In previous articles, we explored what animal control is, how coverage works in Berks County, and why gaps in service can create risks for both people and animals. This article tackles a question that often comes up when municipalities evaluate their options: 

Why does animal control cost so much, and why do costs vary so widely between providers? 

The answer: Because not all animal control providers offer the same system.  

Providing comprehensive animal control that is done safely, legally, and with high lifesaving outcomes requires much more than a truck, kennels, and someone willing to answer calls. Comparing the cost of a modern, lifesaving, medically supported system to a historical containment-and-disposition model is not a direct comparison. A lifesaving model does not simply change outcomes; it fundamentally changes the cost structure of animal control. 

This is where things are often misinterpreted. Although both systems and everything in between fall under the umbrella of “animal control,” they provide fundamentally different services, making direct cost comparisons misleading. 

What Does It Take to Provide Animal Control Responsibly? 

Every municipality wants to be a responsible steward of taxpayer resources. That’s understandable. But when evaluating animal control services, the lowest price should not drive the decision without careful understanding and analysis of what gaps will exist under those models and what to do about them.  

Here are important questions residents need to consider: 

• What is my municipality’s plan for containment of dogs running at large (especially those displaying signs of aggression or who have bit someone? 

• What is my municipality’s plan for when a suspected rabid animal bites a resident in the community? 

• What is my municipality’s plan to unburden local police with PA state animal law and local ordinance enforcement?  

• What animals are covered if there is an animal control relationship – does it include sick, injured, aggressive dogs, cats, livestock, small mammals? 

• If there is an animal control relationship, where are animals housed once impounded? Do those containment areas meet the requirements for space, enrichment, etc. by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians?  

• What happens during large-scale emergencies like unmanaged high-volume households, floods, etc.? 

Answering these questions ensures that the core function of a community’s public health and safety needs get met while also verifying that the providers selected are reputable, use best practices, and are transparent with their data.  

Why Animal Control Costs More Today Than It Did 20 Years Ago 

One of the biggest misconceptions about animal control funding is the belief that today’s programs should cost roughly the same as they did decades ago. 

Speaking specifically to the ARL, the reality is that the service itself has changed. 

Historically, the ARL operated under a containment model. Animals were impounded, held for the legally required period, and over 50% were euthanized if they were not reclaimed, displayed undesirable behavior, or the volume exceeded the available space.  

The Berks County community, along with much of the country, demanded better.  

Today residents expect: 

• Injured animals receive veterinary care not just for basic conditions like upper respiratory, but more complex and costly ones like broken legs, skin conditions, advanced diseases, and more.  

• Dangerous situations to be handled professionally in ways that don’t spread additional risk (rabies exposure, loose dogs, etc.).  

• Sheltering environments that meet accepted welfare standards and include time spent out of enclosures that stimulate animals’ physical and mental needs.  

• Adoption, transfer, foster, and treatment options whenever possible that maximize the number of lives saved going from “how can we make space today” to how can we proactively move animals through the system as efficiently as possible to ensure bottlenecks do not result in euthanasia.  

Then vs. Now: How Animal Control Has Changed 

Historically	Today
Focused primarily on animal containment	Focused on lifesaving outcomes, not just number of animals impounded
Limited medical intervention	Veterinary evaluation, treatment, and specialty care by staff veterinarians and outsourced specialists
Minimal behavioral support	Behavioral assessments, modifications, playgroups, etc.
Basic housing standards	Modern humane care standards with robust enrichment plans for all species and practices that adhere to Fear Free
Fewer public expectations on animal outcomes	Significant public accountability on number of animals saved and the manner in which that is accomplished
Higher euthanasia rates	Reclaim, adoption, transfer, and foster pathways that fall in line with lifesaving excellence standards

Decades ago, an impounded animal often required significantly fewer resources than it does today. Modern animal welfare organizations invest heavily in resources that produce more positive outcomes for both animals and people. 

That investment saves lives, but it also changes the true cost of providing the service. 

A Real-World Example from ARL: Then vs. Now – A Litter of Kittens 

Historically, during peak intake months, ARL often faced impossible capacity decisions. A litter of young kittens (under the age of 8 weeks) might receive basic intake processing if there was space. However, if cages were full (as they often were) or if the limited number of employees weren’t available to foster, they would be euthanized shortly thereafter. In ARL’s last year  

Today’s expectations are fundamentally different. 

That same litter requires and receives: 

• Intake vaccines and deworming as early as 4 weeks of age 

• Daily feeding and care (including intensive formula feeding and support in the first weeks of life as often as every two hours at the earliest ages) 

• Foster placement and management  

• Veterinary examinations 

• Treatment for common illnesses such as upper respiratory, eye infections, ringworm, Calici, etc.  

• Spay/neuter surgeries or enucleations  

• Microchips and flea treatments 

Animal Control Is a Government Service, Even When a Nonprofit Elects to Deliver It 

Across the country, nonprofits often choose to partner with municipalities to provide animal control services. These partnerships can work extremely well, but the nature of the service does not change. The delivery model may vary, the responsibility does not. 

This is perhaps the most important part of the discussion. 

Like many organizations nationwide, ARL has historically absorbed portions of the true cost of animal control using charitable dollars. 

But as sheltering evolved toward greater lifesaving expectations, enhanced veterinary care, improved facilities, stronger training requirements, and increased public accountability, that subsidy has become increasingly difficult to sustain. 

That’s why when comparing today’s costs to historical costs, communities need to account for how dramatically the service has changed. Charitable donations are intended to expand and strengthen community services, not replace core government responsibilities. When donor-funded resources are used to offset those costs, it can create a disconnect between donor expectations and how their contributions are ultimately used. 

Using charitable dollars to subsidize government responsibilities diverts resources away from the broader mission donors intended to support. 

What Happens When Systems Fail? 

The consequences of inadequate coverage are not theoretical. 

A recent Spotlight PA investigation highlighted how a Berks County family struggled to find assistance following exposure to a cat later confirmed to have rabies. The story illustrated how fragmented systems, unclear responsibilities, and service gaps can leave residents scrambling for answers during serious public health situations. Read here: [spotlightpa.org] 

Most people never think about animal control until they need it, but providing it requires investment long before an emergency occurs. 

The Real Question 

Perhaps the better question is not: 

“Why does animal control cost more than it used to?” 

The better question is: 

“What level of service and outcomes do we want our community to have?” 

Most residents would not accept a system that denies injured or ill animals, relies on volunteers to respond in the field to dangerous situations without training or proper equipment, or live in a community that offers no support system when a rabid animal bites a resident.   

They expect humane care, professional response, accountability, and public safety. 

Modern animal control delivers those outcomes. 

But it cannot be provided at yesterday’s prices. 

Coming Soon 

A behind-the-scenes look at a day in the life of an animal control officer. 

We’ll follow an officer from the first call of the day to the last emergency response, providing an honest look at the challenges, decisions, and responsibilities behind this critical public service.