2016 Study of current conditions of Kentucky county
animal shelters and degree of compliance with
Kentucky animal shelter laws

Cynthia L. Gaskill1, Rachel Cullman-Clark2, Liane Lachiewicz2, Matt Lamarre2, Brad
Rohleder2, Kristin Sadler2, Rachel Sparling2, Craig N. Carter1

1

University of Kentucky Department of Veterinary Science; 2Lincoln Memorial University College
of Veterinary Medicine

December 2016

 1

2016 Study of current conditions of Kentucky county animal shelters and degree of
compliance with Kentucky animal shelter laws.
ABSTRACT
Kentucky’s county animal shelter conditions have not been studied for over 20 years. Major
goals of this study were to assess current conditions in Kentucky’s county shelters and
determine the degree of compliance with Kentucky shelter laws. Additional information was
gathered to determine the major problems and needs identified by shelter personnel and
researchers. Data was used to determine if additional state funds or refinements and additions
to current laws are warranted to ensure humane care of animals in Kentucky’s county shelters.
Researchers consisted of a group of 6 veterinary students who traveled to all Kentucky county
animal shelters. Ninety two county shelters were identified that service Kentucky’s 120 counties.
Several regional shelters service multiple counties. Results showed that only 12% of counties
were in compliance with all parts of Kentucky’s animal shelter laws, while over 50% of counties
were in violation of 3 or more parts of the laws. Major problems identified by shelter personnel
were lack of sufficient funding, pet overpopulation leading to crowding of shelters, insufficient
work force at the shelters, and lack of education for both shelter personnel and the public. In
addition to these problems, researchers also identified a number of other problems in many
shelters, including inadequate, aging and poorly maintained facilities built with inappropriate
materials that could not be properly cleaned or disinfected; poor ventilation, especially in cat
holding areas; lack of appropriate veterinary care; and lack of appropriate quarantine areas.
Overall conclusions are that the majority of Kentucky’s animal shelters are not in compliance
with current animal shelter laws, and that a major factor contributing to poor compliance was
lack of sufficient funding for animal shelter programs. There appears to be a significant need for
additional state funds to improve county shelter programs. Current laws do not appear to be
fully satisfactory at accomplishing the goal of providing good shelter animal care across
Kentucky. Additions and refinements to current laws, including enforcement provisions, appear
to be warranted. While great strides have been made in Kentucky’s animal shelters since the
last study was performed 20 years ago, much work still needs to be done to bring Kentucky’s
animal shelters up to modern standards of care.
BACKGROUND
The condition of Kentucky’s county animal shelters and the degree of county compliance with
state animal shelter laws have not been well monitored in the past. The last study of animal

 2

control and animal shelters in Kentucky was performed in 1996 when the Kentucky General
Assembly commissioned the Interim Joint Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources to
conduct a study of animal control issues in Kentucky. The committee gathered information from
county and state officials, animal humane organization representatives, private citizens, and
other individuals through written correspondence and personal interviews. The committee
reported to the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission in 1997 that the animal control laws
in place at that time, first adopted in 1954, were not in concordance with current methods and
philosophies of humanely controlling and caring for stray animals. The committee determined
that adequate funding and minimum standards for animal sheltering needed to be established.
The report made recommendations for improving the care and control of stray animals, and
described mechanisms to fund these improvements.
Results of that study lead to the establishment of the Kentucky Animal Control Advisory Board
(ACAB) in 1998 by an act of the Kentucky General Assembly. Mandates of the ACAB were to
advise the commissioner of the Kentucky State Department of Agriculture on issues relating to
animal care and control, to establish animal shelter standards for the state, to create training
programs for animal control officers, and to evaluate applications for state grants pertaining to
animal shelters and animal care and control. The Kentucky Humane Shelter Act (HB435)
passed the Kentucky State Legislature in 2004 (see Kentucky Revised Statues, chapter 258;
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=38481). This legislation established a set of
statutes intended to improve the care and control of stray and abandoned companion animals in
Kentucky, and enhance public protection. The new laws required that each county must
establish or contract with another county or non-profit entity to provide an animal control
program that includes an animal shelter that meets minimum standards for basic care. The new
laws also mandated that each county employ an animal control officer or contract with an entity
to provide an animal control officer who meets minimum educational and training requirements.
The legislation gave counties three years to come into compliance with the new laws.
Minimum shelter standards established by this Act included: segregation of male and female
animals; separate holding areas for ill or injured animals; basic veterinary care or humane
euthanasia of ill or injured animals; quarantine facilities; protection from the weather; adequate
heat in winter; proper ventilation; clean and dry pens with adequate room for animal comfort;
adequate lighting; building materials of an impervious nature that could be properly cleaned and
disinfected; clean potable water available at all times; uncontaminated food provided daily;

 3

public access no less than 24 hours per week, with hours publically posted; humane
euthanasia; and maintenance of records including information on each animal impounded.
Animal control officers must have graduated from high school and have completed training as
established by the ACAB. Other sections of KRS 258 define the county’s responsibility to
ensure that companion animals are vaccinated against rabies, describe procedures for dealing
with dog bite cases, and suggest dog licensing programs. Of note, while the new standards for
Kentucky’s county animal shelters are an improvement over previous laws, they are considered
minimal by national shelter standards and are missing vital components such as spay/neuter,
vaccination and adoption programs.
Unfortunately, the new legislation did not include any enforcement provisions, and the
Commonwealth has not enforced the laws established by this act. Amendments to the bill
introduced in the legislature removed the requirement that local Commonwealth’s attorneys
were required to bring actions in circuit court against any counties that did not comply with
animal shelter standards. The legislature also repealed the requirement for the commissioner of
the Kentucky Department of Agriculture to enforce the provisions of most of the animal care and
control laws. This lack of enforcement at the state level creates a situation of county selfregulation. Additionally, no laws were included to address county responsibilities for the care of
stray and abandoned livestock. The only law pertaining to large animal care was found in KRS
259.210(3), which states that the sheriff or other peace officer shall impound and provide care
for cattle roaming at large. No provisions were made delineating how counties are to impound or
care for livestock or fund the impoundment and care, and no basic minimum standards of care
were established.
The Humane Shelter Act required that all counties come into compliance with the new statutes
by July 2007. The Commonwealth (hereafter referred to as the State) made available three
million dollars in grant funding to help counties fund shelter construction or renovations and
training for animal control officers to bring county shelter programs into compliance. However,
no follow-up studies have been done to determine progress made towards the intended goal of
improving animal care or to evaluate the degree of county compliance with the new laws. In
2001, the Kentucky Department of Agriculture distributed an informal survey to each county
asking for basic information such as shelter location, hours of operation, and number of animals
impounded each year, but less than half of all counties responded to the survey. All of the grant
funds have been used and no additional state funds have been appropriated for additional

 4

grants for shelter construction or renovation. Additionally, the ACAB still has not created or
designated a specific training program required for animal control officers.
Summary of problems:
•

No studies have been performed to determine if the quality of shelter animal care and
control measures in Kentucky’s 120 counties have improved since the initial animal
control study in 1997. There currently is insufficient data to determine if current state
laws, funding, and training programs pertaining to shelter animal care are adequate.

•

The state does not maintain current records on locations or contact information for
Kentucky’s county animal shelters, and the state has no inspection program in place to
monitor county shelter compliance with state laws.

•

Current Kentucky animal control laws do not include any provisions for enforcement. As
the laws stand, in cases of county disregard for animal shelter laws, private citizens must
sue the negligent county government and pursue the issue in circuit court. Many citizens
do not have the resources, time, or ability to pursue private suits, and private suits may
take years to come to conclusion. Without data documenting county compliance with
current laws, it is impossible to determine if additional enforcement legislation is needed.

•

No standards for sheltering stray, abandoned, or confiscated livestock have been
established. No studies have been performed to determine if the lack of shelter
standards for livestock is a problem that warrants further attention.

Public health and safety is at risk if the management of stray and abandoned animals is
substandard. Stray animals can transmit rabies and other zoonotic infectious diseases to
humans and other animals. Additionally, stray animals running at large can pose significant
traffic hazards resulting in human injury and even death. Bite injuries to humans and other
animals is another risk posed by stay dogs. Animals impounded in unsanitary, unhealthy shelter
facilities can contract diseases dangerous to humans and other animals, and transport these
diseases back to the public when the animals are released from the shelter. Adequate animal
care and control laws and good compliance by the counties are critical to ensure humane care
of animals and protection of human health and safety.
Study goals
This study of Kentucky’s county animal shelters focuses primarily on issues regarding the
physical animal shelter structures and care of animals within the shelters. Specific aims of this
study were to:

 5

•

Determine physical locations and contact information for county animal shelters in
Kentucky.

•

Determine the degree of county compliance with current state laws pertaining to county
animal shelters and determine major factors contributing to any lack of compliance.

•

Document successful animal control programs so this information can be shared with
other counties, particularly those with similar population and financial demographics

•

Determine if counties have a need for more funding from city/county or state government
for animal shelter programs.

•

Determine if refinement of current laws is warranted to accomplish the task of improving
care of shelter animals in Kentucky, including the addition of enforcement provisions to
ensure county compliance with state laws.

•

Determine if additional statutes are needed to address sheltering for stray, abandoned or
confiscated livestock.

