Coming to Terms with the Legacies of the Pound Model in Animal Sheltering in the United States.

Simple Summary: In spite of significant reductions in the numbers of animals entering shelters and being killed there over the last decades, the beliefs that companion animals must be under the direct control of a human guardian, and that capturing and often killing animals is morally justifiable and even necessary, continue to guide animal sheltering practices in the United States. Looking at the historical origins of animal control and sheltering in the US reveals a high level of consistency in ideologies and practices across almost 150 years. In this commentary, two scholars on animal sheltering in the US examine the historical legacies of animal control and sheltering in the US to show how they are problematic and dysfunctional and need to be abandoned to improve the lives of companion animals and the human communities of which they are a part. This paper examines the legacies of the emergence of the animal control and sheltering industry in the United States and their impact on contemporary public animal shelters. While decades of gradual reform have helped substantially reduce the number of animals entering shelters and being killed there, contemporary animal sheltering largely continues to follow the path set when animal sheltering developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Three key interrelated legacies of the pound model of early animal control and sheltering enduringly shape sheltering today: (1) the institutional culture of animal shelters grounded in the logics of caging and killing; (2) the lack of visibility and transparency, especially within government shelters; and (3) the economic logics of the pound model, including the disparities in sheltering resources across communities. Examining the origins of animal control and sheltering and identifying the specific legacies of this pound model within contemporary government-funded shelters improves understanding of why such shelters in the US have developed with a particular set of practices and ideologies, and thus provides an important footing for envisioning and enacting radical changes in animal sheltering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]