Contemporary Justice Review
Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice

ISSN: 1028-2580 (Print) 1477-2248 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcjr20

Give me shelter: the state of animal sheltering in
Kentucky’s county shelter system
Jennifer B. Sinski & Patricia Gagné
To cite this article: Jennifer B. Sinski & Patricia Gagné (2016) Give me shelter: the state of
animal sheltering in Kentucky’s county shelter system, Contemporary Justice Review, 19:2,
250-266, DOI: 10.1080/10282580.2016.1169706
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2016.1169706

Published online: 24 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 143

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcjr20
Download by: [Bellarmine University]

Date: 30 January 2017, At: 12:13

 Contemporary Justice Review, 2016
VOL. 19, NO. 2, 250–266
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2016.1169706

Give me shelter: the state of animal sheltering in Kentucky’s
county shelter system
Jennifer B. Sinski and Patricia Gagné
Department of Sociology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY

ABSTRACT

The Commonwealth of Kentucky Animal Control and Advisory
Board estimates that in 2012, approximately 285,000 dogs and cats
entered the shelter system, but only 15% were retrieved by owners or
adopted to a new home. While some shelters incorporate adoption,
fostering, and low-cost spay and neuter programs, many shelters
euthanize the majority of the animals that enter the shelter system.
In an effort to address severe deficiencies within the shelter system,
Kentucky passed the Humane Shelter Law which defined minimum
care and facility standards for animals held in shelters, along with
required data collection. The law also placed responsibility with the
individual county governments for oversight and implementation of
these requirements. This paper presents the background and history
of the state policy regarding animal shelters followed by results from
a study of the county animal shelters in Kentucky. Results from the
study suggest that numerous problems with data collection and
maintenance exist throughout Kentucky and that levels of care vary
widely for animals in the system. We discuss these issues before
making recommendations for improvement to this system and
its oversight. Our research suggests that with proper funding and
oversight, Kentucky’s statute could become a model for humane
animal sheltering.

Received 2 July 2014
Accepted 26 January 2015
KEYWORDS

Companion animals; animal
shelter policy; euthanasia;
fostering; adoption; data
collection

Introduction
Companion animals are an important part of the American family life with over 60% of
families owning pets, meaning that approximately 78.2 million dogs and 86.4 million cats
live in homes (Industry Statistics & Trends, 2011). According to the American Pet Products
Manufacturers Association, Americans spent $53.33 billion dollars in 2012 on pet supplies
(Industry Statistics & Trends, 2011). Companion animals are often described as members of
the family, sharing in familial rituals like birthday parties and holiday gift-giving (Holak, 2008;
Irvine, 2004; Sanders, 2003). They serve as work partners and therapists in the capacity of
guide dogs, seizure alert companions, and emotional support partners. Not only do

CONTACT  Jennifer B. Sinski 

Jbsins01@louisville.edu

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 251

companion animals share our lives and hearts, many people are deeply concerned with
unwanted and abused companion animals. Frank (2007) found that 20% of Americans
donated to animal welfare organizations and animal protection advocacy groups. It is evident
that companion animals are very much a part of the US social world.
Despite the deep and enduring connections that companion animals provide, unwanted
healthy and adoptable companion animals are euthanized in shelters across the country.
Commonly referred to as the problem of pet overpopulation, lost or unwanted companion animals are housed in animal sheltering organizations. Scarlett (2004) estimated that between four
and six million dogs and cats were euthanized yearly; other researchers place the figure much
higher, at about 18 million dogs and cats euthanized per year in the United States (Morris &
Zawistowski, 2004). While euthanasia rates have been decreasing over time, down from over
20 million dogs and cats during the 1970s (Voith, 2009), the number still remains high. The United
States spends approximately one billion dollars annually to impound, house, and euthanize
companion animals (Companion Animals & Chicago Communities: A Strategic Assessment for
the city of Chicago, 2010). Needs assessments performed by animal welfare organizations indicate
a dire need for more financial support to fund programs and services that would work to reduce
euthanasia rates (Scarlett, 2004, 2008).
Due to the organizational structure of the sheltering industry, it remains difficult to find
firm data regarding the number of animal sheltering and control organizations in the United
States. Shelters are operated by local, county, and state governments, non-profit animal
welfare organizations, and partnerships among such entities. Estimates suggest that between
4200 and 5000 animal shelters exist throughout the United States (Guidelines for Animal
Sheltering, 2010; Miller, 2007; Morris & Zawistowski, 2004; Rowan, 2006; Scarlett, 2004). Data
on the animals held in shelters is difficult to obtain (Frank, 2007). Statistical information
about the companion animals held in shelters is based on estimates, as very few studies
have been done on the population of companion animals held in shelters (Guidelines for
Animal Sheltering, 2010; Kass, 2001; Marsh, 2009; Scarlett, 2004; Winograd, 2007).
Given the large number of animals cared for in these facilities and the large number of
dollars necessary to provide this care, surprisingly few studies have been done on animal
care and sheltering in the United States (Arluke, 2002). In 1994, the National Council on Pet
Population Study surveyed animal shelters throughout the United States to determine statistics on animals cared for in these facilities. Much of the research published to date on the
data surrounding animal sheltering utilizes the NCPPS database (Kass, 2001; Scarlett, 2004;
The Shelter Statistics Survey, 2001). Smaller state and county surveys of animal shelters have
been performed more recently (Hamilton, 2010).
Collecting data from animal shelters remains difficult for a number of reasons. First, these
organizations are operated by counties, local governments, non-profit organizations, or
publicly funded shelters contracted with other state shelters or non-profit organizations to
provide services (Miller, 2007; Morris & Zawistowski, 2004) and do not report to any overarching regulatory body. Second, animal shelters follow different policies regarding the care
of the animals held there. Third, definitions of what constitutes a healthy pet, an unadoptable
pet, and an adoptable pet are different among these organizations, making data collection
and comparison very difficult (Guidelines for Animal Sheltering, 2010; Marsh, 2009; The
Guiding Princpals of the Asilomar Accords, 2004).
Given that this heterogeneous and fractious industry is not regulated or licensed by any overarching organization, animal sheltering regulations vary widely between and within states. While