Overall, study results will help determine if current animal control funding from the city/county
and state is adequate, if current animal control training programs are sufficient, and if selfregulation by counties is effective. The data will also help determine what other measures may
be required to continue to improve the level of care of shelter animals in Kentucky.
STUDY METHODS
In the summer of 2016, six veterinary students from Lincoln Memorial University College of
Veterinary Medicine, Harrogate Tennessee, gathered data for this study. The students divided
up Kentucky’s 120 counties and each student was responsible for obtaining data for counties
assigned to them. Data was only collected for animal shelters serving as the official shelter for
each county, not for private shelters or animal rescue groups not officially affiliated with a
county.
Students first determined the location and contact information for each animal shelter. Students
obtained the information through internet searches and phone communications with county
government personnel, and confirmed the information with county government authorities.
Students then traveled to each identified county shelter and performed visual examination of
each facility to gather data specifically related to shelter standards established by Kentucky
animal shelter laws. See Appendix A for the data collection template used. These shelter visits

 6

were unannounced in most cases, but in a few instances an appointment had to be made in
order to visit the shelter if the shelter had no public access hours. A picture was taken of the
outside of the facility, and if allowed, pictures were also taken inside. Students communicated
with shelter personnel to obtain information relating to items not readily apparent visually. A
scoring system was created to evaluate the degree of compliance with each of the standards,
with scores of Good, Needs Improvement, and Poor for each standard. The scoring system
used for each standard is described below.
Shelter standard
A. Protection from the weather

Scoring system
Good – Animals housed indoors
Needs Improvement – Animals housed outdoors but protected by
structures such as dog houses
Poor – Animals housed outdoors with no protection or only
protected by a tarp

B. Clean and dry pens

Good – Clean and dry
Needs Improvement – Pens moderately soiled or wet
Poor – Pens neither clean nor dry

C. Adequate space for individual

Good – All animals have adequate room to move freely

animal comfort

Needs Improvement – Some kennels or pens are overcrowded
Poor – Animals cannot stand or turn around without effort

D. Adequately sized shelter for the

Good – Under capacity with vacant kennels available

number of animals impounded (an

Poor – Over capacity, multiple animals per pen and overflow

extension of adequate space for

animals housed in areas not designed for proper animal

animal comfort)

containment

E. Lighting

Good – Sufficient electric lighting for both outside and inside
animals
Needs Improvement –Inside animals have electric light, outside
animal do not
Poor – Animals are only kept outside with no lighting, or the building
has no electricity or lighting

F. Employment of an animal

Good – Yes

control officer

Poor – No

G. Impervious building materials

Good – Floors sealed, impervious kennel materials, and facility

that can be easily cleaned and

easy to clean and disinfect

disinfected

Needs Improvement – Some cracks on floors, some nonimpervious surfaces

 7

Poor – Majority of floors not sealed; facility could not be adequately
cleaned or disinfected (e.g., dirt or gravel floors, wooden partitions)
H. Quarantine area

Good – Quarantine area isolated from other animals in separate
room or building
Needs Improvement – Kennel or cage was labeled as quarantine
but was not isolated from other animals
Poor – No area designated for quarantine

I. Proper ventilation

Good – Air movement was evident and fresh outside air was
moving through the facility
Needs Improvement – Fans running but no access to outside air
Poor – Closed room with no circulation; buildup of animal waste
fumes

J. Adequate heat for winter months

Good – Heat provided in winter to all animals

(data collected verbally along with

Needs Improvement – Inside animals have heat but animals

evidence or lack thereof of heat

housed outdoors do not

source visibly)

Poor – No heat provided in winter

K. Shelter hours posted

Good – Hours posted on shelter
Needs Improvement – Hours posted but incorrect
Poor – Hours not posted on shelter

L. Shelter open to the public 24

Good – Open to the public for 24 hours or more per week

hours or more per week

Needs Improvement – Open to the public less than 24 hours per
week, or not open when visited during “open’ hours
Poor – Not open to the public, or open by appointment only

M. Records maintained for each

Good – Asked or visibly saw records

animal (data collected verbally

Needs improvement – Some records kept

along with evidence or lack thereof

Poor – No records kept

of records visibly)
N. Food provided daily

Good – Food provided daily
Needs Improvement – Food usually provided daily
Poor – Food not provided daily

O. Clean, potable water provided

Good – All animals had clean water

at all times

Needs Improvement – Most animals had water
Poor – No clean water available

P. Males and females separated

Good – Intact males and females of breeding age are separated
Poor – Males and females of breeding age are not separated

 8

Occasionally data could not be collected or could not be determined due to a variety of reasons.
Data in such cases was reported as “Undetermined”. Data also was not collected regarding
humane euthanasia or basic veterinary care for all sick or injured animals, as the information
could only be obtained by verbal communication from shelter personnel with no way to evaluate
the accuracy of the responses. Data also could not be consistently collected on whether or not
animal control officers had obtained training or had graduated from high school, so only data
about whether or not the county employed an animal control officer was collected. Data for
“Separate holding facility for sick or injured animals” was grouped under “Quarantine area”.
Students visited each shelter only once, so data collected are a snapshot of conditions at the
time of the visit.
Students collected data on whether or not shelters accepted cats. This is a gray area in the
state laws, with some county officials claiming that shelters are not required to accept cats.
Students collected data on whether or not each shelter accommodated cats, and a scoring
system was created: Good – meets the standards outlined above; Needs Improvement – Meets
most of the standards outlined above; Poor – Does not meet the majority of the standards.
While counties are not required by state law to provide shelter for livestock, students collected
data on whether or not shelters could accommodate livestock. The scoring system used was:
Good – Proper area for livestock; Needs Improvement – Area set aside for livestock but not
adequate or appropriate for safe containment; Poor – No area for livestock.
Students talked with shelter personnel to collect additional information including what they
considered their biggest problems, greatest needs, hardships faced, experiences obtaining
grants and other fund raising venues, whether they provide adoption services for unclaimed
animals or worked with animal rescue organization, if they provide spay/neuter services, what
training program they have utilized, and what basic veterinary care is provided to animals
entering the shelter. Additionally, if the shelter serviced multiple counties, students inquired
about how often they received animals from the various counties and if they knew where
animals were held until they are delivered to the shelter.
All data was compiled in spreadsheets for analysis. Absolute counts and percentages were
calculated for each of the scores for the different standards, and for the information gained
through communications with shelter personnel. An overall compliance score was determined

 9

for each county shelter based strictly on the how many of the current state shelter requirements
were met. A second overall score was created for each county shelter based on the student’s
assessment of the shelter taking into consideration additional items not required by state law but
considered essential for good shelter practices, including vaccination of animals upon arrival,
spay/neuter programs, and adoption programs. Major problems and needs identified by shelter
personnel were determined by comparing data from all counties. Data was used to create a list
of shelters with good compliance and good shelter programs when compared with all Kentucky
county animal shelters, as well as a list of shelters needing the most help. Lastly, the student
researchers identified possible future programs and actions to address the problems identified
in this study.
RESULTS
Shelter information: The students identified 92 shelters that service Kentucky’s 120 counties.
Some county shelters were owned and operated by the county, some were private shelters
contracted by the county to provide services, and some counties contracted with regional
shelters servicing multiple counties. One county shelter was in the process of being built (Wolfe
county), and one shelter was closed due to legal proceedings at the time of the study
(Edmonson county shelter, which services Edmonson, Hart, Grayson and Metcalfe counties), so
full evaluation of these 2 shelters was not possible. Several of the counties using the Edmonson
county shelter indicated they would be sending their animals to other shelters in the future but at
the time of this study those arrangements were not official. Study results are based on
evaluations of the county animal shelters that were open and operating at the time of the study.
A list of all shelters, locations, directions, hours and contact information current as of July 2016
is provided in Appendix B. See Appendix C for photographs of county shelter exteriors.
Degree of compliance with specific statute requirements: Results for data collected regarding
how well each county shelter complied with the specific state law requirements are shown in
Figure 1, A-P. These graphs show the percentage of the 90 county animal shelters that were
deemed Good, Needs Improvement, or Poor as defined in the method section for each
standard. The most prevalent problems identified were lack of adequate quarantine facilities,
inadequate shelter size for the population of animals housed, inappropriate building materials
leading to inadequate disinfection, unclean conditions, and inadequate ventilation. See
Appendices D and E for photographs of good and bad shelter conditions, respectively.

 10

Cats: Results for the number of county shelters that accepted cats and the quality of care
provided for cats in those shelters are shown in Figure 1, Q-R. Major problems identified were
severe overpopulation and crowding of cat facilities, and poor ventilation.
Livestock: The majority of counties did not have facilities to house livestock and did not have
other arrangements in place should the need arise: 82% of county shelters could not
accommodate livestock, 6% did take in livestock but housed them in inappropriate areas, and
only 12% of county shelters had adequate facilities to properly house livestock.
Overall compliance with state shelter laws: Results for overall compliance with state shelter laws
on a state-wide basis are shown in Figure 2 A,B. Only 12% of counties met all requirements
mandated by state law, while over 50% of counties were in violation of 3 or more parts of the
shelter laws. These results are based on Kentucky’s 120 counties.
Student researchers’ perspectives of shelter quality: The student researchers believed that an
evaluation based solely on state statutes does not provide a complete picture of animal care
provided at shelters. Therefore, an evaluation of overall shelter care was performed, taking into
consideration other vital components of modern shelter practices, such as animal adoption
programs, spay/neuter programs, and veterinary care including vaccinations and worming, in
addition to the state minimum standards. A map and chart depicting how well the various
counties were performing from the veterinary students’ perspectives is shown in Figure 3A,B.
These figures shows counties the student researchers thought were providing good animal care
(labeled “Best” shelters), those that could use some improvements in a few areas, and those
that need major improvements in many areas.

