Field Notes on Animal Management
January 21, 2026
Partnership not Punishment
How Moratoriums and Bans on neighborhood breeders endangers community-based sheltering
We acknowledge that caring for companion animals within shelters is exhausting, frustrating, and often heartbreaking work. Shelter staff and volunteers confront preventable disasters daily – from abuse and abandonment to overpopulation and euthanasia – all in pursuit of positive outcomes for pets. It’s no wonder that individuals and communities perceived to contribute to these problems are labeled “irresponsible” at best or, at worst, cast as adversaries by those in the animal care field.
We understand why intentional breeders have become a particular focus of blame. Licensed, “responsible” breeders with bucolic kennels are granted a modicum of grace for adding more animals to the population, while unlicensed neighborhood breeders – often disdainfully called “backyard breeders” – are vilified. These so-called “backyard breeders” are typically residents of urban, marginalized communities who may not follow recognized breeding best practices, not necessarily out of malice, but rather a lack of awareness or access to resources.
In the current polarized atmosphere, shelter professionals and community members frequently view each other across the divide with suspicion. Public servants in animal welfare justifiably feel wearied by constant crises, while marginalized pet parents feel judged and excluded. The result is a dysfunctional dynamic that undermines the very goal both sides share, keeping pets with the people that love them. Over time, a wall of mistrust and resentment has formed between some shelters and the communities they serve, each “brick” mortared by years of frustrating and painful interactions on both sides.
Every time a pet is returned to the shelter or found roaming without identification, another brick is added to the wall. Each time a healthy animal is euthanized for lack of shelter space, more bricks are laid, cemented by the tears of shelter staff. These accumulated frustrations often turn the implementation of animal policies into battlegrounds where everyone loses, especially pets.
“Pets are not entering shelters solely because of intentional breeding. Placing the lion share of blame for shelter crowding on neighborhood breeders ignores many other well-known and dominant variables."
Questioning a Ban on “Backyard Breeders”
Against this backdrop, some municipalities and animal welfare advocates have proposed moratoriums or bans on “backyard breeding.” On the surface, the rationale seems sensible: stop people from breeding more puppies, and you potentially reduce shelter intake. But a closer examination reveals serious equity concerns and likely unintended consequences with this punitive approach.
Why single out one group of breeders?
If we argue that any intentional breeding is a driver of overpopulation and shelter crowding – then all breeders – contribute to the problem, not just those of a certain class or community. As a matter of fairness, we should ask: If each litter competes with shelter pets for homes, why not hold all breeders equally accountable for shelter overpopulation? Why target only unlicensed community members with fines? Singling out marginalized breeders shifts blame onto those with the least power or resources to collectively defend themselves, and the least capable of meeting the financial obligations to be come licensed.
Breeding bans and mandatory spay & neuter ignores the broader causes of shelter overpopulation.
Pet overpopulation is a complex challenge comprised of many variables. Housing instability, including the lack of pet-inclusive housing, financial hardship that too often led to evictions, and pet behavioral issues remain among the top reasons families relinquish pets to shelters. Adding to those challenges, unprecedented veterinary costs and the rollback of social safety nets like SNAP force many pet parents into impossible situations. Pets are not entering into shelters exclusively due to intentional breeding. Placing the lion share of blame on neighborhood breeders ignores many other well-known and dominant variables.
“Before asking the public to take disproportionate responsibility for shelter overpopulation, shelter leadership should also ask if they’re maximizing every opportunity to get animals into homes."
Punitive fines will hit marginalized families hardest.
Proposed moratoriums under discussion have suggested fines in the thousands for individuals caught breeding pets without a license. Many engaged in small-scale community breeding rely on it for a modest supplement to their income or affordable pet acquisition. Imposing heavy fines on those already struggling financially – particularly now during historic inflation and high unemployment – is more likely to deepen hardship than change behavior.