 252 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

other animal care organizations, such as zoos or science labs, must follow rigorous regulation by
both federal and state governmental agencies, sheltering organizations do not have such requirements or oversight. Eighteen states require animal shelters to be licensed or registered, and a
minimal number of states have designated advisory boards including Kentucky. These laws often
do not include enforcement of the regulations or do so on a piecemeal basis (Newbury et al.,
2010). While some states may identify specific information to be kept on each animal and the
period of time that the information must be kept at the shelter, only nine states require that the
information be distributed to a state-level official and made publically available to citizens. Of
these nine, not all require that shelters, both public and private non-profit, report their data for
publication. As pressure from constituents increases, more local and state governments are considering implementing recordkeeping and data reporting regulations. For example, Florida
recently passed SB 0674 requiring all animal shelters to gather and disseminate to the public
specific pieces of data which must be published monthly beginning July 2013 (Animal Shelters
& Animal Control Agencies, 2013).
As science focuses on defining the difference between humans and non-human animals,
the divide between nature and culture continues to shrink. Recent research indicates that
common markers used to set humans apart from animals, such as use of tools, empathy,
fairness, and language, can no longer be taken for granted. In conjunction with advancing
science, companion animals have become members of our families, sharing in familial rituals
like birthday parties and holiday gift-giving (Holak, 2008; Irvine, 2004; Sanders, 2003). Over
60% of families in the United States keep companion animals in their homes, and they spend
over $53 billion on care for them (Industry Statistics & Trends, 2011).
This growing focus on companion animals represents a paradigm shift in attitudes, from
animals as objects to subjects. Companion animals, or pets, are defined differently from wild
animals. Allowed in our homes, pets are given names and never eaten (Serpell, 2009). Pet
owners or guardians describe companion animals as family members and treat them as
children or infants. Furthermore, much of a domesticated animal’s appeal comes from the
neonate qualities they have developed over time (Serpell, 2002). Companion animals are
valued for their emotional support rather than their individual economic value or working
value the way that livestock are valued (Blouin, 2013).
While many Americans value their companion animals and treat them like members of
the family and individual subjects, others view pets as either workers or objects that provide
service to their owners (Blouin, 2013; Greenebaum, 2004; Sanders, 2003). Unfortunately,
some owners combine both subject and object view by petting and cuddling with them as
puppies and then relinquishing them to shelters when cute puppy behaviors become annoying as adults (Irvine, 2002). These differences in owner attitudes toward companion animals
have been associated with cultural variations, biographical, and demographic factors like
race, gender, family structure, and socioeconomic status (Brown, 2002; Brown & Katcher,
2001; Campbell, 2013; Podberscek, 1997). While research has been conducted connecting
varying attitudes toward animals to various attributes, this does little to explain how to deal
with the ambiguous attitudes toward animals held by the US pet owners. This places pets
in danger of being treated like objects that may be abused or thrown away after the initial
attraction has worn off.
Similar ambiguous attitudes toward companion animals are reflected within our legal
system. Companion animals are treated by the law as chattel or personal property in most
cases, and despite the fact that some courts have acknowledged the familial aspect of pets,

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 253

they represent only market value. Damages recoverable by pet owners when a family pet
has been intentionally harmed are limited to the market value of the animal (Root, 2002;
Tiemessen & Weiner, 2004). Recently, one court noted that ‘it would be wrong not to acknowledge the companionship’ provided by pets when calculating damages that can be awarded
from wrongful death, but did not allow for damages for emotional distress related to the
loss of the pet (Gluckman v. American Airlines, 1994; SquiresLee, 1995).
This is the crux of conflicting attitudes toward policy in animal sheltering organizations.
While significant support exists for implementing policies that commit resources to work
toward reducing or eliminating euthanasia, support continues for euthanasia as the front
line tool to deal with the large number of companion animals entering the shelter system
daily. The paradigm shift regarding the divide between humans and non-human animals
combined with the divide between attitudes toward companion animals as objects, subjects, or both along with the heterogeneous and fractious nature of the animal sheltering
organizations creates an extraordinarily difficult terrain to establish policy. Given that the
policy debate is ultimately rooted in terminating animal lives and the divide between
animal as subject or object, human emotions and emotional language make compromise
unlikely.

Kentucky policy
The Commonwealth of Kentucky estimates that approximately 285,000 dogs and cats enter
the shelter system with only 15% achieving new homes (Kentucky Animal Control Advisory
Board, 2009). Only four shelters in Kentucky have published data on the population of companion animals housed. In 2010, the Louisville Metro Animal Service department received
14,149 animals. They adopted 17% (2147), returned 9% (1140) to owners, transferred 16%
(2193) to other organizations, and euthanized 57% (Brammell, Hankins, Little, Norman,
Wallace, & Woosley, 2011). Grant County Animal Shelter reported in 2009 that they accepted
1748 dogs and cats, adopted 804 (46%) of these, transferred 235 (13%) animals to organizations within the community, 115 outside the community, returned 92 (5%) to their owners,
and euthanized 162 (9%) (Grant County Animal Shelter, 2009). Shelby County Animal Services
have identified themselves as adhering to the No Kill philosophy and have not euthanized
any of their average 900 per year animals in the past year due to space concerns (Moss, 2010).
Kentucky maintains state laws with statutes regarding animal control provisions, vaccinations, licensing, and dog bites. Prior to 2004, no alterations or amendments to the original
1954 statute had been made. Legislators in Kentucky began to hear from organizations
regarding the state of Kentucky’s shelter system. In 1996, the Trixie Foundation, an organization led by the director of an eastern Kentucky No-Kill Shelter, launched a statewide campaign to lobby officials to force counties to comply with animal control laws. The 1954
statutes required each county to operate a dog pound supervised by an elected dog warden.
The Trixie Foundation alleged that 30 counties in Kentucky had neither pound facility nor
elected dog warden. The campaign lasted for several years and worked to bring increasing
attention to the poor conditions companion animals faced in some counties (Press, 1996).
In 1998, Senator Barry Metcalf (R-Richmond) introduced a bill to create an advisory board
funded from taxes charged on pet food (Meltzer, 1998). Although the bill received support,
it was ultimately defeated in the House. In the following years, more allegations about poor