Figure 1. A-P (See next page). Degree of compliance with each part of Kentucky shelter laws evaluated.
Charts show the percentage of the 90 county animal shelters deemed Good, Needs Improvement, or
Poor as defined in the method section for each standard. Q-R: Charts show the percentage of county
shelters that accommodate cats and the degree of compliance of cat holding areas.

 Clean and dry pens

Adequate protection from the weather

A

85.56% Good
12.22% Needs Improvement
2.22% Poor

26.67% Good
73.33% Poor

Impervious building materials

G

38.89% Good
43.33% Needs Improvement
15.56% Poor
2.22% Not determined

J

M

Heat provided in winter
75.56% Good
13.33% Needs Improvement
3.33% Poor
7.78% Not determined

E

K

F

Quarantine area

H

31.11% Good
21.11% Needs Improvement
43.33% Poor
4.44% Not determined

Public hours posted

I

61.11% Good
27.78% Needs Improvement
10.00% Poor
1.11% Not determined

Open to public 24 hr or more per week
72.22% Good
2.22% Needs Improvement
22.22% Poor
3.33% Not determined

86.67% Good
4.44% Needs Improvement
3.33% Poor
5.56% Not determined

N

Q

95.56% Yes
3.33% No
1.11% Undetermined

Adequate ventilation

L

Daily food
82.11% Good
3.16% Needs Improvement
5.26% Poor
9.47% Not determined

11
80.00% Good
13.33% Needs Improvement
5.56% Poor
1.11% Not determined

Employed animal control officer(s)
80.00% Good
16.67% Needs Improvement
3.33% Poor

Records maintained

Separation of males and females

P

C

Adequating lighting

Adequately sized shelter

D

B

Adequate individual animal space
61.11% Good
25.56% Needs Improvement
11.11% Poor
2.22% Not determined

81.11% Good
6.67% Needs Improvement
12.22% Poor

Clean water at all times
93.33% Good
1.11% Needs Improvement
2.22% Poor
3.33% Not determined

Accomodate cats

O

88.89% Good
3.33% Needs Improvement
4.44% Poor
3.33% Not determined

Quality of cat holding areas
76.67% Good
23.33% Poor

R

33.33% Good
28.99% Needs Improvement
37.68% Poor

 12

Figure 2. Overall compliance based on state shelter laws, on a state-wide basis
A. Map of Kentucky counties showing overall degree of compliance. Counties displayed as white used
shelters that could not be fully evaluated at the time of this study.

Follows all parts of the laws
In violation of 1-2 parts of the laws
In violation of ≥ 3 parts of the laws

B. Percentages of Kentucky counties that follow all parts of Kentucky shelter laws, were in violation of 1
or 2 parts of the shelter laws, or were in violation of 3 or more parts of the laws.

 13

Figure 3. Overall quality of Kentucky county animal shelters based on the student researchers
perspectives taking into account important components of modern shelter practices such as animal
adoption programs, spay/neuter programs, and veterinary care in addition to the standards established
by state laws. Good quality (best) shelters were those that, compared to other Kentucky animal shelters,
provided the best overall quality of care.
A. Map of Kentucky counties with good quality shelters (best shelters), shelters needing a few
improvements, and shelters needing many improvements.

Good quality shelter
Needs improvements in a few areas
Needs improvements in many areas

B. Percentages of Kentucky counties whose shelters, from the student researchers’ perspective, were
good quality (best) shelters, needed a few improvements, or needed many improvements.

 14

Major problems identified by shelter personnel in a majority of shelters:
•

Lack of sufficient funds to adequately maintain and staff the shelter and care for animals.
Personnel at over 90% of shelters identified this as their major problem.
o

Many shelters received no county funding for adequate staffing, animal care or
veterinary care and depended heavily on private donations.

•

Pet overpopulation leading to overcrowding of shelters
o

Shelter personnel identified the lack of public education on the importance of
spay/neutering pets and the lack of affordable spay/neuter programs as major
obstacles

•

Insufficient shelter size to house all the animals needing shelter
o

•

Lack of funding and pet overpopulation were the identified as major causes

Inconsistent workforce
o

Lack of funding forced many shelters to rely on volunteers and other nonpermanent workers such as prison inmates and detention workers to provide the
work force.

Major needs identified by shelter personnel:
•

More funding (91% of shelters identified this as a top need)

•

More education, both for shelter workers and the general public, on topics such as basic
animal care, disease prevention, cleaning procedures, animal handling techniques, and
the importance of spay/neuter programs to reduce pet overpopulation (80% of shelters)

•

A larger workforce (63% of shelters)

•

Community spay/neuter programs (64% of shelter).

Major problems identified by student researchers:
•

Shelter overcrowding due to pet overpopulation and lack of spay/neuter programs;
inadequate facility size to house all of the animals needing shelter

•

Lack of funding to adequately staff the shelters or provide for basic animal care

•

Inadequate building materials that could not be properly cleaned or disinfected

•

Poor facility structure with poor ventilation, aging and poorly maintained facilities
improperly designed to house animals

•

Inadequate training for shelter personnel for basic things such as disease containment,
cleaning and disinfecting procedures, and animal health issues

 15

•

Lack of veterinary care for shelter animals with medical issues

•

Unclean conditions

•

Lack of safe housing for puppies

•

Lack of appropriate quarantine facilities in which quarantined animals are housed
separately from other animals.

•

Severe overcrowding, poor ventilation and unclean conditions in cat holding areas

•

For regional shelters servicing multiple counties, often animals were not delivered on a
daily basis from the various counties, and shelter staff did not know where animals were
housed until they were delivered in groups to the regional shelter. There was general
lack of information about these unofficial “holding facilities”.

List of the best shelters: A number of shelters were identified that appeared to be doing a good
job of meeting state requirements and also providing other essential services such as adoption
and spay/neuter programs and basic veterinary care to incoming animals. These are labeled
“best shelters” in a comparison to other Kentucky county animal shelters. See Table 1.
Table 1. List of Kentucky’s best county animal shelters
Boone County Animal Shelter

Lexington Humane Society – Fayette county

Bowling Green Warren County Humane Society

McCracken County Humane Society

Grant County Animal Shelter

Ohio County

Hardin County Animal Shelter – Hardin, LaRue co.

Oldham County Animal Control

Hopkins County

Paris Animal Welfare Society – Bourbon Co.

Humane Society of Nelson County

Pike County Animal Shelter

Jessamine County Animal Care and Control

Scott County Animal Shelter

Kenton County Animal Shelter

Shelby County Animal Shelter

Knox-Whitley Animal Shelter – Clay, Knox,

Tri-County Animal Shelter – Rowan, Bath, Carter,

McCreary and Whitley counties

Fleming counties

List of county shelters that need the most help: A number of county shelters were identified that
did not meet numerous parts of the state laws and were not providing a suitable standard of
care for animals housed in these facilities. See Table 2.

 16

Table 2. List of Kentucky animal shelters needing the most help
Fulton County Animal Shelter

Robertson County Animal Shelter

Carlisle County Animal Shelter

Floyd County Animal Shelter

Tri-County Animal Shelter – Clinton, Wayne,

Russell County holding facility

Cumberland counties (Albany, KY)
Garrard County Animal Shelter

Anderson County Animal Shelter

Kentucky River Regional Animal Shelter – Breathitt,

Butler County Animal Shelter

Letcher, Knott, Perry counties
Spencer County Animal Shelter

Muhlenberg County Animal Shelter

Martin County Animal Shelter

Lincoln County Animal Shelter – Lincoln, Casey co.

Greenup County Animal Shelter

Clark County Animal Shelter

Estill County Animal Shelter- Estill, Jackson, Lee

Ward Veterinary Clinic – Hickman county

and Owsley counties
Crittenden County Animal Shelter – Crittenden,

Caldwell County Animal Shelter

Livingston and Lyon counties
Marion County Animal Shelter – Marion and

McLean County Animal Shelter

Washington counties
Green River Animal Shelter – Adair, Green co.