Making matters worse, in today’s political climate, any attempt to enforcement the ban could elevate the risk to targeted and marginalized communities while ironically forcing families to surrender pets to local shelters, adding to, not reducing, shelter population.
Instead of initiating programs that incentives the sheltering community and its pet owning constituents to work in partnership, influential leaders within the sheltering community have invested in a moratorium that risk increasing divides between the two group.
Before asking the public to take disproportionate responsibility for shelter overpopulation, shelter leadership should also ask if they’re maximizing ever opportunity to get animals into homes. For example, Shelters routinely publish their intake and Live Release data, but rarely publicize other telling metrics such as how many potential adopters they deny.
Each time a family is denied when trying to adopt a pet, the shelter effectively sustains its own population pressures. Each denied application can increase the likelihood of another animal being euthanized for lack of space or resources. Yet, as many acknowledge, application denials are not uncommon – and they often stem from rigid policies or biases regarding who is fit to own a pet.
Adoption Gatekeeping and Its Consequences
There is a well-documented pattern of gatekeeping in pet adoption that disproportionately affects people of color and other marginalized groups. In fact, mounting evidence shows that Black and Brown families are more likely to have their adoption applications denied by shelters and rescues than their white counterparts.
A recent multi-city study by Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity (CARE) found that communities of color frequently experience bias and extra scrutiny during the adoption process. Sometimes this bias is explicit – strict requirements that disadvantage people without single-family homes, for example – and sometimes it is subtle, like staff relying on a “gut feeling” about an adopter’s suitability. Either way, the result is that many qualified, loving potential pet parents (often renters, young people, seniors, or those in marginalized neighborhoods) are turned away or discouraged.
“It’s very hard to get a dog from us. We don’t just adopt to anybody. We’d rather keep them here forever,”
one shelter staff member bluntly told a Black focus group participant at the very start of an adoption inquiry. The staff then proceeded to pepper the prospective adopter with questions about finances and living situation – until the person mentioned the dog was for their mother who happened to be a doctor. Only then did the staff’s attitude markedly improve.
Stories like this, unfortunately, are not rare. In CARE’s “Gatekeeping Pet Ownership” study focus groups, participants described many shelter interactions as unwelcoming, judgmental, and “not helpful” until they somehow proved they had higher socioeconomic status.
“It wasn’t friendly, it wasn’t helpful… It’s very weird to say that there’s shame involved in trying to adopt an animal.”
It is no surprise that many marginalized pet seekers avoid shelters altogether. Some fear being rejected or experiencing judgment; others simply find the process too arduous. As one person put it, “I’m trying to give the dog a good home, and you’re asking me for all of these things… it was just too hard, I gave up.” Shelters often require extensive applications, landlord checks, home visits, reference calls, adoption fees, and other hurdles that can deter perfectly capable adopters. Black and Brown focus group participants in the “Gatekeeping Pet Ownership” study frequently described the shelter adoption process as time-consuming, costly, and even “mind-boggling” in its invasiveness. They shared anecdotes of being “ghosted” by rescue groups (applications never answered) or receiving only a generic rejection with no explanation. In some cases, they sensed that age, marital status, income, or race was being used – consciously or not – as a litmus test for worthiness to adopt. One pet parent recalled, “It wasn’t friendly, it wasn’t helpful… It’s very weird to say that there’s shame involved in trying to adopt an animal.” This sense of shame or disrespect was reported by 27% of Black and Brown survey respondents when dealing with shelters, compared to only 6% when obtaining pets from friends, family, or neighbors.
“A 3% increase in adoptions among people of color would give 2 MILLION pets a loving home.”
The data are telling. When asked what shelters and rescues could do to make pet adoption more accessible, Black and Brown pet parents in CARE’s “Gatekeeping pet ownership” study had clear answers: eliminate the unnecessary barriers. The top suggestions were to provide more support for pet parents after adoption (46% of respondents), remove the processes that make it so difficult to acquire a pet (45%), and show more understanding about people’s financial situations (42%).