 254 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

conditions in counties began to surface, among them that county employees were utilizing
a gunshot to the head to euthanize animals.
In 2002, Kentucky’s shelter system received national attention. A shelter volunteer videotaped
a Henry County Shelter employee shooting dogs designated for euthanasia. The videotape also
showed dogs piled into a pit, bleeding from gunshots, and howling in pain. The video was picked
up by a national broadcast organization (Schreiner, 2004). Despite the evidence presented in the
case, Henry County Attorney Virginia Harrod elected to not prosecute the employee, on the basis
that gunshots to the head to euthanize pound animals were legal in Kentucky (Press, 2002). In
response to the massive public outcry over the disturbing images, Commisioner Billy Smith,
called for lawmakers to craft legislation to address problems in the shelter system (Schreiner,
2004; Wolfe, 2002). Significant changes to the statutes were made in 2004 from House Bill 336
and House Bill 348. These revised statutes are contained in KRS §258.005–.991(Kentucky, 2004a).
As a result of the amendments, the Commissioner of Agriculture no longer has regulatory power
over county shelters. The new laws referred to as the Humane Shelter Laws, define minimum
care standards but fail to provide an enforcement mechanism. The changes reflected new euthanasia requirements, minimum shelter facility requirements, and required specific data collection
by shelters on the animals in their care (Kentucky, 2004a). Kentucky also legislated in KRS §258.
l17 that the Animal Control and Advisory Board (ACAB) be created, a group of 12 individuals
appointed by the governor to serve for four years. The statute describes the board as ‘created for
the purposes of evaluating applications for and reviewing disbursements from the animal control
and care fund, creating training programs, and other duties relating to animal control and care
in the counties of the Commonwealth’ (Kentucky, 2004a). Under the supervision of the Kentucky
Department of Agriculture, the board works to advise and train county and city animal shelter
employees and distributes funds collected from the Animal Care and Control Fund set up by the
State Treasury. Shelters were given three years to meet minimum standards and were encouraged
to apply for grants provided by the ACAB. Kentucky tasked the newly created ACAB to assist
counties with the training necessary to update facilities so they would come into compliance
within the three-year period. The ACAB maintains control of the Animal Care Fund, maintained
by the state treasury from fees from licensing and private donations.
The Humane Shelter Law clearly prescribed minimum animal sheltering requirements in
Kentucky. Sheltering facilities were defined as ‘any facility used to house or contain animals,
operated or maintained by a governmental body, incorporated humane society, animal
welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization’ (Kentucky, 2004a). The law also outlined minimum care standards for animals and
the structures used to house them. Shelters were also required to maintain records for two
years, collecting the date the animal was impounded; location found or picked up; sex of
animal and spay or neuter status, if known; breed or description, and color; and date
reclaimed, adopted, or euthanized (Kentucky, 2004a). While the shelters within the State of
Kentucky were given three years to update facilities and practice, the law required them to
fully implement the requirements by July 2007. In August 2008, citizens in Robertson County
Kentucky sued their County for maintaining insufficient facilities to house animals as outlined
by the minimum requirements in the Kentucky Humane Shelter Law. They also noted that
the dog warden continued to euthanize animals by gunshot to the head (Penrod v. Robertson
County, 2008). The Circuit Court for the eighteenth Judicial Circuit ruled that Robertson
County must have a new and modern facility built within one year to address all requirements
in the KRS §258. A similar suit was filed in Estill County. In December 2009 a settlement was

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 255

reached whereby Estill County would undertake critical changes in the care and housing of
the animals in its care (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2010). Change continues in Kentucky’s
120 county and local government shelters today. ACAB member Beckey Reiter stated in an
interview regarding the problems in Robertson, Estill, and other counties in Kentucky that
change is an ongoing process. Reiter noted that the advisory board maintains a fund of
$3000,000 to disburse among counties for new animal shelters or upgrades to existing facilities. She declared that additional training must be provided to municipal shelter employees
and that oversight needs to be provided by the state (Associated Press, 2008).

Planned methods
In an effort to build a database of the animals held in the public shelter system in counties
in Kentucky, we submitted an open records request to each of the 120 county shelters in
Kentucky that are listed on the Animal Control Advisory Board’s website. Each shelter is
required to keep the following six pieces of data according to KRS §258.119, which states:
Maintain a record on each animal impounded. Records shall be maintained for a period of two
(2) years and shall include: a. date impounded; b. location found or picked up; c. sex of animal
and spay or neuter status, if known; d. breed or description, and color; and e. date reclaimed,
adopted, or euthanized. (Kentucky, 2004a)

In 1992, Kentucky enacted statutes KRS §61.870 to §61.884 that allowed access to records
held by state and local governments (Hoffman, 2005; Open Records, 1976). After receiving
a request for these records, the responding agency has three days to acknowledge the
request and either provide the information or reject the request based on specific reasons
outlined within the statute.
A questionnaire was included with each request which asked for the shelter director to
provide information about the physical structure of the facility, number of employees, number of volunteers, and any additional information on unique programs or services provided
at that shelter, such as spay and neuter programs or companion animal behavior training
classes. All data were to be uploaded into SPSS and statistical analysis performed on the
data to analyze the characteristics of the companion animals held in shelters throughout
Kentucky. Although the specifics of each animal were not to be published, any general trends
and correlations that could be determined would be. For example, if a county had an abnormally large number of Beagles housed but a relatively small percentage of the Beagles was
adopted, suggestions for programs to increase adoption rates, and educate Beagle owners
would be made. From this collection of data from our open records requests and the facility
surveys, we hoped to analyze the data in answer to the following research questions:
What are the demographics, intake distribution, and outtake distribution of the companion
animal population held in Kentucky’s publicly funded shelters?
Does the presence of special programming at these shelters increase adoption rates?
Does the presence of special programming at these shelters decrease euthanasia rates?
Does spaying/neutering or behavioral training reduce the rate of return for previously adopted
animals?