Morgan County Animal Shelter

Ballard County Animal Shelter

Rockcastle County Animal Shelter

DISCUSSION
Results of this study show that only 12% of Kentucky’s counties meet all of the current shelter
standards set forth by Kentucky state law at the time of the shelter visit. Over 50% of counties
were found to be in violation of 3 or more parts of the shelter statutes. These results suggest the
self-regulation by counties concerning compliance with shelter laws is not sufficient and that
additional enforcement provisions are necessary to ensure compliance cross the state.
A major finding of the study was the overwhelming need for state funding for county shelter
programs. Personnel at over 90% of shelters stated that their major need was more funding, as
their county either could not or would not budget sufficient funds to adequately operate the
shelter. A number of shelters depended almost entirely on donations for operating expenses.
Some counties were able to build suitable shelter buildings only because of large donations for
this purpose from wealthy benefactors. Additional studies to assess county government financial
roadblocks to providing adequate shelter funding are warranted. Many counties were not aware

 17

of the previous state shelter grant funds (now depleted) that had been available for shelter
construction or renovations. Additionally, it became apparent many counties lacked the knowhow or initiative to apply for shelter grants. This suggests that if more state funding in the form
of grants becomes available in the future, better dissemination of information to all vested
county and shelter personnel is essential, and more assistance from state officials to help
counties apply for grants is necessary.
Lack of general awareness or availability of basic training programs for shelter personnel was
another major finding. Many shelter personnel, including animal control officers (described as
“dog wardens” in many counties), had not received any training regarding safe handling of
animals, proper facility cleaning and disinfection procedures, risks of communicable diseases,
proper animal nutrition, basic veterinary care, or other information vital for shelter workers.
Some shelter personnel indicated that the cost of travel and registration fees to training courses
was prohibitive. These findings suggest that better dissemination of basic information is crucial.
One excellent source of information that could be made available to all shelter personnel is the
Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters (free
on-line at http://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf).
Another option would be the creation of free on-line training programs provided by the state for
animal control officers and shelter personnel.
A major root cause for many of the problems identified in this study is the severe pet
overpopulation in the state due to lack of sufficient local spay/neuter programs and lack of public
education regarding the importance of spay/neuter programs for reducing the number of
unwanted pets. These problems could potentially be addressed by more funding from the state
for local spay/neuter programs and provision of public educational materials regarding the
importance of humane animal care and spaying/neutering pets. Additional possible providers of
or sponsors for spay/neuter programs could include national animal welfare organizations and
veterinary medical training programs in surrounding states. Numerous studies have shown that
the more successful local spay/neuter programs are, the fewer animals end up in local animal
shelters, leading to a significant reduction in the overall cost of sheltering unwanted or stray
animals and improvement in overall public health and safety.
As a result of pet overpopulation, many Kentucky county animal shelters were full to capacity or
over-capacity. To solve this problem, many shelters created outdoor or temporary facilities to

 18

house the overflow. In many cases, these temporary kennels became permanent despite not
being sufficient or appropriate to permanently house animals. Addressing the pet overpopulation
problems would help to ultimately diminish this problem. An interim solution used by a number
of shelters was to create a network of foster homes to help house animals during times of
overflow.
Finding a sufficient number of potential adopters for shelter animals is a major dilemma faced by
many shelters in Kentucky due to the state-wide pet overpopulation issue. Many shelters
address this issue by sending unclaimed animals to local, national or international animal
rescue organizations on a regular basis. These animal transfers are frequently coordinated and
carried out by volunteers. A large number of Kentucky’s shelter animals end up in the northeastern United States, where successful spay/neuter programs have dramatically reduced the
numbers of shelter animals.
Study findings showed that the care of cats in many shelters was substandard and considerably
worse in many cases than the care provided to dogs. Student researchers felt that cats were
often regarded as “second class citizens” by shelter workers. Lack of adequate ventilation in cat
areas was a major problem in many shelters and upper respiratory diseases were rampant
among shelter cats. Another major problem was unsanitary cage conditions. In some instances,
dead and decomposing kittens were found in cages containing live kittens. Many shelter
workers described situations of overwhelming cat populations, the inability to find sufficient
numbers of people willing to adopt shelter cats, the need to euthanize a large number of cats,
and the resulting emotional toll and stress to workers and volunteers. Feral cats were a
significant problem, as feral cats are very unlikely to be adopted. Some shelters addressed this
issue by establishing feral cat colonies at their facilities, where feral cats would be spayed or
neutered upon arrival and then released to the outdoors colony. Others addressed this issue by
participating in Trap-Neuter-Release programs where feral cats are released back into the
environment after being spayed or neutered. The fact that 23% of county shelters did not accept
cats indicates that clarification of state laws regarding control and care of stray and unwanted
cats is warranted.
Only 12% of county shelters had facilities suitable for livestock or large animals. Livestock
facilities are not required by state law, but many counties are periodically faced with cases of
livestock abuse or neglect for which large animals need to be confiscated. Not having a place to

 19

house these animals or having other arrangements to deal with these situations can lead to
inaction on the part of the county to confiscate neglected livestock.
The lack of adequate quarantine facilities in many shelters was a surprising finding. Only 31% of
counties had appropriate quarantine areas where the quarantined animals had no direct contact
with other animals. This was especially surprising since a major purpose for the creation of
animal shelters long ago was for quarantine for rabies control purposes. Forty-two percent of
counties did not have a quarantine area at all. A number of other counties did have a cage or
kennel with a sign posted on it stating “Quarantine”, but the animals housed in the kennel still
had direct nose-to-nose contact with animals in adjacent kennels or cages.
Several shelters were not open to the public, and access to the shelter had to be arranged by
making an appointment with the animal control officer or dog warden. Additionally, student
researchers found it hard to find information about the locations of several shelters or obtain
directions on how to get to the shelter. A number of counties did not provide any information
about their animal shelters on-line or in the phone book, and several shelters did not have a
physical address designation that could be used for GPS devices or maps. In these cases,
students had to contact various county agencies to determine the shelter location and
directions. Often shelters were created by sectioning off a corner of the county
road/maintenance facility with tarps or plywood boards. A number of shelters did not have any
road signage to direct the public to the shelter location. This lack of public access hours and
unavailable shelter contact information makes it difficult for the public to find the shelter and
reclaim their animals.
Many shelters depend upon volunteers, prison inmates and detention workers to staff the
shelter. This resulted in a very inconsistent, often undependable and even hostile or dangerous
workforce for many shelters. A number of counties only pay the salary of a part-time animal
control office or dog warden, and did not provide funding for anyone to manage, clean or
maintain the shelter.
Lack of basic veterinary care was another major problem identified in the study. Many shelter
personnel stated that their county governments did not provide funding for any veterinary care,
and that they either depended on private donations for veterinary care, or were not able to
provide any veterinary care. Simple medical issues such as skin problems and intestinal

 20

parasites, respiratory and ocular infections, and simple wounds were not treated in many cases.
Many shelters did not have funds available for basic prophylactic veterinary care designed to
reduce disease outbreaks, such as vaccination and deworming upon entry to the shelter, and
did not house new arrivals to the shelter separately from the general population until their
disease status could be appropriately assessed. County officials need to be educated about the
importance of proper veterinary care for shelter animals and the risks posed to public health if
veterinary care is not provided. Animals exposed to disease while in the shelter can bring those
diseases home to families and other animals when they are reclaimed or adopted. The cost of
adequate veterinary services for shelter animals needs to be included in county budgets.
Unclean, unsanitary conditions and lack of impervious kennel building materials were found in a
large number of shelters. Many shelters housed animals on unsealed concrete, gravel or dirt
flooring, which cannot be disinfected between occupants. The inability to properly clean and
disinfect animal holding areas leads to a buildup of infections agents and puts all future
occupants at risk of contracting diseases, some of which can be highly fatal such as parvovirus
and distemper. A number of these diseases are also a risk to humans (e.g., round worms,
tapeworms, giardia, chlamydia, leptospirosis, ringworm and others). Otherwise healthy animals
that arrive in these shelters can easily contract diseases that may cause them to become ill or
even die, or bring home diseases to their owners, adopters or other animals when they are
released from the shelter. This creates unacceptable threats to animal and human health, and
loss of or damage to personal property.
This study highlighted many gray areas surrounding the wording of current state shelter laws.
Wording of many of the statutes is vague and open to interpretation. For example, “Protection
from the weather” could mean anything ranging from a building with 4 walls, a dog house with or
without bedding, or a tarp draped over a wire kennel, depending on who is interpreting the
wording. Similarly, “adequate lighting” could mean electric light available at any time of day or
night, natural light coming through windows or doorways, or sunlight for animals housed solely
outdoors. Nearly every statute was open to some degree of interpretation. The student
researchers used their training in basic animal husbandry to create a reasonable scoring system
for each of the standards so that evaluations could be standard and uniform for all counties.
Revisions or refinements of current legislation are needed to better define and describe the
standards. Additionally, while the current state standards for Kentucky’s county animal shelters
are a great improvement over previous laws, they are considered minimal by national shelter

 21

standards and are missing vital components such as spay/neuter, vaccination and adoption
programs. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal
Shelters (http://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf) would
be a useful document to reference when creating revisions or additions to current laws.
Drop-off kennels or pens created problems at some shelters. Some shelters provide crates or
pens or cages outside the facilities so that the public can drop off animals even when the shelter
is closed. Sometimes animals remained in the drop-off crates or pens for a day or longer without
water or food or adequate protection from the elements if shelter personnel were not aware an
animal had been dropped off. Improper monitoring of drop-off pens can result in animal deaths.
There also is a risk of cats being placed in drop-off pens with dogs, posing risks of potential
injury or death of the cat.
A number of shelters across the state were identified that provided good animal care, were in
reasonably good compliance with state laws, and provided additional programs such as
spay/neuter, vaccination and adoption programs (see Best shelters in the results). Personnel at
these shelters were willing and enthusiastic to share their ideas and successes regarding
training, facilities, fund-raising and other information to staff from other county shelters.
Some unexpected issues related to regional shelters were identified. In several instances,
counties indicated that they contracted with a specific regional shelter, but shelter personnel at
the regional shelter stated that they did not have a contract with that county and never received
animals from that county. This discrepancy could not be resolved in this study. Another issue
identified was that some counties did not deliver animals to the regional shelter on a daily basis.
These counties held stray animals at an undisclosed location until such time that the animal
control officer or dog warden deemed there were sufficient numbers of animals to warrant travel
to the regional shelter. This information was gathered by asking regional shelters how often they
received animals from each of the contracted counties, and how many animals arrived with
each delivery. Shelter personnel usually did not know the location or condition of these unofficial
holding facilities.
Student researchers identified a number of shelters that were in very poor compliance with state
laws and that were not providing adequate care of shelter animals (see Shelters Needing the
Most Help in the results). Most of these shelters had inadequate structures and minimal to no