“They [the shelter] treated me poorly and denied me, so I had to buy my cat from someone whose cat had kittens.”
In short, communities are asking shelters to be partners, not gatekeepers. Every family successfully adopting a pet is one less pet in a kennel and one step closer to the shared goal of reducing shelter crowding. In fact, CARE estimates that even a modest increase in adoptions by Black and Brown families – on the order of just a 3% increase – would result in about 2 million additional pets finding homes instead of remaining in shelters. A low cost win-win waiting to happen. The onus is on the animal welfare industry to self-examine and ensure it is not inadvertently turning away families, and by extension, communities that could be helping them save lives.
Meanwhile, many of those families denied or deterred don’t simply give up on pet acquisition – they turn elsewhere. Often, obtaining pets through informal community channels or local breeders who feel more familiar and welcoming.
One survey participant frankly explained, “They [the shelter] treated me poorly and denied me, so I had to buy my cat from someone whose cat had kittens.” This pattern is common: rather than navigate a process where they feel unwelcome, people rely on what is accessible. In many underserved communities, acquiring pets through friends, family, neighbors, or casual breeders is entirely normal. “My whole life… ‘backyard breeding’ was so normalized where I’m from,” said one pet owner in a focus group. These local networks fulfill a need – they are easy to access and involve people who know and trust each other.
Researchers note that lower-income individuals (disproportionately Black and Brown) are far more likely to get pets through informal social networks, whereas higher-income (often white) pet parents tend to use formal channels like shelters or licensed breeders.
As income increases, people less often rely on family and friends for pet sources and more often turn to shelters or pet stores (Neal and Kremer, 2024). This means that the very communities being blamed for “not adopting” have created their own grassroots system of pet rehoming, rescue, and adoption. In fact, this practice of rehoming animals within the community can be viewed as a form of “community animal care” that keeps many pets out of the shelter system to begin with. Rather than demonizing these community solutions, we hope to more welfare leaders recognize their value and look for ways to integrate and support them.
The suggestion here for more community-based sheltering – is not – an argument in support of unlimited breeding or unplanned litters. However, focusing on punishment – or a moratorium on community breeders – without addressing underlying adoption barriers and community dynamics is short-sighted. Relationships at their best don’t have winners and losers; healthy relationships have shared challenges and shared solutions. A policy that simply blames and penalizes marginalized pet enthusiasts for shelter overcrowding, while ignoring how the system itself functions as a gatekeeper for those same people, will only deepen the divide. It would reinforce the very wall we need to be tearing down for the sake of all pets, primarily shelter pets.
"We need actual solutions. Versus just … gatekeeping dogs for a certain groups of people. Let’s make [pet ownership] accessible."
If banning community breeders isn’t the answer, what is?
Building Bridges to Community-Based Sheltering
The antidote to a punitive approach is a partnership – one that treats community members as allies in improving animal welfare outcomes. The goal should be to break down barriers and invite collaboration, not to build more barriers through law enforcement. Unfortunately, in many areas today, there is little positive relationship between marginalized communities and their local animal control or shelter.
If any relationship exists at all, it’s often punitive – for example, an officer shows up to issue a citation, or a family’s first interaction with the shelter is when they’re compelled to surrender a pet they can no longer keep.
To foster what one might call “a more informed and humane citizenry,” shelters and rescues must proactively reach out and build trust through positive interactions. The good news is that virtually everyone involved – whether shelter staff, pet breeder, or pet parent – shares a common enthusiasm for animals. This provides a natural foundation on which to build genuine community partnerships.