We intended to draw a very clear picture of the demographics of the canine and feline
populations held in animal shelters including breed details, geographic county-by-county
intake maps, rate of adoption, return to owner and euthanasia, length of stay, and any trends

 256 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

that appeared from the analysis. This analysis would provide a baseline analysis of the data
under the Humane Shelter Law so that progress could be measured within Kentucky.
The data collected from this study would represent the first known analysis of the population of companion animals in Kentucky animal shelters, as well as the first analysis of the
state’s public shelters since the passage of the Kentucky Humane Shelter Law. Future interested parties would then be able to access this data in a timely fashion and utilize it to help
guide improvements to Kentucky’s shelter system. Other animal welfare organizations could
utilize the database to guide future resource allocation or implementation of education and
training programming for community animal shelters. Once the procedure for data collection
was in place, future updates to the database were to be possible, making the data dynamic.
Despite our best efforts over a two-year period, we were unable to collect data from all
of Kentucky’s 120 county shelters. We received completed surveys from 66 counties, and
data in some form from 26 counties. Further, the way data were collected at most shelters
made it impossible to standardize, clean, code, and analyze the data we did collect. In the
following sections, we focus on the issues we encountered in gathering and analyzing data.
Our objective in this paper is to identify the systemic barriers to data collection and analysis.
Ultimately, our purpose in doing so is to craft policy recommendations that, if implemented,
would enable future researchers to gather and analyze data that will provide a scientific
foundation for the further improvement of animal shelters in Kentucky. Our goal is to share
what we learned from our research so that data collection and analysis throughout the
United States might be improved and so that, ideally, the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy
adoptable pets will cease.

Barriers to data collection
Mailing
The first barrier we encountered was the distribution of research materials to each shelter
director. Materials were mailed via the United States Postal Service addressed to shelter
directors at the mailing address published on the Kentucky ACAB website. The addresses
were verified by checking against shelter webpage listings when available. Over the course
of the two weeks following the mailing, about 30% of the 9 × 12 envelopes were returned
as undeliverable, some missing the $1.00 postage stamp that had been carefully peeled
from the envelopes. After initial research into the problem, two issues became clear. First,
because the Kentucky Humane Shelter Law allows counties to enter into agreements with
another county or a private, non-profit organization to provide animal control and sheltering
services the serving organizations or facilities change frequently. The ACAB has not required
counties to update them regarding service arrangements or mailing address changes.
Second, many of the sheltering organizations did not receive mail at the physical shelter
location, instead using a Post Office Box or the County Judge Executive’s office. At times, it
was difficult or impossible to determine the actual physical location of the county shelter
facility despite requirements in the KHSL that all facilities provide open access to the public
during convenient times so that animals may be retrieved or adopted.
Initially, only six organizations responded to the open records request and survey.
Mayfield-Graves County Animal Shelter responded quickly, providing a digital file for the
data requested and the completed survey instrument. Fayette County Lexington Animal

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 257

Care and Control followed with a complete electronic file and completed survey. The offices
of two County Judge Executives responded by stating that they contracted with other counties to provide their services and did not have access to the requested data. The Morgan
County Judge Executive’s office responded that no information was available due to the
recent tornado that had destroyed the records held at the shelter.
Despite the requirement that state offices must respond to an open records request within
three days, the majority of the Kentucky counties did not initially respond in any form. After
significant research and discussion, we decided that shelter employees may not understand
the requirements of the open records request procedure. Our next contact needed to be
directed to the County Judge Executive who would understand the procedure required and
know to whom to direct the request. We accessed the Kentucky State Government website
list of elected County Judge Executives and emailed each the open records request and the
survey. This procedure resulted in a higher response rate. Ultimately, 66 Kentucky counties
returned a completed survey, but only 10 counties provided an electronic file of their KHSL
data.

Digital data
The open records request asked for sheltering organizations to return data in an electronic
format, either a spreadsheet document or a text file that was comma delineated. We offered
help in exporting data to any organization that requested it. If the data were not available
in an electronic format, we offered to copy or scan the documents on site. The majority of
the county offices reported that records were not kept electronically. If records were kept
electronically, many Judge Executives or Shelter Directors reported that they were unable
to create a report that excluded pet owners’ personal information and that they were not
allowed to share personal information. Some counties provided us with monthly totals of
intake, returned to owner, adopted, and euthanized dogs and cats, some provided a yearly
total of the same information, and others declared that this information was stored on crate
cards. Crate cards are individual 5 × 7 cards with a companion animal’s hand written information kept in a holder above the cage or crate door. (Figure 1). Several counties provided
copies of these cards for which we reimbursed copy costs, but the information provided on
each card was often difficult to decipher and sometimes incomplete.
Examples of some of the myriad issues we encountered are as follows: The Bracken County
Animal Shelter Director reported that his county judge executive stated that we would need
to pay 50 cents per copy in advance to copy each shelter card of which there were 1500. The
Warren County Animal Shelter is operated by a private, non-profit organization. The Director
maintained that as they were not a public organization, they did not have to provide us with
access to this information, which was kept digitally. The Campbell County Judge Executive’s
Office provided access to their crate cards at the courthouse facility and allowed us to scan
each of the 5000 cards. They were in the process of moving to computerized data collection
but had not completed the switch. Pulaski County offered to make the crate cards available
at the courthouse for a window of a few hours on a date specified by them.
Even when documents were submitted in an electronic format, very few included all the
items required by Kentucky Humane Shelter Law, rendering analysis of the data very difficult,
if not impossible. Shelters used different programs to store and access data digitally and
each program dictates the types of information kept by that shelter. So, for example, while

 258 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

Figure 1. An example of a crate card from a Kentucky county shelter.

a particular software program might require the user to input the animal’s intake information,
the outtake information is kept in another program because it is not required by the intake
software program. Also as the federal government requires very strict recordkeeping on the
use of all euthanasia drugs, that information might be kept in a log book format and not
integrated into the digital recordkeeping process. The euthanasia log may be the only form
of recordkeeping for documenting a companion animal’s exit from the shelter, and it becomes
very difficult to access the complete record of information that is required by law to be kept.