 22

staffing to care for animals. When the list of these counties was cross-checked against the list of
counties that had previously applied for state grant funds for shelter construction/renovation, few
of these counties had applied for grants. Many of these counties appeared to have similar
demographics to neighboring counties that had good or excellent shelters. Attitudes and
opinions held by county magistrates and county judge executives concerning the importance of
humane care of shelter animals, as well as local public opinion and degree of concern, are likely
major factors determining the amount of funding and effort made toward the county animal
shelter.
One potential confounder in this study is the risk of individual biases and interpretations created
by having six individuals gather data from different counties. This risk was mitigated by the
development of standardized scoring systems that clearly defined each score. Additionally,
students worked as a group to review all data for all shelters and come to an overall group
agreement for each score or categorization made for every shelter.
Another important factor to consider when interpreting these results is that the student
researchers visited shelters only once to make the evaluations, so the data collected represents
one snapshot in time. It is possible that conditions at a shelter at the time of the visit might have
been better or worse than at other times. However, overall state-wide results are likely
reasonably accurate, as it is unlikely that all shelters would be in better condition at the time of
the study, or that all shelters would in worse conditions at the time of the study, compared to
other times.
Student researchers found that the vast majority of shelter personnel were very open and willing
to answer questions and very forthright about the problems they face and their needs as well as
successful programs, projects and fund raisers. Only in a few instances were shelter personnel
unable or unwilling to answer questions or provide a tour of the facility.
Conclusions
Major conclusions of this study are:
•

The majority of Kentucky’s county animal shelters are not in good compliance with
current state animal shelter laws, despite being nearly 10 years past the date set for
mandatory full compliance.

 23

•

The major factor contributing to this lack of compliance appears to be lack of sufficient
funds to adequately construct, maintain, and staff the facilities and to provide adequate
daily care for animals housed in the facilities.

•

18 county shelters were identified in this study that appear to provide good animal care
and are willing to serve as sources of information and advice to personnel from other
county shelters.

•

26 county shelters were identified in this study as being very substandard and needing
considerably assistance to improve the shelter conditions

•

There appears to be a significant need for additional funding to support construction and
renovations for county animal shelters and possibly other shelter-related functions.

•

If future state funds become available to assist counties with animal shelter programs,
technical assistance from the state for counties wishing to submit grants and better
advertisement of the availability of grant funds are needed.

•

Current laws do not appear to be fully satisfactory at accomplishing the goal of providing
adequate shelter animal care across Kentucky.

•

Addition of a shelter inspection program and enforcement provisions to current state
shelter laws appear to be warranted.

•

Additional statutes to address sheltering of livestock should be considered.

Overall, study results show that while there has been great progress made in Kentucky’s animal
shelters since the last state-wide study performed in 1996, there is still much work that needs to
be done to bring Kentucky’s animal shelters up to modern standards of care.
Future directions
The number of problems identified in this study and the complexity of problems suggest there is
no simple solution. A reasonable next step might be for the state to establish a task force to
reassess animal sheltering in Kentucky. Goals of the task force might include: to review all data
available relating to Kentucky’s animal shelters; to gather information from other states with
successful animal care and control programs that could be used as a template for Kentucky; to
determine options for generating revenue to provide a reliable source of funds to assist county
shelters; to determine which branch of state governmental is best suited to provide an animal
shelter inspection program and enforcement of animal control laws, and if changes to the
structure or function of the ACAB are indicated; and to develop recommendations on how to
move forward. Task force members could include specialists in the areas of veterinary

 24

medicine, public health, animal shelter management, animal behavior, jurisprudence, and
construction along with representatives from other vested groups including state and county
agencies, animal owners and animal welfare groups.
Additional plans include studies to further investigate root causes of some of the problems
identified in this study. One such study could be to gather demographic and county budget
information from each county and see how these data correlate with shelter compliance.
The student researchers are also working to create information packets to distribute to counties
that requested additional training and information about proper cleaning and disinfection
procedures, animal handling practices, and grant opportunities. Students are working with the
Lincoln Memorial University College of Veterinary Medicine administration to explore options of
providing mobile veterinary spay/neuter programs to needy Kentucky counties. Students are
also working with the college’s animal shelter medicine group to investigate educational
programs to teach children about humane animal care and the importance of spay/neuter
programs. Other educational goals are to explore ways for shelters to share information, tips
and advice on what makes them successful to other shelters needing assistance.

Veterinary Student Researchers: Rachel Cullman-Clark, Liane Lachiewicz, Matt Lamarre, Brad
Rohleder, Kristin Sadler, Rachel Sparling. Lincoln Memorial University College of Veterinary
Medicine, Harrogate, Tennessee
Faculty Advisors: Dr. Cynthia Gaskill and Dr. Craig Carter, University of Kentucky Department of
Veterinary Science, Lexington, Kentucky. This report was prepared by Dr. Cynthia Gaskill.
Please direct all inquiries to Dr. Gaskill at cynthia.gaskill@uky.edu 2016
Funding for the study was provided by the University of Kentucky, Lincoln Memorial University,
Morehead State University, and private donors.

 Appendix A. Data collection templates used for the study.

25

26

Protection from
the weather
Clean and dry
pens
Adequate space
for animal
comfort
Lighting

Employed ACO
Building
materials easily
cleaned
Holding area
Quarantine
Proper
ventilation

Adequate heat
in the winter
Hours posted

>or = 24 hours
open

YES

NO

NOTES

 27

Maintain
records

Food provided
daily
Clean, potable
water

Males and
females
separate
Basic veterinary
care
Humane
Euthanasia
Cat area

Livestock/large
animal

Additional Notes:

YES

NO

NOTES

 Shelter Name:
28

Counties served:

Date:

What do you need to be successful?​ What successes have you had?

What ​hardships​ does your shelter face?

If shelter services other counties, how often do you get dogs from the other counties’ “facilities”? ​Do
you know where they’re being held?

Do you ​adopt​ here, send them to ​rescue​ ​groups​, ​transports​, those kind of relationships, etc?

Are you familiar with the ​grant process​ and available training? If more money would come available would
you be interested in that? Do you feel there is a need for easy access to training? Are you aware that in the
past the state has had funds?

If we come up with any ​additional​ ​questions​ or if you would want result of the study, who would we contact?

 29

Appendix B. Master list of all Kentucky county animal shelters, locations, hours, contact
information and directions. Note: Shelters are listed by shelter name in most cases, so some
may be listed by a name other than the county name.

 30
Shelter Name

Counties served Phone Number

Allen County/ Scottsville
Animal Shelter
Allen
Anderson County Animal
Control and Intake
Anderson

Animal House Adoption
Center (Louisville Metro
Animal Services)
Ballard County=Coffey
Animal Clinic
Barren River Animal
Welfare Association
Bell County Animal
Shelter
Boone County Animal
Shelter
Bowling Green Warren
County Humane Society
Boyd County Animal
Shelter and Animal
Control
Bracken County Animal
Shelter
Breckinridge County
Animal Shelter
Bullitt County Animal
Shelter
Butler County Animal
Shelter
Caldwell County Animal
Shelter
Campbell County Animal
Shelter
Carlisle County Shelter
Carroll County Animal
Shelter
Christian County Animal
Shelter

(270) 618-7387
(502)-839-6410

Jefferson

502-574-5557

Ballard

270-665-9146

Barren

(270)-651-7297

Bell

(606) 337-2005; (606) 337-6331

Boone

(859) 586-5285

Warren

270-842-8572; AC office: 270-842-1633; Adoption
Center
270-783-9404

Boyd

(606) 324-0745

Bracken

(606)-735-3475

Breckinridge

270-580-4299, 270-547-8864

Bullitt

502-817-3759

Butler

270-526-2694

Caldwell

270-365-2041 (shelter)

Campbell

(859)-635-2819

Carlisle

270-628-3744 (?)

