The Fracture of Reunification: An Exhaustive Analysis of U.S. Stray Hold Protocols, Legislative Barriers, and Jurisdictional Conflicts

Institutional Deep Research Report (v1.4)

Pet reunification January 5, 2026
Prepared By: Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Animal Welfare & Public Integrity

The Fracture of Reunification: An Exhaustive Analysis of U.S. Stray Hold Protocols, Legislative Barriers, and Jurisdictional Conflicts

Executive Summary: The Property Rights Dilemma in Animal Welfare

The reunification of lost companion animals with their owners is not merely a logistical operation of animal control; it is a complex legal procedure involving the constitutional transfer, forfeiture, and reclamation of property rights. In the United States, animals are legally classified as property. Consequently, “stray hold” periods—the statutory windows during which an animal must be kept before being alienated from its owner—function as a vital due process mechanism. They represent the state’s obligation to provide citizens a reasonable opportunity to recover their property before the state asserts ownership or transfers that ownership to a third party (adopter, rescue) or destroys the property (euthanasia).

This report executes a comprehensive 50-state research protocol, synthesizing data from specific state statutes, municipal ordinances, and federal guidelines to map the fragmented landscape of pet reunification. The analysis reveals that while the objective of reunification is universal, the mechanisms are deeply inconsistent. Hold periods range from as little as 48 hours to as long as 14 days, with profound variations introduced by “business days” vs. “calendar days” calculations, conditional reductions for unidentified animals, and superimposed barriers such as mandatory sterilization and cost-of-care liens.

Furthermore, the legal doctrine of Home Rule versus Dillon’s Rule creates a patchwork of enforcement where municipal ordinances often supersede or conflict with state intent. This report dissects these layers, examining not only the letter of the law in jurisdictions from California to Maine but also the systemic barriers—financial, geographic, and bureaucratic—that prevent reunification even when the law is technically followed. It further explores critical edge cases involving federal enclaves, tribal sovereignty, and disaster zones, where standard state protections often evaporate.

I. The Jurisdictional Fracture: Home Rule, Dillon’s Rule, and Preemption

To understand the disparity in stray hold laws, one must first analyze the constitutional relationship between state legislatures and local municipalities. The authority to regulate animal control is not uniform across the United States; it is governed by the state-specific application of either Home Rule or Dillon’s Rule. This legal architecture determines whether a city can extend a stray hold period to save lives or must strictly adhere to a state minimum that prioritizes efficiency.

The Restrictive Nature of Dillon’s Rule

Under Dillon’s Rule, a municipal government possesses only those powers expressly granted to it by the state legislature. This doctrine assumes that local governments are “tenants at will” of the state. In the context of pet reunification, this creates a rigid environment where local animal control directors may be legally prohibited from altering hold periods or fee structures without explicit state enabling legislation.1

  • Virginia serves as a definitive example. State code § 3.2-6546 rigidly defines the stray hold period (5 days generally, 10 days with a collar). Because Virginia is a Dillon’s Rule state, local jurisdictions like Loudoun County or Fairfax must adhere strictly to these state-mandated windows. They generally cannot unilaterally enact an ordinance extending the hold to 14 days for all animals without enabling legislation from Richmond, as doing so would exceed their granted authority.2
  • Implication: In Dillon’s Rule states, advocacy for improved reunification protocols must target the state legislature. Local advocacy is often legally impotent to change the structural parameters of the hold.

The Variance of Home Rule

Home Rule grants municipalities the power to govern themselves in local matters as long as they do not conflict with state or federal constitutions. This allows for significant local variation, creating a patchwork where adjacent cities may have radically different reunification protections.

  • Ohio and Illinois exemplify this flexibility. While Illinois State Law (510 ILCS 5) sets baselines, cities like Chicago operate under Home Rule powers that allow them to tailor ordinances to the high-volume reality of urban animal control.5 Similarly, Ohio counties exercise significant discretion in how they enforce dog warden duties, leading to variances in euthanasia methods and hold interpretations across the state.7
  • The Preemption Doctrine: Conflict arises when a state law explicitly mandates “stray dogs shall be held for 3 days,” a local ordinance requiring 7 days might be challenged if the state law is interpreted as intending to maximize shelter throughput and disease control. However, jurisprudence generally upholds local ordinances that are more protective of the animal (longer holds) unless the state law preempts strict uniformity.8

Bureaucratic Housing: Agriculture vs. Public Health

The department under which animal control statutes are housed significantly influences the philosophy of the hold period.

  • Department of Agriculture: In states like Kansas, Iowa, and Georgia, animal shelter regulation falls under the Department of Agriculture.9 Historically, these departments prioritize livestock disease control and property management. Consequently, regulations often view stray animals through a lens of “pest control” or “inventory management” rather than social welfare. This can lead to hold periods that prioritize facility throughput (clearing space) over extended reunification efforts. For example, Kansas Statute 47-1710 treats shelter animals as commodities that transition to state property after just three business days.13
  • Public Health: In states like New York and New Jersey, statutes are often intertwined with public health codes, specifically regarding rabies control.14 Here, the hold period acts partially as a quarantine measure. This public health focus can mandate longer holds for biting animals (10-day rabies observation) but may also empower health directors to order the immediate destruction of animals deemed a “health threat” regardless of ownership claims.