Open records request
Finally, because counties may choose to contract out their entire animal care and control
services or choose to contract a portion, such as sheltering, not all services are provided by
public employees. For example, the animal control agent might be a public employee who
surrenders all captured or surrendered animals to a non-profit shelter. Non-profit organizations provide these services either in a publically owned building or in their own organization-owned building. Despite the fact that the organization is providing a public service,
there is much confusion over whether the organization is required by law to comply with
the open records requests or keep data in accordance with the KHSL. Furthermore, the
originating county does not keep the required data in its office and does not require the
servicing organization to report the required data to them.
A director from a county humane society contracted to provide services for the county
government responded angrily to our request for data. She stated that if she had to respond
to requests for information, her organization would simply drop the county contract. Animals
would then be euthanized at a much higher rate. Many of the non-profit organizations
responded to our request for information and survey negatively and in one case refused to
discuss the request at all, referring me to its legal counsel. Finally, because many of these

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 259

contracts are negotiated on a yearly basis, they change frequently. In Taylor County, several
citizen groups have claimed that the county animal shelters were providing subpar care to
the companion animals held there. In response to the both the claims and a recent series of
open records requests submitted to the shelter, Taylor County officials at the newly constructed animal control and care office announced their decision to contract the care of the
animals with another county. The Taylor County Judge Executive Eddie Rogers stated that
the number of open records requests received recently had caused both a financial and time
burden on the county. Despite the fact that Taylor County had been a recent recipient of a
$150,000 ACAB grant for shelter improvements, the shelter would close. The new facility
would be used solely to house animals for the five day required hold but then animals would
be transported to another location for sheltering for adoption or foster care. Local citizen
groups state that county leadership developed the plan to avoid addressing their concerns
for treatment of the animals (Gonzalez, 2013).

Implications for the humane shelter law
The ACAB distributed an initial survey to the county animal sheltering offices in 2007 and
asked for the following: county name, physical address with hours of operation, the number
of animals serviced, whether the current needs of the county were being met, and whether
the organization expected an intake increase in the next five years. Only 40 returned this
survey. The department recently mailed the second survey asking whether the shelter was
county managed or services were contracted out, in addition to address, phone, and hours
of operation. Neither survey asked for the information that must be collected as required
by the Kentucky Humane Shelter Law (Kentucky Spay & Neuter, 2013). As of February 2014,
54 of the 120 counties did not list complete information on the shelter profiles published
on the ACAB website. Louisville Metro Government’s shelter, the publicly funded animal
control and shelter organization for Jefferson County, listed incorrect information, and the
address for the new facility had not been updated at the time of our research. The purpose
for the Kentucky Department of Agriculture’s ACAB as assigned by KRS §258.117 is to provide
‘disbursements from the animal control and care fund, creating training programs, and other
duties relating to animal control and care in the counties of the Commonwealth’ (Kentucky,
2004b). If the distributing office does not have access to current addresses, the sheltering
organizations will not receive important granting and funding information. Public offices
are required to maintain accurate and up to date records. In this case, the minimum expectations for public information were not met (Bunker, Splichal, Chamberlin, & Perry, 1992).
The Humane Shelter Law designates specific pieces of data that must be kept on each
animal entering and exiting the shelter (Kentucky, 2004a). Through our collection efforts, it
became clear that accurate and complete record keeping regarding the data required by
the law is often inaccurate or non-existent. If the data are kept, they are not in a format
conducive to systematic collection and analysis because the information is frequently kept
on handwritten 5 × 7 crate cards that are stored in warehouses outside of the facility. No
efforts, other than our own, have been made to verify that shelters are maintaining the
required data. In an interview with the attorney who represents the Department of
Agriculture’s ACAB, it was noted that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has no interest in the
information, or in county rates of euthanasia (2012). In many cases, the forms used by the
sheltering organizations dictate the information that is kept. Many of these forms were

 260 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

developed two or more decades ago and the information requested or dictated by the forms
came from the initial description of the social problem – in this case, pet overpopulation.
The forms commonly do not include data required by Kentucky law.
As society’s attitudes toward animals have changed greatly over the past two decades,
the definition of the social problem has also changed. Yet, many organizations have not
updated their methods of data collection nor evaluated what data need to be collected to
determine effective organizational operation. Originally described as ‘Tyranny of the Form’
(Gubrium, Buckholdt, & Lynott, 1989), Irvine (2003) focuses on the role that forms play in
defining the social problem of pet overpopulation. In this case, ‘crate cards’ restrict the
amount and complexity of information that may be recorded on each animal by the shelter
staff. Recordkeeping procedures also work to keep the information on the animal apart from
the information about whether the pet was retrieved by owner, fostered, adopted, or euthanized. Data are, for the most part, being recorded, but in outdated and inconsistent formats
that frequently do not comply with Kentucky law.
Although the law requires each county in Kentucky to maintain an animal control and
sheltering office or to contract services with another county or a private, non-profit organization (Kentucky, 2004a), several counties responded that they did not offer animal sheltering services. When the animal control officer picked up an animal, these animals were
dropped off at either a veterinarian’s office and kept for five days before being euthanized
or given to a local animal rescue group that would attempt to get the animal adopted. Such
relationships were often informal and non-contractual.
Contracts between the county government and local private, non-profit organizations
create confusion regarding responsibility for data collection and reporting. Many non-profit
organizations do not respond to open records requests assuming that only public, government offices are required to report data when requested. This is not always the case. In 2008
in the case of Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter the Washington Court of Appeals,
Division III ruled that the non-profit organization operating the shelter for the local government animal control must be treated like ‘any other local public agency’ and would be subject
to the Washington Public Records Act (Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter, 2008;
Ware, 2009). The court used the Telford test, a three-pronged analysis, to determine whether
private agencies were actually ‘quasi government agencies.’ In the case of Clarke, a private
citizen sued after being denied access to euthanasia records held by Tri-Cities Animal Care
& Control that was contracted to provide animal sheltering services for three local counties.
The plaintiff was forced to appeal the first ruling which denied her access, and the appellate
court decided that the agency was required to provide information as requested under open
records requests (Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter, 2008; Ware, 2009).
Kentucky public agencies that have contracted with private organizations need to make the
organizations aware of the responsibilities in this regard.
Spay and neuter procedures are required on every adopted dog or cat in Kentucky as
designated by the KHSL. Of the 66 counties that submitted our survey, 74% responded that
they required spaying or neutering of all adopted animals, 26% stated that they did not
require adopted animals be altered despite the Kentucky requirement. Of the 74% of
responding counties that required spay/neuter, only 66% provided the service prior to adoption. Of the 34% of counties that required new adopters to have their adopted pet altered
at a veterinarian of their choice, 35% did not follow up to ensure that the surgery was