Carroll
Christian, Todd,
Trigg, and
occasionally
helps Caldwell

502-732-8959

270-887-4175

270-365-1000 ( ACO)

Hours listed
Physical Address
M- 12pm-3pm; T- 10am-4pm; WClosed; Th- 10am-4pm; F10am-4pm; Sa- Closed; Su51 Humane Ln,
Closed
Scottsville KY, 42164
1410 Versailles Rd,
M-F 10-4, S 10-12
Lawrenceburg KY 40342
Monday - Noon - 6 p.m.
Tuesday - Noon - 6 p.m.
Wednesday - Noon - 6 p.m.
Thursday - Noon - 6 p.m.
Friday - Noon - 6 p.m.
Saturday - 11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Closed - Sundays & Holidays
3516 Newburg Road,
Louisville, KY 40218
275 W. Kentucky Dr. La
Mon-Fri 8-5 Sat 7:30-12
Center, KY
M- 10am-5pm; T- 10am-5pm; WClosed; Th- 10am-5pm; F10am-5pm; Sa- 10am-4pm; Su- 175 Trojan Trail,
Closed
Glasgow KY 4241
M- 9am-3pm; T- 9am-3pm; W9am-3pm; Th- 9am-6pm; FOff of Hwy 25E-Page
9am-3pm; Sa- 11am-1pm
cutoff Road, Pineville, KY
M-F- 12pm-6pm; Sa- 10am-4pm; 5643 Idlewild Road,
Su- Closed
Burlington KY 41005
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday,
1925 Old Louisville
Friday (10 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.)
Road, Bowling Green,
Saturday (10 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.)
KY 42103
Sunday (12 noon - 4:00 p.m.)
M- 10-4:30 PM, T- 10-4:30, W 10-4:30, Th- 10-4:30 PM, Fri 10- 1025 Bob McCullough
4:30 PM
Dr, Ashland, KY 41102
Mon-Fri 8-4, at shelter from 11- 188 Hamilton Road,
12 for adoptions
Brooksville KY 41004
Tues-Fri 11-4 Closed Sat and
498 Glenn Nash Rd,
Sun
Hardingsburg KY 40142
Mon- Fri 9-5:30 Sat 10-3 Closed 545 Clermont Rd,
Sun and Holidays
Shephersville KY 40165
Mon-Fri 8-1 Closed Wed Sat 8- 463 Boat Factory Rd,
12 Closed Sunday
Morgantown KY, 42261
489 Baker Hill Rd.
Mon-Fri 11-4
Princeton, KY 42445
1898 Poplar Ridge Road,
Mon-Fri 10-4:20 Sat 9-1
Alexandira KY 41001
Road department hours are 9-3:
30
Monday - Friday: 8-10 am and 24 pm
Saturday: 9-12 am

Boyle
Edmonson, Hart,
Grayson,
Metcalfe

CLOSED

Estill County Animal
Shelter

Estill, Jackson,
Lee, Owsley

(606) 723-3587

Flora Shropshire Animal
Shelter

Harrison

(859) 234-7138

CLOSED
M- 8:15 AM- 2:15 PM, T- 8:15- 2:
15 PM, W- 8:15- 2:15 PM, Th8:15 - 2:15 PM, Fri- 8:15-2:15
PM
Monday-Friday 10:00 AM to 4:00
PM (extended hours on Thurs.
until 6pm)

Floyd County Animal
Shelter

Floyd

(606) 886-3189

M-F 10am-5pm; Sa-Sun 11am2pm

Clark
Crittenden,
Livingston, Lyon

(859) 737-0053
270-969-1054
(859) 238-1117

Directions (if needed)

Zachary Childers

across the street from wild turkey distillary, next to the humane society

Patsy Bracken

Pat Taylor

Just after fire department

Tommy Petit

93 E. Court Street
Bardwell, KY

Terri Baker, Lisa Bowmen
city road department
workers serve as dog
This is the city road department that has a small pen where stray dogs are kept in
wardens
the back corner of the open garage

2182 Boone Rd,
Carrollton, KY 41008

Leonard Danner - Dog
warden

2935 Russellville Road,
Hopkinsville, Kentucky
Mon, Tu, Thurs, Fri, Sat 10:30-4 42240
10AM – 4 PM Tuesday –
Saturday, Closed on Sunday & 5000 Ironworks Road,
Monday
Winchester, KY 40391
1901 U.S. 60 EAST,
Mon-Fri 8-4 Sat 8-12
MARION, KY
M-F- 8am-4:30pm; Sa- 10am777 N Danville Bypass,
4pm
Danville, KY 40422

Clark County Animal
Shelter
Crittenden County Animal
Shelter
Danville- Boyle County
Humane Society
Edmonson/Hart/Grayson/
Metcalfe Co. Animal
Shelter

ACO (if known)

Irene Grace
Adreanna Wills- director,
acting as ACO
Stan Kinnis

188 Sanders Rd, Bee
Spring, KY
50 Ginter Rd, Ravenna,
KY 40472
1751 New Lair Road
Cynthiana, KY 41031
545 Sally Stephens
Branch, Prestonsburg,
KY 41653

Sign off main road follow up drive way

Tommy Mullen
Allen Frym

Enter into fair grounds, follow back until you see shelter

 31
Shelter Name
Counties served Phone Number
Franklin County Humane
Society
Franklin
(502) 875-7297

Fulton County Pound
Gallatin County Animal
Shelter
Garrard County Animal
Shelter
Grant County Animal
Shelter
Green River Animal
Shelter
Greenup County Animal
Shelter
Hancock County Animal
Shelter
Hardin County Animal
Shelter
Harlan County Animal
Shelter
Hickman County=Ward
Animal Clinic
Hopkins County Humane
Society
Humane Society and
Nelson Co Animal Shelter
Humane Society of
Henderson County
Jessamine County
Animal Care and Control

Fulton

Johnny McTurner ( City of Hickman manager) You
call him and he will contact the dog warden

Mon-Fri 8-2

Gallatin

(859) 743-6564

M-F 11-4

Garrard

859-792-1562

M-F- 8-5pm; ACO on call 24/7
Monday 12-7pm; Tuesday and
Wednesday 12-5pm; Thursday
2-6pm; Friday 12-4pm; Saturday
and Sunday- closed
M- Closed; T- 10am-5pm, W10am-5pm; Th- 10am-5pm; FClosed; Sa- 10am-2pm; SuClosed

Grant
(859) 824-9403
Adair, Green
(Metcalfe plans to
start taking
animals here)
(270) 385-9655
Greenup

(606) 473-5711

Hancock

270-927-8544

Mon- Fri 8-1 PM
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:
00pm Saturday & Sunday 9:
00am to 12:00pm

Hardin, Larue

270-769-3428

M-Sat 12:00 - 4:00

Harlan

(606) 573-8867

M-F 10am-3pm; Sa- 10am-1pm

Hickman

(270) 472-2886

Hopkins

(270) 821-8965

Mon-Fri 8-5 (?)
Tu., Fri., Sat.: 9-5 Sun., Mon.,
Wed., Th.: by appointment only

Nelson

502-384-1865

Henderson

(270) 826-8966

Jessamine

(859) 881-0821

Kenton County Animal
Shelter
Kentucky River Regional
Animal Shelter
Knox/Whitley County
Animal Shelter

Kenton
859-356-7400
Breathitt, Letcher,
Knott, Perry
(606) 439-4064
Knox, Whitley,
Clay, McCreary
(606) 526-6925

Laurel County Animal
Shelter

Laurel

(606) 864-6319

Lawrence,
Magoffin

(606) 673-4509

Leslie

(606) 672-4803

Lewis County Animal
Shelter

Lewis, Elliot

(606) 796-3917

Lexington Humane
Society

Fayette

LHS:(859) 233-0044

Lawrence Humane
Society
Leslie County Animal
Shelter

Lincoln County Animal
Shelter
Logan county Humane
Society
Madison County Animal
shelter

Hours listed
Tues-Sun 12:00-5:00
Closed Monday

Lincoln, Casey

(606) 365-2354

Logan

270-726-2186

Madison

859-986-9625

Mon., Thurs., Fri. 10-5
Tues. 10-7
Wed. 12-5
Sat. 9-12
Adoptions: Mon-Fri- 12-5pm;
Sat- 10am-2pm; Stray,
Surrender, & Reclaim: Mon-Fri9am-5pm; Sa- 9am-2pm
Adoption hrs: Mon, Tues, Thurs,
Fri 11am-4:30pm, Wed and Sat
11am-1:30pm; Shelter hrs: Mon,
Tues, Thrus, Fri 11am-5pm &
Wed and Sat 11am-2pm

Physical Address
1041 Kentucky Ave,
Frankfort, KY 40601

ACO (if known)

City Hall: 1812 South 7th
Street Hickman, KY
4550 KY highway-455,
Sparta, KY 41086
BOBBY NUNN
210 Doty Lane,
Lancaster, KY 40444
Brittany Collins
218 Barnes Rd,
Williamstown, KY
455 Jim Blair Rd,
Columbia, KY 42728
47 Dog Gone Ln,
Greenup, KY

Jimmy Harmon (Adair);
Larry Penick, Dog
Warden (270)405-3203
(Green);

305 Gene Hayden Rd.
Lewisport, KY 42351
220 Peterson Dr
Elizabethtown, KY
394 Highway 840 Baxter,
KY
206 Nolan Ave. Fulton,
KY 42041
2210 Laffoon Trail,
Madisonville, KY 42431 Dustin
2391 New Haven Rd,
Bardstown, KY 40004

From City Hall: Take 7th street past City Hall ( on your Right) and at 4 way stop
turn Right on 94. Make a Left on Allison, and at the first stop sign, turn Right on
Clay. Continue on this street past some houses. There will be a field on the left
and the shelter buisling will be on the Right behind a chain link fence.

