Disaster Relief or Family Separation? The Troubling Reality of Pet Relocation During Natural Disasters

Are We Saving Lives or Separating Families? A Deep Dive Into the Ethics of Animal Transfers During Natural Disasters and the Need for Transparency

When wildfires swept through Los Angeles County, displacing thousands of families and their pets, Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) faced a critical test. Charged with the care and reunification of lost pets under the city’s Small Animal Support Appendix, LAAS instead partnered with organizations like Wings of Rescue and Best Friends Animal Society to relocate over 150 shelter animals to Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas.

While framed as a compassionate effort to free up space for displaced pets, the decision has sparked criticism from animal welfare advocates who argue it may have prioritized expediency over best practices—potentially leaving countless families without their pets.

From Wildfires to Uncertainty: Pets Uprooted in the Name of Rescue—But at What Cost?

A Failure to Follow Protocols: The Small Animal Support Appendix

Central to this controversy is LAAS’ apparent failure to adhere to the Small Animal Support Appendix, a component of the City of Los Angeles’ Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Approved in June 2021, this document outlines specific responsibilities for LAAS, including:

• Temporary Emergency Shelters: Establishing co-located shelters for pets and their owners whenever possible.

• Registration and Tracking: Scanning microchips, photographing animals, and maintaining accurate records for reunification.

• Public Information Campaigns: Informing displaced pet owners about shelter locations and procedures for reclaiming their animals.

• Reunification Efforts: Ensuring that lost pets are returned to their families as a primary goal.

Designed to align with the federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act and FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Policy 9523.19, these measures emphasize inter-agency coordination and transparency as essential components of effective disaster response.

Despite these directives, LAAS’ response during the wildfire crisis raised several concerns:

• Delayed Reunification Efforts: Reports suggest that some animals were not properly scanned or photographed upon intake, making it difficult for owners to locate missing pets.

• Limited Public Outreach: Pet owners reported a lack of clear information on shelter locations and retrieval procedures.

• Underutilization of Temporary Shelters: Rather than maximizing the use of local emergency shelters, LAAS opted to transfer animals out of state.

These issues highlight potential lapses in disaster preparedness and response execution, prompting calls for greater oversight.

Relocation vs. Reunification: Scrutinizing the Justification

LAAS has defended its decision, stating that transferring adoptable pets made room for incoming displaced animals. However, critics argue that relocating animals—especially without robust tracking—may have resulted in unnecessary family separations. The Small Animal Support Appendix explicitly prioritizes keeping pets within local temporary shelters whenever possible to facilitate reunification.

Furthermore, the selection of Dallas-Fort Worth, a region already struggling with pet overpopulation, as a destination has raised concerns. Critics suggest that if relocation was necessary, sending pets to northern-tier states with adoption shortages might have been a more effective strategy.

“This decision raises serious questions about whether LAAS prioritized convenience over animal welfare,” said one advocate. “More transparency is needed to determine if these relocations truly benefited the animals.”

Additionally, LAAS has provided limited public documentation on how relocation decisions were made, how animals were tracked, or what follow-up measures were taken to ensure their safety post-transfer. Without clear records, it is difficult to assess the full impact of these actions.

The Ethics of Disaster Fundraising

Adding to the controversy are concerns that Best Friends Animal Society may have leveraged the wildfire crisis for fundraising efforts. Some critics argue that fundraising appeals during the disaster lacked transparency, raising questions about how donations were allocated and whether funds directly benefited affected animals.

“People donate during disasters because they want to help,” said a longtime supporter. “But when organizations make broad fundraising appeals without clear accountability, it can feel misleading.”

Given Best Friends' troubled partnership with LAAS, advocates have called for an independent review to ensure that funds raised during emergencies are used effectively and align with stated reunification goals.

The Missing Audit: Where Are the Answers?

In June 2024, Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia announced an audit of LAAS following years of public concern over its operations. The audit was expected to shed light on systemic challenges, including disaster response strategies. However, eight months later, no findings have been publicly released. The delay has only deepened public skepticism.

“The public deserves answers,” said one advocate. “We need to know why these decisions were made and whether they truly served the best interests of the animals and their families.”

Advocates are urging city leaders to expedite the release of the audit findings and launch an independent investigation into LAAS’ handling of recent disasters.

A Call for Transparency and Reform

This controversy underscores the need for greater oversight in disaster response efforts. Advocates are now calling for:

1. An Independent Audit: To examine whether LAAS adhered to emergency protocols and whether partner organizations used fundraising responsibly.

2. Improved Reunification Efforts: Strengthening microchip scanning, public outreach campaigns, and the use of temporary shelters co-located with human evacuation centers.

3. Ethical Relocation Practices: Ensuring that future transfers prioritize regions with adoption demand rather than areas already facing pet overpopulation.

4. Increased Transparency: Requiring organizations involved in disaster response to publicly disclose outcomes for relocated animals and fundraising allocations.

Conclusion

Natural disasters test our ability to act swiftly and ethically. While relocating shelter animals may be necessary in certain situations, it must be done with transparency and a firm commitment to reunification efforts. The concerns surrounding LAAS’ wildfire response highlight the importance of clear protocols, public accountability, and ethical disaster management.

For now, the key question remains: Were these relocations truly about saving lives—or were they a response to outside pressures?

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.