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 261

performed. The reason most often given was lack of funds and staff to follow up with the
new owner.
The Humane Shelter Law also addressed accessibility issues within the county shelter
system. Citizens had complained that the shelters were only open during a few hours and
only on weekdays. The Humane Shelter Law attempted to address these complaints by
requiring that each shelter ‘provide access to the public for no less than twenty-four (24)
hours in one (1) week, with the hours that the facility is open to the public posted in a visible
location’ (Kentucky, 2004a). Despite the concern regarding the facility hours and accessibility,
the ACAB’s website lists 54 counties that did not provide information regarding hours of
operation. Given the confusion that we encountered in attempting to mail our research
materials to shelter facilities, identifying physical location, or mailing addresses remains
relatively difficult.
Finally, the euthanasia rates in Kentucky remain high throughout the state and vary considerably by county. Hickman, Morgan, Montgomery, Webster, Wayne, and Clay counties
have live release rates of approximately 0–25%. In these counties the majority of companion
animals are euthanized unless an owner retrieves the pet. Some counties, such as Hickman,
reported that they do not offer fostering or adoption programs. In Hickman County, animals
are kept for five days at a local veterinarian’s office and if not retrieved by their owners are
euthanized. By contrast, in Shelby County, which has a no-kill policy for adoptable (i.e. healthy
and non-aggressive) dogs and cats, companion animals have a 100% chance of leaving the
shelter into an adoptive or foster home or to a partner program which will guarantee that
it will be adopted.
The so-called need to euthanize healthy adoptable companion animals is often conceptualized as a problem of pet overpopulation. In recent years, however, a new paradigm has
emerged in which shelters make strong efforts to ensure that every animal that leaves the
shelter is spayed or neutered and offer behavioral information and training classes to help
owners understand and deal with destructive or disobedient pets. Shelters are also working
with volunteers that foster pets, keeping companion animals out of the shelter environment
while they await adoptive homes. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that such programs
work to reduce rates of euthanasia, the fact remains that little scientific data is available to
researchers seeking to understand which programs work and under what social and geographic circumstances.
Kentucky statutes have the potential to foster a clearer understanding of the system of
companion animal sheltering and the conditions under which pets are more likely to be
adopted into new homes or unnecessarily euthanized. Whether considered as an economic
issue, in which the cost of sheltering animals might be reduced, or one of social justice, in
which healthy animals are given a second chance, it will take minor adjustments to current
law for Kentucky to become a national model in data collection and analysis that will lead
to improvements in the shelter care of companion animals.

Suggestion for improvement
Florida, North Carolina, and California all publish basic shelter statistics online and make
these data accessible to the public providing some accountability for the services provided
by sheltering organizations. Kentucky provided the outlines for accountability but did not
mandate collection and publishing procedures. The law provides some accountability within

 262 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

the shelter system and local citizens have successfully sued county governments for transgressions in service. Unfortunately, the law also provides counties with a way to avoid basic
accountability. If the county contracts with a private, non-profit organization, it becomes
very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the data required by law. In most cases, private
citizens would need to have access to legal resources in order to force private agencies to
conform to the requirements of open records requests. Most citizens in Kentucky do not
have the financial resources or the time and travel resources required to pursue legal action.
Depending upon the county of residence, citizens’ companion animals may incur a much
higher risk of being euthanized if they accidently enter the shelter system. Citizens may also
have difficulty obtaining entry into the facility to search for a lost pet due to restricted hours
open to the public or lack of access to information regarding the facility location. Without
access to transportation, citizens may not be able to travel two counties away to visit their
home county’s contracted service provider. These problems result in a system of unequal
access and unequal level of service provided to county residents throughout the state of
Kentucky. One suggestion provided by Ware (2009) in the analysis of the Clarke v. TCAC, is
to amend the language in the Public Records Act definition of ‘public record’ to include
services ‘paid for to comply with [the] public contracting requirements’ (p. 774) of any state
or local agency. Such regulations would require the publicly contracted agency to maintain
the records required by law and to make them available upon request.
Furthermore, the Kentucky ACAB should require that each shelter complete a survey
similar to the one we used reporting on the identifiers defined by the Humane Shelter Law.
If counties do not meet the minimum care identifiers, then the ACAB should visit that county
shelter and meet with the County Judge Executive. This removes the responsibility from
individual citizens to challenge county shelters through the legal system and places it back
on the advisory board and state government officials. Such a change would spare the county
the expense of defending itself against unnecessary lawsuits and shelter data would be
updated on a regular basis so that residents could remain informed about location, hours
of operation, and programming available.
Computer systems are considered to be a requirement for any government office to
maintain accurate public records. By 1985, even city governments had computerized with
over 97% of the nation’s cities keeping records digitally. (Bunker et al., 1992). Kentucky’s
county public offices all have computers and each Judge Executive is required to have email
access (County Officials Training program, 2014; Division, 2008). Counties’ publicly contracted
agencies should be no different in their ability to access computer programs that work to
accurately maintain data as well as digitally transmit that information via the internet. Many
programs designed to address data collection needs of animal shelters are available free or
at a very low cost. Spreadsheet programs or database programs are often included on computers or may be purchased through a state contract for a reasonable price. The ACAB must
address the problem of the lack of technology throughout Kentucky immediately. The law
already requires that the data be kept and Kentucky could be a model state by simply requiring that the data be published annually by each shelter. The ACAB should include these
statistics on their website. Furthermore, a specific computer format should not dictate access
to data. In Florida, public access laws incorporated the following statement regarding computerized data: ‘all of the information in the computer, not merely that which a particular
program accesses, should be available for examination and copying in keeping with the
public policy underlying the right-to-know statutes’ (Bunker et al., 1992). Given that most

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 263

public data are computerized, Kentucky’s Open Request Law should reflect this same language so that public access to information cannot be restricted by stating that ‘the computer
doesn’t provide the information you are requesting in a report format.’ Given that specific
information is required to be kept for public access that information needs to be available
through a computer reporting system.
In addition to increasing public access to shelter statistics, the data mandated by the
Humane Shelter Law could help owners locate lost pets quickly and efficiently. If a statewide
system were implemented, the data would be updated immediately and become searchable
by pet owners immediately. This should increase the number of lost companion animals
that are retrieved from shelters by their owners, while reducing the costs of housing lost
companion animals for weeks and moving them into the adoption or fostering program or
reducing the cost, time, and trauma of euthanasia.