Follow signs back past the detention center

Shelter at this location and animal control is at seperate location

203 Drury Lane
Henderson, KY 42420
120 Fairground Way
City-county Park,
Nicholasville, KY 40356

Frank Ruggerio 859-8854836
Follow the road untill it ends

1020 Mary Laidley Dr,
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky
Elizabeth Cochran41017
director
194 Animal Shelter Lane,
M-F 10am-5pm; Sa- 10am-2pm Hazard, KY 41701
66 Busy Lane, Corbin,
T-F 11am-5pm; Sa- 10am-3pm KY 40701
M- 10am-6pm; T- 10am-3pm; W- 1697 Chris Hamlin
10am-6pm; Th- 10am-3pm; FMemorial Ln, London, KY
10am-6pm, Sa- 10am-2pm
40744
M- 10-2 PM, T- 10-2 PM, W- 102 PM, Thurs 10-2 PM, Fri 10- 2: 820 Issac Park Rd,
00 PM
Louisa, KY 41230
Johnny Rickman
425 Detention Center
M-F 8am-4pm
Rd, Hyden, KY 41749
Call before you go- Mon - 9- 3,
T- 9-3, W- 9-3, Thurs 9-3, Fri - 9- 149 County Drive,,
3 PM
Vanceburg, KY 41179
Monday - Thursday & Saturday:
12pm - 6pm
Friday: 12pm - 8pm
1600 Old Frankfort Pike, Animal Control: (859)
Sunday: 1pm - 5pm
Lexington, KY
255-9033

Mon, Tu, Thurs, Fri, Sat 10-4
Office Hours: M-F 9:00AM - 5:
00PM; Sat- 9:00AM - 4:00PM
Viewing Hours: 12:00PM Close

Directions (if needed)

341 Workhouse Rd,
Stanford, KY 40484
1230 Morgantown
RdRussellville, KY
1386 Richmond Road,
Berea, KY 40403

Scott Tussey

GPS does not take you to the correct location, so type in the Detention Center's
address into GPS in order to find the animal shelter.

GPS does not take you to the correct location: Head south on 27, go about 1 mile
past Lincoln County High School until you see a sign for the animal shelter on the
right, turn right and follow road until you see the animal shelter on the left

Off of Hwy 25

 32
Shelter Name
Marion county Animal
Shelter

Counties served Phone Number
Marion,
Washington
(270) 692-0464

Marshall County Animal
Care and control

Marshall

270-527-0954

Mason

(606) 564-6706

Graves

270-251-0130

McCracken

270-443-5923

McLean

(270) 499-2556

Mason Co Animal
Control/Shelter
Mayfield Graves County
Animal Shelter
McCracken Humane
Society
McLean County Animal
shelter

Meade Co Animal Shelter Meade

270-422-3967

Menifee Co Animal
Shelter

(606) 768-9368

Menifee

Mercer Co Animal Shelter Mercer
Montgomery Co Animal
Shelter
Montgomery
Morgan Co Animal
Shelter
Humane Society of
Muhlenberg County
Murray-Calloway County
Animal Shelter
Nicholas County Animal
Shelter
Ohio Co Animal Shelter
Oldham County Animal
Control
Owen County Friends of
Animals

(859) 734-5154
859-498-8751

Morgan

(606)-743-7261

Muhlenberg

(270) 338-6940

Calloway

270-759-4141

Nicholas

Dog warden- 859-473-3037

Ohio

(270) 298-4499

Oldham

502-222-7387

Owen

Deb Strong= 502-542- 8266

Owensboro Animal
Control

Daviess

270-685-8275

Paris Animal Welfare
Society

Bourbon

(859) 988-9800

Pendleton Co Animal
Shelter

Pendleton

859-472-5400

Pike Co Animal Shelter

Pike

(606) 432-6293
Phone: (606) 663-4998; Emergency: (606) 6634116

Powell Co Animal Shelter Powell
Pulaski County Animal
Pulaski, Russell
Shelter
adoptions
Robertson County Animal
shelter
Robertson
Rockcastle County
Animal Shelter
Russell County Animal
Shelter
Scott County Animal
Shelter
Shelby County Animal
Shelter

(606) 679-6432
606-842-0233

Rockcastle

(606) 256-1833

Russell

(270) 858-9570

Scott

502-863-7897

Shelby

502-633-0009

Hours listed
Physical Address
ACO (if known)
Directions (if needed)
M, T, Th, F- 9-3:30, Sa- 9-12; W, 1105 Highway 208,
John A Settles
Su- Closed
Lebanon, KY
(Washington)
839 Benton-Briensburg
Road, BENTON, KY,
Autumn Hollis
42025
director/ACO
Mon-Fri 8-4:30
Monday-Thursday 8:00AM- 4:
30PM; Friday- 8:00AM- 6:00PM, 301 River Dr.
Saturday 8:00AM- 12:00PM
Maysville, KY 41056
Roger Mullikin
500 N 12th St Mayfield,
M, T, Th, F 12-5 Sat. 12-4
KY
Mac Wilford
4000 Coleman Road,
Mon-Fri 10:30-4:30
Paducah KY 42001
Aaron Hudson
1508 State Route 136 E,
Mon. & Fri. 8-12, Wed. & Th. 12- Calhoun, Kentucky
42327
Julia Pryor
4:30
Mon-Fri:8:00 am - 4:00 pmSat:9: 516 Hillcrest Dr
00 am - 1:00 pm
Brandenburg, KY
381 Little League Lane
at the County Park in
Mon- Fri: 7-10 AM, Tues and
Frenchburg, KY
Thurs 4:30 -7:30 PM
M- F- 10:00am - 4:00pm; W, Su- 896 Moberly Rd,
Closed; Sa- 10:00am - 12:00pm Harrodsburg, KY 40330
M/W/F 7:00AM to 3:30PM, T/Th 115 Adena Drive, Mt.
7:00 AM-5 PM, SAT 9AM-12PM Sterling, KY
Mon, Wed, Fri 9-4:30, Tues and
Thurs by appointment, Sat 10-2 6591 HWY 460 W, West
PM
Liberty, KY 41472
Mon., Tu., Th., Fri.,:11-5
615 Muhlenberg Dr.
Sat 10-2
Greenville, KY 42345
Barrett Jones-director
81 Shelter Lane, Murray
Mon.-Fri. 10-4 Sat. 10-3
KY 42071
No posted hours, Call Willie
2477 Concrete Rd
Hoag
Carlisle, KY 40311
Willie Hoag- Dog Warden follow signs from road, shelter is behind tan building and down the hill
Mon-Tue:10:00 am - 4:00
pmThu-Fri:10:00 am - 4:00
1802 County Club Ln,
pmSat:10:00 am - 12:00 pm
Hartford, KY
Open 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Monday
- Wednesday and Friday Saturday. Thursdays by
3946 Jones Dr, La
appointment only.
Grange, KY 40031
80 Old Monterey Rd,
Follow address, When you make the turn onto Old Monterey Rd, make a left turn
No posted hours, Call ACO
Owenton, KY
Sharlette 502-514-2140 onto the gravel road right behind the church, follow back for 0.25 miles
Animal intake starts at 8:00 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and at noon on Thursday.
Thursday - 12:00pm - 6:00pm
2620 Hwy 81,
Saturday - 9:00am - 3:00pm (closed
11:30-noon)
Owensboro,
Ky 42301
(859)-340-0016 David
Perrier or Jessie Florence
M- 12-6 PM, T- 12-6 PM, WOff hours: (859)-340closed, Thurs 12-6 PM, Fri 12-6 6 Legion Rd, Paris, KY
0118
behind post office and school
PM, Sat- 12-4PM, Sun- closed
40361
Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri:10am-2pm
Wed 10am - 4pm, Saturday:
1314 Bryan Griffin Rd,
8am- 12pm
Falmouth, KY 41040
527 Lykins Creek Road,
Tu-Sa 10am-4pm
Pikeville, KY 41501
Mon-Fri 9-4:00 PM, Sat 8-12:00 169 Transfer Station Rd,
PM, Closed Thurs
Clay City, KY 40312
M- 10am-4:30pm; T- 10am-6pm;
W- 10am-4:30pm; Th- 10am235 Adopt Me Lane,
6pm; F- 10am-4:30pm
Somerset, KY 42501
Brierly Ridge Rd, Mt.,
No hours posted, Call ACO
Olivet, KY 41064
224 Cr-1705, Mt Vernon,
KY 40456; 224 Deep
Hollow Road
M-F 7am-3pm
720 Landfill Road,
Russell Springs, KY
42642
Not open to public
1185 Cardinal Dr,
Mon-Fri 10:00-5:00
Georgetown, KY
Tues thurs- 10-7pm;
Wednesday, Friday, Saturday
266 Kentucky Street,
10-4:30
Shelbyville, KY 40065

Steve Johnson

Randall Martin

Staci Johnson

2 miles down Brierly Ridge Rd, will be on the right side, right off the road, small
green building

Gary Marcum

Clear Springs Rd to Landfill Rd

 33
Shelter Name
Simpson County Animal
Shelter
Spencer county Animal
Shelter
Stray Hearts Animal
Rescue/ Martin County
Shelter

Counties served Phone Number

Hours listed

Simpson

(270)586-3125

Spencer

502-477-3332

M-Sa- 10am-4pm; Su- Closed
M-F 9:00-5:00; Weekends by
emergency

Martin

Shelter run by volunteers, so please contact via
facebook

By appointment only

Taylor County Animal
Shelter

Taylor

Tri-County Vet Clinic

Monroe

Clinton, Wayne,
Tri-County Animal Shelter Cumberland
Carter, Fleming,
Tri-County Animal Shelter Rowan, Bath
Trimble/Henry County
Animal Shelter
Henry, Trimble
Union County Dog Pound
Webster County Dog
Pound
Wolfe County Animal
Shelter
Woodford County Animal
Control and Intake
Whiskers or Wags Johnson county animal
shelter