As one focus group participant in CARE’s study pleaded, we need “actual solutions, versus just… gatekeeping dogs for a certain group of people. Let’s make [pet ownership] accessible.” In that spirit, here are a few community-centered strategies that can help address pet overpopulation and welfare concerns without resorting to punitive bans:
- Roundtable Discussions & Town Halls: Local authorities and shelter leaders can hold open forums with known community breeders, pet parents, and other neighborhood leaders. These discussions (ideally facilitated by an unbiased party) allow all sides to voice concerns, share perspectives, and seek common ground solutions. Shelter staff can explain the strain of high intake and listen to why people turn to informal breeders. Breeders and pet parents can highlight obstacles they face, such as lack of affordable vet care or mistrust of shelters. Such dialogue humanizes each side and can reveal mutually agreeable steps – for example, voluntary breeder registration, collaborative spay/neuter clinics, or agreements on rehoming practices. When people who were once adversaries sit at the same table, they can start to see each other as partners.
- Community Participatory Research (CPR): Rather than impose top-down policies, policymakers could support a community-led research initiative to genuinely understand local pet acquisition trends. By engaging community members as co-researchers, shelters and policymakers can learn why some individuals breed pets, what might deter or discourage unmanaged breeding, and what resources or incentives would encourage alignment with best practices. This kind of participatory study might reveal, for instance, that many unlicensed breeders would be open to becoming licensed or collaborating with shelters if given education and support. It could also gauge the community’s willingness to adopt from shelters if certain changes (more flexible adoption hours, lower fees, less stringent screening) were made. Crucially, CPR treats community members as experts in their own lives, ensuring any solutions are grounded in reality.
- Public Service Announcements & Outreach Campaigns: Misinformation and mistrust often fuel the divide. A targeted outreach campaign can help inform the public (especially in marginalized areas) about the challenges shelters face and how everyone benefits when pets are adopted or altered. These campaigns might include social media, radio, or community bulletin messages that promote pet adoption, explain the importance of spaying/neutering pets, and encourage microchipping and ID tags. Just as importantly, outreach can combat negative narratives – for example, urging animal advocates to stop public shaming of families who surrender pets. It’s counterproductive when activists disparage community members for giving up an animal; that shame just incentivizes others to hide their struggles and perhaps abandon pets secretly. A compassionate PSA can remind the community that the shelter is a resource, not a judgment center, and that asking for help or surrendering a pet in crisis is sometimes the responsible choice. By highlighting solutions (free training classes, pet food banks, temporary foster options) instead of blame, outreach builds goodwill and prevents problems upstream.
- Affordable Community Pet Support Services: A powerful long-term strategy is to invest in the health and stability of pets in the community so that fewer animals ever need to be rehomed or enter the shelter. Many families in underserved areas love their pets, but a job loss or vet emergency can suddenly put them in a position of having to give the pet up. Increasing the availability of low-cost or free veterinary services, spay/neuter clinics, vaccinations, and pet food banks in these neighborhoods would directly address the root causes of pet overpopulation. When people know they can get a rabies shot for their dog at a local church clinic, or free pet food during hard times, or a discounted spay/neuter surgery, they are more likely to solve problems without resorting to breeding or relinquishment. Providing the services that “community animal care” networks need is a proactive solution that keeps pets with their families, rather than forcing them into the shelter system. This approach treats underserved pet partners as partners who deserve support, not as targets to be penalized.
Broadly speaking, animal welfare organizations and municipalities have historically under-invested in community animal care partnerships, and both sides have suffered as a result. The lack of collaboration has led to wide cultural and informational gaps between shelters and the communities they serve. Closing those gaps through mutual understanding, compassion, and cooperation will improve the lives of both pets and people. When shelters step out beyond their walls and actively engage with the public – meeting people where they are, literally and figuratively – amazing things happen. Marginalized communities have their own deep love for animals and their own frameworks of care; with genuine partnership, those frameworks can dovetail with the formal shelter system. Imagine, for example, if an unlicensed breeder felt comfortable referring prospective puppy buyers to the city shelter for adoption because they had built trust with shelter staff. That might sound far-fetched, but it’s achievable if we transform the relationship from “us vs. them” into “we’re in this together.”