Conclusion
The Kentucky Humane Shelter Law provides a strong platform from which a model policy
could be launched. Kentucky could be one of the top states making a commitment to caring
for companion animals in a humane fashion and encouraging shelters to evaluate the effectiveness of programming offered to county residents and their pets. The identified data are
the same as the data that many granting organizations require their shelters to collect and
analyze in order to apply for shelter grants. Recent studies have indicated that shelters that
collect and evaluate data reflectively are decreasing euthanasia rates and increasing adoption rates (Scarlett, 2012). If Kentucky made the suggested changes, the state’s county shelter
system could provide shelter for lost, unwanted, or abandoned companion animals while
they wait to find their new homes, and providing the level of care that citizens of Kentucky
are requesting. The changes suggested have the potential to save counties both unnecessary
legal expenses and expenses incurred for sheltering and euthanizing animals. Further, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky could become a leader in the ethical and humane treatment
of companion animals in the nation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jennifer Sinski is currently ABD in the Applied Sociology Program at the University of Louisville. Her
current research focuses on Gender and Leadership in Animal Sheltering Organizations and she has
written several articles and a book chapter in the area of animals and society. Jennifer is also a co-author
of a book in the area of human sexuality.
Patricia Gagne is Professor of Sociology at the UofL. Her research typically focuses on issues of gender
and power. She has published extensively on topics of intimate partner violence, transgender people
and their experiences, body modification, and women engaged in serious leisure activities such as
airplane piloting and adventure touring motorcycling. She is the author of Battered Women's Justice
and co-editor of readers on deviance and on race, class, gender and sexuality. She is currently working
on several projects with graduate students and on a project on people who identify as transgender
or gender queer.

 264 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

References
Animal Shelters and Animal Control Agencies, Pub. L. No. 823.15, CS SB 0674 Stat. (2013 7/31/2013).
Retrieved from http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2013/823.15
Animal Legal Defense Fund, ALDF Takes Kentucky Counties to Task for Failing to Protect Homeless
Dogs and Cats. (2010 Retrieved from http://aldf.org/press-room/press-releases/aldf-takes-kentuckycounties-to-task-for-failing-to-protect-homeless-dogs-and-cats/
Association of Shelter Veterinarians. (2010). Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters.
Retrieved from http://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf
Arluke, A. (2002). A sociology of sociological animal studies. Society & Animals, 10, 369–374.
BIESK, J. (2008 Aug 25) Associated Press. Many animal shelters criticized as substandard - suits filed
over facilities in robertson, estill counties. Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), p. B4. Retrieved from http://
infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/122CC8B2B78ECB28?p=AWNB
Blouin, D. D. (2013). Are dogs children, companions, or just animals? Understanding variations in
people’s orientations toward animals. Anthrozoos: A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of
people & animals, 26, 279–294.
Brammell, J., Hankins, L., Little, K., Norman, M., Wallace, L. & Woosley, A. (2011). Mayor Greg Fischer’s
Performance Review Committee On the Performance of Metro Animal Services Final Report.
Retrieved from http://www.thevillevoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/lmasreview.pdf
Brown, S. E. (2002). Ethnic variations in pet attachment among students at an American school of
veterinary medicine. Society & Animals, 10, 249–266.
Brown, S. E., & Katcher, A. H. (2001). Pet attachment and dissociation. Society & Animals, 9, 25–41. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853001300108973.
Bunker, M. D., Splichal, S. L., Chamberlin, B. F., & Perry, L. M. (1992). Access to government-held
information in the computer age: Applying legal doctrine to emerging technology. Fla. St. UL Rev.,
20, 543–597.
Campbell, M. O. (2013). The relevance of age and gender for public attitudes to brown bears (Ursus
arctos), black bears (Ursus americanus), and cougars (Puma concolor) in Kamloops. British Columbia.
Society & Animals, 21, 341–359.
Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care and Control Shelter, 144 Wash. App. 185, 181. 181 p. 3d 881 (2008).
Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/clarke-v-animal-shelter
Companion Animals and Chicago Communities: A Strategic Assessment for the city of Chicago.
(2010). In C. I. f. M. Development (Ed.). Chicago, IL: Depaul University. Retrieved from https://las.
depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-development/Documents/
Companion%20Animal%20Final%20Report%20and%20Appendix.pdf
County Officials Training program. (2014). Department of Local Government. Retrieved 2/10, 2014.
Division, C. R. (2008). Accessibility of state and local government websites to people with disabilities. U.S.
Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/websites2.htm
Frank, J. (2007). A interactive model of human and companion animal dynamics: The ecology and
economics of dog overpopulation and the human costs of addressing the problem. FirePaw Website.
firepaw@earthlink.net Retrieved from http://www.carodog.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/inter
activemodelhuman2.pdf
Gluckman v. American Airlines, 844 151. (S. D. N. Y. 1994). Retrieved from https://www.animallaw.info/
case/gluckman-v-american-airlines-inc
Gonzalez, B. (2013, February 15, 2014). Taylor Co. animal shelter stops adoptions, closes to public.
WHAS11. Retrieved from http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Taylor-Co-animal-shelter-stops-ado
ptions-closes-to-public-191471651.html
Grant County Animal Shelter. (2009). Retrieved January 18, 2014, from http://www.asilomaraccords.
org/organizational-data/grant-county-animal-shelter-2009.pdf
Greenebaum, J. (2004). It’s a dog’s life: Elevating status from pet to “Fur baby” at yappy hour. Society &
Animals, 12, 117–135. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1568530041446544.
Gubrium, J. F., Buckholdt, D. R., & Lynott, R. J. (1989). The descriptive tyranny of forms. Perspectives on
Social Problems, 1, 195–214.

