Three Things to Know
The authors attributed the annual loss of over 1.5 million animal lives in U.S. shelters to the legacy of the pound model, the historical foundation of the current system.
The authors highlighted the various shortfalls of the existing shelter system, including the treatment of free-roaming animals as hazards, a lack of oversight and transparency, the reliance on euthanasia as a solution, and economic disparities.
Recognizing the shelter system is grounded in capitalism, where animals are often commodified, the authors advocate for the complete abolition of the pound model. They argue for a fundamental rethinking of practices like caging and euthanizing animals.
The Full Picture
The U.S. sheltering system euthanizes or kills around 1.5 million animals (400,000 dogs) each year. External stressors, such as economic crises and the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbate the problem, leading to overcrowded shelters and increased euthanasia rates.
This paper, titled “Coming to Terms with the Legacies of the Pound Model in Animal Sheltering in the United States”, argues that the current sheltering system traces its roots to the “pound model” established in the 19th century. To deliver a humane, sustainable future for animal sheltering, the authors advocate for breaking from the pound model entirely by identifying and addressing the problematic legacies of the pound model.
What is The Pound Model?
The “pound model” is a historical approach to animal welfare that prioritizes controlling free-roaming animals through strict regulations, containment, and often, euthanasia.
Emerging in the late 19th century, this model was shaped by two key factors: municipal efforts to regulate both human and animal populations, and the growing animal protection movement. Initially, municipal pounds focused on public safety, capturing and killing stray animals, particularly driven by fears of rabies. Other concerns, like urban cleanliness, further fueled this approach.
Over time, animal protectionists advocated for more humane treatment of animals, pushing for reforms that prioritized rehoming and more humane euthanasia methods. However, the core principles of the pound model — public safety, property rights, and population control — have persisted, influencing animal shelters and welfare policies in the U.S. to this day. Many U.S. animal shelters, including government-funded facilities, non-profit humane societies, and private organizations, are rooted in this historical framework.
Challenging the Pound Model
Treating Free-Roaming Animals As Public Hazards
The pound model, in combination with state laws, continue to shape animal welfare policies, often framing free-roaming animals as threats to public safety. Stray dogs entering the pound are classified based on ownership status. Licensing and microchipping influence their stay in shelters, with shorter hold periods for unlicensed animals. And since stray animals disproportionately come from economically disadvantaged communities, such policies perpetuate inequalities in how animal control policies are applied.
Lacking Supervision and Blocking Changes through Hierarchy
Hierarchical leadership structures, similar to those in police departments, often hinder progress in government shelters. Without advisory committees or oversight, these shelters lack accountability, perpetuating outdated practices. Local regulations further restrict their ability to implement humane solutions, especially during crises like overcrowding or public safety concerns. This often leads to increased euthanasia as a solution.
Using Animal Welfare Models As Narrative for Euthanasia
Shelters often misuse the Five Freedoms and Five Domains to justify killing animals. These frameworks, originally designed for industrial agriculture, prioritize avoiding negative conditions rather than affirming the right to life. For instance, shelters may euthanize animals due to lack of space or treatable medical conditions, framing death as a “humane” solution.
Capacity for Care (C4C) is another problematic approach. While aiming to balance intake and outcomes, it can prioritize population control over individual animal welfare. The “anti-warehousing” argument, often used to justify euthanasia, overlooks the potential for providing suitable care in shelters.
Maintaining An Outdated Overpopulation Narrative
The outdated idea of companion animal overpopulation, rooted in the early days of animal shelters, continues to fuel euthanasia. While overpopulation exists in certain regions, it’s not a nationwide issue. The real problem lies in the logistical challenges of redistributing animals between areas of surplus and demand.
Shelter practices, such as restrictive adoption policies, limited public access, and poor online visibility, further hinder rehoming efforts. Breeders often have a significant advantage in the competitive market due to their effective online presence. To improve animal outcomes, shelters must adopt more flexible adoption policies, increase public outreach, and enhance their digital presence.
Acting with Invisibility and Lack of Transparency
The legacy of the pound model continues to influence animal shelters, prioritizing secrecy over transparency. This systemic opacity, often manifested in shelter design and practices, limits public awareness of shelter operations, particularly euthanasia.
Mid-20th-century shelter designs aimed to conceal animal disposal. Influenced by historical beliefs about the corrupting influence of witnessing animal death, shelters were built in remote locations with hidden areas for euthanasia and body disposal. This model persists today, with gated “sally ports” concealing the unloading of impounded animals, non-public kennels for animals awaiting euthanasia or treatment, and the segregation of animals by intake type, limiting public visibility.
Beyond physical design, shelters often obscure information about their operations. Reduced visiting hours since the COVID-19 pandemic further limited public visibility. Not all animals are listed online or available for adoption, and obtaining information about shelter policies or individual animal records often requires formal requests.
This deliberate invisibility perpetuates a system where public accountability is minimized. Lack of transparency discourages community involvement and advocacy. Shelters risk alienating the public by failing to provide clear information. This concealment hinders dialogue about alternative solutions like improved adoption programs and inter-regional animal relocation.
The Economics of Animal Sheltering
Animal shelters are deeply intertwined with broader economic and social systems. Originating from the pound model, they manage displaced animals while perpetuating societal inequities. Capitalist practices like urban development and housing discrimination contribute to animal displacement, with shelters serving as a hidden outlet for these animals.
Shelters operate within a system that commodifies animals. Those deemed “valuable,” such as young, healthy, or purebred animals, are more likely to survive. Open-admission shelters, burdened with managing and often euthanizing animals that could not be adopted, reflect this commodified view.
The financial burden of shelter systems disproportionately affects marginalized communities. Fees for impoundment, licensing, and spay/neuter procedures can be prohibitive, leading to the separation of animals and their guardians. In cases of alleged neglect or unrelated legal charges, civil forfeiture policies allow shelters to impose steep care fees on guardians who wish to retain custody of their animals.
Funding disparities among shelters perpetuate inequities. Shelters in affluent communities often receive substantial philanthropic support and government funding, while those in lower-income communities struggle with limited resources. This leads to disparities in care, with animals in well-funded shelters experiencing better conditions and outcomes.
Addressing these inequities requires increased investment in underfunded shelters, improved community outreach, and policies that promote equity in shelter resources and outcomes. Recognizing the systemic nature of these issues is crucial for creating a more humane and equitable sheltering system.
Conclusion
The legacy of the pound model continues to influence animal sheltering in the United States through four primary aspects. First, even with significant reductions in euthanasia rates, most public animal shelters still view killing as an inherent part of companion animal welfare. Second, contemporary public shelters, like pounds of the past, often conceal euthanasia practices from the public. Third, the reliance on confinement and caging persists, with poor conditions of confinement sometimes used as justification for euthanasia. Finally, the localized pound model, funded primarily through local taxes and fees, perpetuates wealth disparities across communities — a pattern that continues today.
While U.S. animal shelters have made progress in recent decades, the underlying pound model persists. This model prioritizes separation, confinement, and euthanasia, reflecting historical intolerance for free-roaming animals.Instead of investing in community-centered approaches that foster human-animal connection, the system often resorts to mass euthanasia.
By prioritizing the interests of animals and challenging the property-based framework, we can envision a future where impoundment and euthanasia are no longer the norm. This requires learning from alternative models as well as a paradigm shift towards multispecies democracy, valuing the well-being of both humans and animals.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
–
Year of Publication:
2024
External Link:
Guenther KM, Hassen K. Coming to Terms with the Legacies of the Pound Model in Animal Sheltering in the United States. Animals. 2024; 14(9):1254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091254