Union
Webster
Wolfe
Woodford

Johnson

Physical Address
ACO (if known)
2194 Kenneth Utley
Drive, Franklin KY 42134 Non E #- 270-586-8824
22 Spears dr,
Taylorsville, KY 40071

33 Dog Pound Road,
Inez, KY 41224
220 Animal Shelter
Road, Campbellsville, KY
270-465-7651
M-F 11am-4pm; Saturday 10-12 42718
Jacob Newton
This is the dog catchers
Dog Catcher- (270)-427-0000; Vet office- (270) 487307 W Bushong Rd,
number
8388
Vet office: M-F 8am-5pm
Tompkinsville, KY 42167 Jamie (2704270000)
James Stonecipher-Dog
Warden (certified,
Clinton), David Marrow
1990 KY-90, Albany, KY (Wayne)- # (606) 348(606) 387-0943;
M-F 10am-2pm
42602
0575
2450 Kentucky 519 S,
Morehead, KY 40351;
2450 Ky 519
Tues, Thurs, Fri 10-4; Wed 10- 9213 Sulphur Rd,
502-225-0111
12, Saturday 10-1
Sulphur, KY 40076
908 Sandy Lane,
Richard Jones-ACO
270-389-3000
Tues-Fri 8-4 Sat 8-12
Morganfield, KY 42437
Kathy Baird-Director
1919 KY-132, Dixon, KY;
270-639-7034
Tues-Fri 8-4 Sat 8-12
1075 State Route 132W Aaron Richmond
191 Swift Camp Creek
NOT FINISHED
Rd, Campton, KY 41301
Monday - Sunday 8:00AM- 4:
210 Beasley Road,
(859) 879-0598
00PM
Versailles, KY 40383
100 Shelter Way
Staffordsville, KY41256

Directions (if needed)

Old building is on the left, continue up the hill to the new building.

 Appendix C. Exterior photographs of Kentucky county animal shelters.

34

35

Adair County - Green River Animal Shelter

Allen County - Scottsville Animal Shelter

(Adair, Green counties)

Anderson County

Ballard County - Coffey Animal Clinic

Barren County—Barren River Animal Welfare Assoc.

Bath County - Tri County Animal Shelter
(Bath, Carter, Fleming, and Rowan counties)

 36

Bell County

Boone County

Bourbon County - Paris Animal Welfare Society

Boyd County

Boyle County - Danville/Boyle County Humane Soc.

Bracken County

 37

Breathitt County - Kentucky River Regional A.S.

Breckinridge County

(Breathitt, Letcher, Knott, Perry counties)

Bullitt County

Butler County

Caldwell County

Calloway County - Murray/Calloway County A.S.

 38

Campbell County

Carlisle County

Carroll County

Carter County - Tri County Animal Shelter
(Bath, Carter, Fleming, Rowan counties)

Casey County - Lincoln County Animal Shelter

Christian County - Christian County Regional A.S.

(Casey, Lincoln counties)

(Christian, Todd, Trigg, occasionally Caldwell counties)

 39

Clark County

Clay County - Knox/Whitley County Animal Shelter
(Clay, Knox, McCreary, Whitley counties)

Clinton County - Tri County Animal Shelter

Crittenden County

(Clinton, Wayne, Cumberland counties)

(Crittenden, Livingston, Lyon counties)

Cumberland County -Tri County Animal Shelter

Daviess County - Owensboro Animal Control

(Clinton, Wayne, Cumberland counties)

 40

Edmonson County

Elliot County - Lewis County Animal Shelter

(Edmonson, Hart, Grayson, Metcalfe counties)

(Elliot, Lewis counties)

Estill County

Fayette County - Lexington Humane Society

(Estill, Jackson, Lee, Owsley counties)

Fleming County - Tri County Animal Shelter
(Bath, Carter, Fleming, and Rowan counties)

Floyd County

 41

Franklin County

Fulton County

Gallatin County

Garrard County

Grant County

Graves County - Mayfield Graves County A.S.

 42

Grayson County

Green County - Green River Animal Shelter

(Edmonson, Hart, Grayson, Metcalfe counties)

(Adair, Green counties)

Greenup County

Hancock County

Hardin County

Harlan County

(Hardin, LaRue counties)

 43

Harrison County - Flora Shropshire Animal Shelter

Hart County
(Edmonson, Hart, Grayson, Metcalfe counties)

Henderson County - Humane Society Henderson Co.

Henry County - Trimble/Henry County A.S.
(Henry, Trimble counties)

Hickman County - Ward Animal Clinic

Hopkins County

 44

Jackson County - Estill County Animal Shelter

Jefferson County—Louisville Metro Animal Services

(Estill, Jackson, Lee, Owsley counties)

(and Animal House Adoption Center)

Jessamine County

Johnson County - Whiskers or Wags Johnson Co. A.S.

Kenton County

Knott County - Kentucky River Regional A.S.
(Breathitt, Letcher, Knott, Perry counties)

 45

Knox County - Knox/Whitley County Animal Shelter

LaRue County - Hardin County Animal Shelter

(Clay, Knox, McCreary, Whitley counties)

(Hardin, LaRue counties)

Laurel County

Lawrence County
(Lawrence, Magoffin counties)

Lee County - Estill County Animal Shelter
(Estill, Jackson, Lee, Owsley counties)

Leslie County

 46

Letcher County - Kentucky River Regional A.S.

Lewis County

(Breathitt, Letcher, Knott, Perry counties)

(Elliot, Lewis counties)

Lincoln County

Livingston County - Crittenden County A.S.

(Casey, Lincoln counties)

(Crittenden, Livingston, Lyon counties)

Logan County

Lyon County - Crittenden County Animal Shelter
(Crittenden, Livingston, Lyon counties)

 47

Madison County

Magoffin County - Lawrence County Humane Society
(Lawrence, Magoffin counties)

Marion County

Marshall County

(Marion, Washington counties)

Martin County - Stray Hearts Animal Rescue

Mason County

 48

McCracken County

McCreary County - Knox/Whitley County A.S.
(Clay, Knox, McCreary, Whitley counties)

McLean County

Meade County

Menifee County

Mercer County

 49

Metcalfe County

Monroe County - Tri County Veterinary Clinic

(Edmonson, Hart, Grayson, Metcalfe counties)

Montgomery County

Morgan County

Muhlenburg County

Nelson County - Humane Society, Nelson County

 50

Nicholas County

Ohio County

Oldham County

Owen County

Owsley County - Estill County Animal Shelter

Pendleton County

(Estill, Jackson, Lee, Owsley counties)

 51

Perry County - Kentucky River Regional A.S.

Pike County

(Breathitt, Letcher, Knott, Perry counties)

Powell County

Pulaski County
(Pulaski, Russell counties)

Robertson County

Rockcastle County

 52

Rowan County - Tri County Animal Shelter

Russell County—holding facility

(Bath, Carter, Fleming, and Rowan counties)

Also see Pulaski county

Scott County

Shelby County

Simpson County

Spencer County

 53

Taylor County

Todd County - Christian County Regional A.S.
(Christian, Todd, Trigg, occasionally Caldwell counties)

Trigg County - Christian County Regional A.S.

Trimble County - Trimble/Henry County A.S.

(Christian, Todd, Trigg, occasionally Caldwell counties)

(Henry, Trimble counties)

Union County

Warren County - Bowling Green/Warren County HS

 54

Washington County - Marion County Animal Shelter

Wayne County -Tri County Animal Shelter

(Marion, Washington counties)

(Clinton, Wayne, Cumberland counties)

Webster County

Whitley County - Knox/Whitley County A.S.
(Clay, Knox, McCreary, Whitley counties)

Wolfe County - shelter under construction
No picture

Woodford County

 Appendix D. Photographs of examples of some good conditions found at several shelters.

55

56

Large cat cages built of impervious materials that
can be easily cleaned and disinfected

Puppy pens with grates so animals could be raised
off the floor, improving disease control

Separate intake and adoption buildings, improving
disease control

Large cat play room for cat socializing and exercise

Cat cages with communicating tunnels, built of imperious materials easily cleaned and disinfected

Dog kennels built of impervious materials that can
be easily cleaned and disinfected

 Appendix E. Photographs of examples of some bad conditions found at several shelters.

57

58

Dog holding area built with materials that cannot be
disinfected; hot in summer and cold in winter

Shelters in some counties were created by sectioning
off part of the county road department facility

Some shelters were metal buildings that were extremely noisy when dogs were barking

Example of inappropriate drainage from kennels

Many shelters were at or over-capacity and could
not adequately serve the community

Example of dog pen with gravel floor that cannot be
disinfected and not adequately cleaned

onto dirt outside the shelter

 59

Example of an over-crowded cat holding areas with
stacks of crates, each containing multiple cats

At many shelter, outdoors pens were permanent
holding areas for dogs

Example of a cat cage too small for the occupant

Pet overpopulation was a very common problem

Some counties used unofficial holding areas to hold
animals until delivery to regional shelters

Example of an improper quarantine pen, with no
isolation of quarantine animals