 Contemporary Justice Review 

 265

Hamilton, F. E. (2010). Leading and organizing social change for companion animals. Anthrozoos: A
multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people & animals, 23, 277–292.
Hoffman, E. (2005). Deliberative process privilege in Kentucky, The. J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judges, 25, 485.
Holak, S. L. (2008). Ritual blessings with companion animals. Journal of Business Research, 61, 534–541.
Industry Statistics and Trends. (2011). American Pet Products Association. Retrieved from www.
americanpetproducts.org
Irvine, L. (2002). Animal problems/people skills: Emotional and interactional strategies in humane
education. Society & Animals, 10, 63–91.
Irvine, L. (2003). The problem of unwanted pets: A case study in how institutions “think” about clients’
needs. Social Problems, 50, 550–566.
Irvine, L. (2004). A model of animal selfhood: Expanding interactionist possibilities. Symbolic Interaction,
27, 3–21.
Kass, P. H. (2001). Understanding animal companion surplus in the United States: Relinquishment
of nonadoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4,
237–248.
Kentucky Animal Control Advisory Board. (2009). Retrieved from www.kyspayneuter.com/why-spayneuter.html#award
Kentucky Humane Shelter Law, Kentucky Revised Statute §.005-.991, 258 Stat. (2004a). Retrieved from
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=38481
Kentucky Humane Shelter Law, Kentucky Revised Statute §.005-.991, 258 Stat.. (2004b). Retrieved from
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=12435
Kentucky Spay and Neuter. (2013). Retrieved February, 2013, from hhttp://www.kyspayneuter.com/
documents/KDA%20Animal%20Shelter%20Surveys%202013.pdf
Marsh, P. (2009). Replacing myth with math: Using evidence-based programs to eradicate shelter
overpopulation. Concord, NH: Town & Country Reprographics.
Meltzer, E. (1998, February). Tax on pet food would support shelters. Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), B1.
Retrieved from http://docs.newsbank.com.echo.louisville.edu/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id
=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:LHLB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_
dat=0EB7416D7A9B4F34&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0FDD25014BD579AD
Miller, L. (2007). Animal sheltering in the United States: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Veterinary
Medicine, 102, 656–663.
Morris, J., & Zawistowski, S. (2004). The evolving animal shelter. In L. Miller & Z. Stephen (Eds.), Shelter
medicine for veterinarians and staff (pp. 3–10). Ames: Blackwell Publishing.
Moss, J. (2010, November 24). Shelby county animal shelter Kentucky’s first no kill shelter. Louisville
Magazine, 1.
Newbury, S., Bushby, M. K. B. P. A., Cox, C. B., Dinnage, J. D., Hurley, B. G. K. F., Isaza, N., Jones, W., Miller,
L., & O’Quin, J., Smith-Blackmore, G. J. P. M., Spinde, M. (2010). Guidelines for standard of care in
animal shelters: Association of shelter veterinarians.
Open Records § 61.872-61.884, 61.870 Stat. (1976). Retrieved from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/
statute.aspx?id=40138
Penrod v. Robertson County. (18th Judicial Circuit 2008). Retrieved from http://media.kentucky.com/
smedia/2008/08/20/19/Robertson_Complaint.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf
Podberscek, A. L. (1997). Illuminating issues of companion animal welfare through research into humananimal interactions. Animal Welfare, 6, 365–372.
Press, A. (1996). Elliott man pushes for dog pounds. Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), C4. Retrieved from http://
docs.newsbank.com.echo.louisville.edu/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsb
ank.com:AWNB:LHLB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB7409150785A3B&svc_
dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0FDD25014BD579AD
Press, A. (2002). Shootings at pound will not be prosecuted. Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), November
5, 2002, B4.
Purpose of the Animal Control and Advisory board, 258.117. (2004b).
Root, W. C. (2002). Man’s best friend: Property or family member-an examination of the legal classification
of companion animals and its impact on damages recoverable for their wrongful death or injury.
Vill. L. Rev., 47, 423–450.

 266 

  J. B. Sinski et al.

Rowan, A. (2006, November). Counting the contributions: Benchmarking for your organization and
your state. Animal Sheltering Magazine, Nov/Dec 2006, 35–43.
Sanders, C. R. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and
nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 405–426. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405.
Scarlett, J. (2004 February 20). Bill to forbid shooting strays. Kentucky Post, The (Covington, KY),
p A15. Retrieved from http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/100E898692BA6C40?
p=AWNB
Scarlett, J. M. (2008). Interface of epidemiology, pet population issues and policy. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine, 86, 188–197.
Scarlett, J. (2012). Population statistics. Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff (2nd ed.) Miller, L.,
& Zawistowski, S. 13.
Schreiner, B. (2004). Bill to forbid shooting strays. Kentucky Post, The (Covington, KY), A15.
Serpell, J. A. (2002). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – beyond the “cute response”.
Society & Animals, 10, 437–454.
Serpell, J. A. (2009). Having our dogs and eating them too: Why animals are a social issue. Journal of
Social Issues, 65, 633–644.
SquiresLee, D. (1995). In defense of Floyd: Appropriately valuing companion animals in tort. New York
University Law Review, 70, 1059–1099.
The Guiding Princpals of the Asilomar Accords. (2004). Asilomar accords. Retrieved from www.
asilomaraccords.org
The Shelter Statistics Survey. (2001). National council on pet population study & policy.
Tiemessen, J. J., & Weiner, J. A. (2004). Golden retriever rule: Alaska’s identity privilege for animal
adoption agencies and for adoptive animal owners. The. Alaska L. Rev., 21, 77–89.
Voith, V. L. (2009). The impact of companion animal problems on society and the role of veterinarians.
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 39, 327–345.
Ware, J. A. (2009). Clarke v. tri-cities animal care & control shelter: How did private businesses become
government agencies under Washington public records act. Seattle UL Rev., 33, 741–776.
Winograd, N. J. (2007). The myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America. p.280 Almaden
Books.
Wolfe, C. (2002September 4). Ban on shooting strays is sought ag chief calls for euthanasia law –
agriculture chief calls for new state law. Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), B3. Retrieved from http://
infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0F5DC2761847CC30?p=AWNB