Notably, when shelters become true community partners, the benefits flow both ways. Families who might never have considered visiting the shelter may start to see it as a resource for their next pet. Outreach efforts and word-of-mouth could gradually overcome the perception that shelters are only for “other” (more privileged) people. If even a fraction more families in underserved areas choose to adopt, it means more shelter pets finding loving homes – and those pets come already spayed or neutered, curbing the cycle of accidental litters. Right now, when a family obtains a puppy from a neighbor or cousin, that puppy is almost always unaltered and could produce more puppies down the line. But if that same family adopts from a shelter, they gain a new pet and help the community by removing one more unaltered animal from the population pipeline. In this way, bringing community members into the fold isn’t just feel-good fluff – it directly advances the core mission of reducing overpopulation.
Animal shelters and rescues must also recognize that, in a sense, they are competing in a marketplace of pet acquisition. Like it or not, a family looking for a dog has numerous options: pet stores, online sellers, private breeders, or that neighbor down the street whose dog just had puppies. These alternatives often offer things the shelter does not. For example, a family might want a specific breed or a young puppy – a breeder can guarantee that, whereas a shelter cannot. More importantly, the customer experience with a breeder or informal seller is often much more inviting. One Minneapolis pet owner described buying from a breeder this way: “It was just like they didn’t ask questions… You want a dog? Here’s a dog… It was a simple, smooth transaction. They treated us good… We got our dogs, and we’re happy.”
"If shelters want to draw people away from less-preferred sources of pets, they need to make the adoption experience more accessible, friendly, and non-judgmental."
The appeal of this ease and respect cannot be overstated. By contrast, the same family might anticipate (rightly or wrongly) that going to a shelter means being interrogated, judged, or even turned away. Community breeders also have the advantage of being trusted neighbors or friends; the transaction comes with a personal connection and no stigma. None of this is to suggest that shelters should throw away all standards, but it is a reality check: if shelters want to draw people away from less-preferred sources of pets, they need to make the adoption experience more accessible, friendly, and non-judgmental. Punishing the competition will not, by itself, make shelters more attractive. Improving the shelter experience and integrating into the community will.
Consider what might happen if a ban were enacted without any of the trust-building measures above. It is highly likely that community breeding would not disappear – it would simply go deeper underground. People determined to breed or sell pets, now labeled as criminals, would avoid seeking any help or advice for fear of fines. Worse case scenario, community breeders, in fear of fines and prosecution, surrender their dogs and puppies in mass. Where will those animals go?
An enforcement-only approach is also costly beyond potential revenue gain. After all, the minimum wage in Philadelphia is only $7.25 per hour, approximately $13,000 for the entire year. The likelihood of fiscal backfire with a punitive approach is high, not to mention increasing animal suffering and public health risks.
In the struggle to save animal lives and reduce shelter overcrowding, there should be no “us vs. them.” Community Breeders, low-income pet parents, shelter staff, rescuers, and volunteers are all part of the same community – one that wants to see animals thrive. We will only succeed through shared solutions grounded in shared passions, equity and empathy. A moratorium on backyard breeding, imposed without community input or support, treats one segment of the public as the advisory. While this approach is born from earnest frustration, it risks worsening the very problems we need to solve. By contrast, an approach that prioritizes listening, education, support, and collaboration treats present challenges as the solution.
James Baldwin wrote about the transformative power of confronting injustice with both truth and love. In the realm of animal welfare, we must confront the inequities and frustrations that have built divisions but do so with a spirit of reconciliation. By replacing punishment with partnership, we honor the dignity of every pet owner and every shelter worker. We create space for innovative solutions driven by those on the ground. We center our policies not on blame, but on the hope of a community where every pet has a safe home and every person, regardless of background, can love and care for an animal. That is a vision of animal welfare we can all share – and one that becomes achievable when we work with communities instead of in opposition to them.
For questions, please email the COO, Jennifer Evans at jen@careawo.org
