Case Study: Humane Society of Southern Arizona’s Medical Transfer Sparks Outrage

When a $9 Million Shelter Budget Fails Its Most Vulnerable Animals

A viral email exchange has ignited a firestorm within the animal welfare community, exposing systemic failures at the Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA). The controversy began when Angeline Fahey, HSSA’s Lifesaving Outcomes Manager, reached out to Little Lotus Rescue & Sanctuary, a small nonprofit in Cochise County, asking for help with a medically complex cat named Peaches.

HSSA, a well-funded organization boasting nearly $9 million in annual revenue, claimed it lacked the resources to care for Peaches—despite having on-site veterinary staff and a fully equipped hospital. The request laid bare the troubling trend of large, well-resourced shelters shifting their responsibilities onto smaller, underfunded rescues.

Adding to the controversy is the revelation that Fahey’s position is funded by Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS), a national organization that has been widely criticized for prioritizing live-release statistics over meaningful animal welfare outcomes.

Originally, the $100,000 BFAS grant was intended to help HSSA implement pathway planning—a practice designed to move animals more efficiently through the shelter system into adoptive homes. The grant funded the Lifesaving Outcomes Coordinator role to fast-track highly adoptable pets, rebuild relationships with local rescues, and incentivize the transfer of harder-to-place animals to rescue groups.

However, rather than ensuring animals were placed in appropriate homes or receiving necessary care, the role appears to have devolved into a mechanism for simply removing animals from the shelter—regardless of the outcome. This shift raises serious concerns that HSSA’s actions are driven more by financial and statistical incentives than ethical responsibility, apparently prioritizing numbers over the welfare of the animals themselves.

Peaches, a sweet cat suffering from Manx syndrome, has become emblematic of the disparity between large organizations with significant resources and smaller rescues struggling to make ends meet.

The Viral Exchange

Peaches, a sweet cat suffering from Sacrocaudal Dysgenesis (Manx syndrome), faces lifelong urinary and fecal incontinence. In her email, Fahey framed the transfer request as an effort to give Peaches a better chance at adoption, despite HSSA’s extensive resources.

Sandy McPadden, Director of Little Lotus Rescue & Sanctuary, pushed back. “It’s incredibly disheartening that an organization like HSSA, with nearly $9 million in revenue, would reach out to a small nonprofit like ours for medical cases,” McPadden wrote. “You have on-site veterinary staff and a fully equipped hospital. Asking us to take on your responsibility is unacceptable.”

McPadden’s response resonated across the animal welfare community, shining a light on the growing disparity between large organizations with substantial funding and smaller rescues struggling to make ends meet.

"When the rich rob the poor, it’s called business. When the poor fight back, it’s called violence." - Mark Twain

Systemic Issues Exposed

This exchange is emblematic of broader challenges in resource management and accountability within animal welfare organizations. HSSA’s decision to offload medical cases raises critical questions:

1. Resource Allocation: Why would an organization with substantial resources fail to provide adequate care for animals like Peaches? The reliance on smaller rescues suggests not just inefficiency or mismanagement but a shift in priorities—favoring public perception over genuine animal welfare.

2. Ethical Responsibility: Should larger organizations be held accountable for genuinely supporting smaller rescues rather than offloading their most challenging cases? The grant funding the Lifesaving Outcomes Coordinator was intended to help “fast-track” highly adoptable pets while strengthening relationships with the local rescue community and providing incentives for rescuing harder-to-place animals. However, if HSSA is merely using this framework to shift responsibility rather than actively investing in the welfare of these animals, it raises serious ethical concerns. McPadden’s response underscores the obligation of well-funded organizations to lead by example—not just rhetoric.

3. Transparency: The lack of clear documentation regarding HSSA’s handling of medical cases and its broader practices has fueled skepticism about its commitment to animal welfare.

4. Influence of Best Friends Animal Society: BFAS has been widely criticized for prioritizing live-release rates over animal welfare outcomes, often pushing shelters to offload difficult cases or adopt controversial practices. The fact that Fahey’s position is funded by BFAS to “fast track” animals raises concerns about whether their policies are pressuring HSSA to make decisions that look good on paper but fail to serve the best interests of the animals.

A Pattern of Failures

This is not an isolated incident. HSSA has faced mounting scrutiny over its handling of vulnerable animals, with past decisions raising questions about transparency, accountability, and the overarching influence of BFAS. Among the most alarming cases:

• Small Animal Transfers: In a widely criticized incident, 323 small animals transferred from San Diego Humane Society to HSSA were ultimately sent to a reptile farm for use as feed—a horrifying outcome that highlights systemic failures in oversight.

• Community Cat Releases: Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels stated that Animal Control Officers, in coordination with HSSA management—including a BFAS-embedded employee— “orchestrated a designed plan” to release hundreds of adoptable cats into the unforgiving Arizona environment, where they faced extreme weather and predators.

• LA Fire Rescue Dogs: HSSA and Pima Animal Care Center took in 73 dogs displaced by Los Angeles wildfires—mostly unaltered pit bulls, huskies, and large mixed breeds. BFAS fundraised heavily on the transport, yet there is no transparency on whether these dogs were adopted, euthanized, or warehoused at remote sanctuaries.

These actions occurred under the obfuscating terms of “fast track” and “community animal” programs, raising concerns that large-scale transfers and releases were driven more by a desire to manipulate live-release statistics than by a commitment to positive welfare outcomes for the animals.

The Influence of Best Friends Animal Society

BFAS has long been accused of pressuring shelters to prioritize high live-release rates at any cost. Its funding and policy influence often lead to questionable practices, including the deflection of difficult cases onto smaller, unprepared rescues or into situations where animals face uncertain fates.

Fahey’s BFAS-funded position at HSSA raises significant concerns. Was her decision to offload Peaches influenced by BFAS’ overarching goal of maintaining favorable statistics? If so, this exemplifies a growing issue in which shelters prioritize optics over ethics—leaving medically complex animals like Peaches to fall through the cracks.

Implications for Animal Welfare

The Peaches case and HSSA’s past failures expose systemic issues requiring urgent reform:

• Accountability: Large organizations must be held accountable, especially when misallocating resources or violating grant requirements.

• Resource Optimization: How can a $9 million organization accepting a BFAS grant—mandating support for delegated responsibilities—shift burdens to smaller rescues without support?

• Transparency: Shelters must document and report on the fate of transferred animals to ensure ethical, appropriate care.

• Ethical Partnerships: Instead of offloading responsibilities, large shelters should provide financial and logistical support to rescues they depend on.

• BFAS’ Influence: Policies prioritizing high live release rates over humane outcomes must be scrutinized to prevent further harm to vulnerable animals.

A Call to Action

Animal advocates, donors, and policymakers must demand greater accountability from shelters like HSSA. The reliance on rescues like Little Lotus is not a sustainable or ethical model—especially when these smaller organizations lack the funding, staff, and infrastructure of multimillion-dollar institutions.

HSSA and similar organizations must be transparent about their decision-making processes and ensure that every animal receives the level of care that their funding and resources should easily provide. Meanwhile, the broader influence of BFAS on shelter policies warrants deeper scrutiny. Are shelters making decisions based on what’s best for animals—or what’s best for their statistics?

Peaches’ case exposes a broken system. Large, well-funded shelters must step up—not step aside—in protecting the animals entrusted to them.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.

Stay Informed

For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.