A tale of goodwill between humane societies in Tucson and San Diego has devolved into into dark speculation about the fate of hundreds of small animals and threats of legal action.
It all started Aug. 7, when 318 small animals โ including guinea pigs, rats, hamsters and rabbits โ were transferred to the Humane Society of Southern Arizona from its counterpart in San Diego.
โIt was the largest single transfer of animals in our history,โ said Nina Thompson, a spokeswoman for the San Diego Humane Society. โThis was really something that we were hoping to celebrate.โ
Whatโs transpired since then has sparked a dispute over transparency and an online campaign pushing leaders here for a detailed accounting of what happened to the transferred animals.
The two organizations shared a good working relationship, so it was not unusual that the San Diego organization reached out to Tucson to help with overcrowding.
โWe reached out to them in early July,โ Thompson said about how the transfer was initiated. โWe have been over capacity with animals since about November of last year, so itโs not uncommon for shelters and rescues to communicate and ask what their capacity for animals are.โ
On that much, the two sides agree.
โWe were asked on July 10 by San Diego Humane to help find homes in AZ for 318 small animals that they had been unable to adopt for months,โ Steve Farley, head of Humane Society of Southern Arizona, told the Star in a Sept. 21 email. โWe agreed to look for rescues that could place them.โ
According to Thompson, the transfer of the animals to Tucson was with the explicit understanding that the animals would find safe, permanent placements through the local groupโs network of shelters and rescues.
โWhat we had been told by HSSA was that they were going to work with their rescue community, their rescue partners, plural, to place these animals.โ
Farley says they began looking almost immediately for a place to house the animals. By July 12, they found one. Only one.
โA family-funded, family-run non-501c3 rescue in a close-knit community that works with many families in their community to help animals stepped up to find homes for all 318.โ Farley said in the email. โHSSA has worked with them for more than a decade. They insist on no publicity because they do not want animals dumped at their door.โ
Thompson said she and others are dubious of Farleyโs scenario.
โThe plausibility of one single rescue placing so many animals in such a short period of time, it seems too good to be true,โ she said. โWeโre a huge organization, San Diego Humane Society, we canโt place that many animals in such a short period of time.
Both organizations confirm the transfer of the animals took place on August 7.
But as the weeks passed, questions arose in both San Diego and Tucson about the whereabouts and well-being of a significant portion of the animals.
โThe rescue community . . . they started asking questions saying, why havenโt there been any adoption events? Why arenโt there any postings about these pets on social media? Where did these pets go?,โ Thompson said.
On Aug. 30, SDHS issued a news release stating that the Tucson group placed nearly all the transferred animals into the care of a single, anonymous, private rescue.
โThey shared that 317 of the animals were placed with the local private rescue, while 1 rabbit was returned to HSSA for care due to ongoing ophthalmologic medical needs,โ the news release said.
That set off alarms for Thompson and others in San Diego.
On Sept. 8, the San Diego group issued another news release. This time, the group called on Tucson to provide full transparency regarding the whereabouts and well-being of the animals. And it questioned how a single rescue group was able to adopt out so many animals in so short a time.
Farley said in his email to the Star that the private rescue group had been looking for placement of the animals since it was first contacted, weeks before the actual transfer.
โThis rescue immediately began lining up adoptive homes on July 12,โ he said. โNearly four weeks later, they had most of the homes lined up when they received the animals on August 7. 256 animals had been placed by late August,โ Farleyโs email said.
Farley acknowledged, however, that the rescue ended up returning 62 animals to his agency over the Labor Day weekend. But even those animals found homes, he said.
โOver the course of one week, we placed 55 of those and we expect to find adoptive homes for those remaining within the next week once they are cleared by our caring veterinarians from minor eye infections,โ he said.
But according to San Diego physical therapist and animal advocate Dr. Kelly Paolisso, thatโs a disingenuous way of looking at those adoptions.
When she heard rumblings from others in San Diego about what had happened to the initial 318 animals sent to Tucson, she reached out to a San Diego-based hamster and Guinea pig rescue to come up with a rescue plan.
Eventually, she and three others drove to Tucson to adopt 24 of the animals.
โFour of us went out and adopted all the animals, kept them at somebodyโs house until it was cool and we could load them into my vehicle and I drove back that same day with the 24 animals and handed them over to the rescue here,โ she said.
Still, the controversy of what happened to about 250 other animals continued.
In its most recent news release on September 20, SDHS demanded an accounting of all the transferred animals. It insisted on getting contact information of the rescue groups Tucson worked with as well as documentation of each animalโs outcome.
It also threatened legal action if it did not receive the information by Sept. 25.
Farley defended defended his organizationโs actions.
He said in the email that his agency was fully transparent and that he would not be providing his San Diego colleagues any further adoption information than whatโs been shared.
โWe have not and will not provide info on the rescue because they requested privacy at the beginning, and they now fear for their safety due to threats they have read on the internet,โ he said.
But the pressure on Farley and his agency for a detailed accounting on the animals and criticism for how the transfer was handled also is coming from Tucson.
One petition on the website Change.org has been circulating since Sept. 11, calling for his removal from the Pima Animal Care Center Advisory Committee, citing, in part, the ongoing controversy. It collected more than 1,000 signatures.
Another petition, this one started Sept. 6, asks Farley to answer what happened to the 250 animals he says ended up at the private, family-run rescue. It had nearly 15,000 signatures as of publishing time.
