparing to report, but there was no response except the PR to evade pressure. There is a lot of petty controversy online, and business benefits from PR, but that’s not a solution for abuse scandals where abusers benefit from coverup or lack of notice.

In Seattle, the problem in furry made only a few serious arrests for a network since 2017; it can’t be understated how serious it is to have uncaught members operating freely and even commanding influence now. 

For all the headache this may cause people tied up in it, the problem only gets worse by ignoring it. The headache of responding gets better by being pro-active: don’t do business with zoophiles. Don’t let them in your groups. If one tweeting confessions isn’t enough of a red flag, then maybe the problem is with the entire social circle that ignores it. You can not trust businesses or one-weekend cons to solve this. It’s for 24/7/365 decisions by everyone to draw a line.

Like the article? These take hard work. For more free furry news, follow on Twitter or support not-for-profit Dogpatch Press on Patreon.Want to get involved? Try these subreddits: r/furrydiscuss for news or r/waginheaven for the best of the community. Or send guest writing here. (Content Policy.)