II. 50-State Survey: Protocols, Hold Periods, and Statutory Nuance

This section executes the core research protocol, analyzing the specific stray hold statutes across the United States. The data reveals a bimodal distribution, with most states gravitating toward either a 3-day (72-hour) or 5-day hold. However, the calculation of these days—whether they include weekends, holidays, or days the shelter is closed—introduces profound disparities in the actual time an owner has to locate their pet.

Western Region

California

California represents one of the most robust reunification frameworks, codified in Food and Agricultural Code § 31108.

  • Standard Hold: The state mandates a minimum 6 business days, not including the day of impoundment.16 This “business day” distinction is critical; a dog impounded on a Friday in a shelter closed weekends might not be eligible for adoption until the following Tuesday week, granting owners substantial time.
  • The “7 PM” Exception: A unique trade-off exists where the hold is reduced to 4 business days if the shelter maintains evening hours (until 7:00 PM) on at least one weekday or is open on a weekend day.17 This policy acknowledges that accessibility is as important as duration; a shorter hold with better access may facilitate more reunions than a longer hold with restricted access.
  • Reunification Mandate: Section 31108 explicitly requires shelters to release animals to non-profit rescue organizations before euthanasia, creating a “statutory release valve” that prioritizes life over strict property forfeiture.

Oregon

Oregon’s framework, governed by ORS 609.155 and ORS 609.090, links hold times directly to licensure compliance.

  • Identified vs. Unidentified: A dog with a license or tag is protected for 5 days. An unidentified dog is held for only 3 days (72 hours).18
  • Livestock Protection: Oregon law contains severe edge cases for dogs harassing livestock. Under ORS 609.155, dogs caught chasing livestock are impounded, and the owner is liable for costs. If the dog is proven to be a livestock threat, reunification may be contingent on heavy remedial measures or denied entirely.20

Utah

Utah Code § 11-46-103 establishes a 5 business day minimum.

  • Euthanasia Loophole: The statute provides a broad exception for “prevention of unnecessary suffering,” allowing immediate euthanasia for injury or disease.9 This discretion is often left to shelter staff, creating a potential failure point for reunification if “suffering” is interpreted loosely to include manageable conditions like kennel stress or minor injuries.

Arizona

Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1013 creates a tiered system based on identification, incentivizing responsible ownership.

  • Standard: 72 hours (3 days) for unidentified animals.
  • Extended: 120 hours (5 days) if the animal has a microchip or tag.9
  • Sterilization Barrier: Arizona law (§ 11-1022) emphasizes sterilization, often requiring agencies to spay/neuter before adoption. While reclaiming owners are generally exempt, the fees associated with impoundment can effectively bar low-income owners from reunification.21

Midwest Region

Illinois

The Illinois Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5) dictates protocol, but deferment to local ordinance is common.

  • Microchip Diligence: Illinois has some of the strictest “search for owner” requirements. Shelters must scan for microchips within 24 hours. If a chip is found, they must send notice via certified mail and attempt contact via phone/email.
  • Hold Extension: For chipped animals, the hold is extended to 7 business days after notification is sent.22
  • Chicago Edge Case: In Chicago, animals are held for 3 days (strays) or 5 days (with ID).6 The Chicago code illustrates how major metropolitan density necessitates faster throughput compared to rural counties.

Ohio

Ohio Revised Code § 955.16 creates one of the sharpest distinctions in the country based on licensure status.

  • Unlicensed: 3 days.
  • Licensed: 14 days.23
  • Implication: This 11-day differential is one of the most punitive in the nation for failure to license. It effectively treats the dog license not just as a tax, but as an insurance policy buying time for the pet’s life.

Michigan

Michigan lacks a centralized, uniform “stray hold” statute for cats, a major legislative gap.

  • Dogs: The Dog Law of 1919 generally implies a 4-7 day hold depending on the county and licensure status.24
  • Cats: MCL 287.388 prohibits selling animals for research within 4 days. While some shelters interpret this as a de facto hold, agencies like the Michigan Humane Society have argued there is no statutory hold for stray cats, allowing for immediate disposition (adoption or transfer) to save lives and reduce kennel illness.26 This is a critical edge case where “no law” results in “zero hold.”

Southern Region

Texas

Texas operates under Health and Safety Code Chapter 826, but it is a “Home Rule” heavy state where local ordinances reign supreme.

  • State Baseline: The state requires local authorities to set a hold period but does not mandate a specific number of days statewide.27
  • Local Variation:
    • Houston (BARC): 3 days (72 hours).29
    • San Antonio: Mandatory sterilization for dogs running at large, with costs passed to the reclaimer.30
  • Disaster Protocol: Texas serves as a model for disaster displacement protocols, often extending holds during hurricane evacuations, though this is usually via executive order rather than static statute.

Florida

Florida Statutes § 823.15 set the tone, but local variation is key.

  • Miami-Dade: Recently moved to extend stray holds to 14 days in cases where the owner is hospitalized, incarcerated, or incapacitated.31 This is a progressive “social equity” recognition that pet loss often correlates with human crisis.
  • Standard: Generally 3 to 5 days depending on the county.32
  • Emergency Provisions: Florida Statute § 823.151 explicitly allows local governments to temporarily extend stray hold periods following a declared disaster, recognizing that evacuation and displacement prevent owners from checking shelters within the standard 72-hour window.33

Virginia

Code of Virginia § 3.2-6546 is highly prescriptive, befitting a Dillon’s Rule state.

  • Hold: 5 days for animals without a collar; 10 days (5 additional) if a collar/ID is present.4
  • Access: The law mandates that if a shelter is not open regular business hours, the hold must extend to ensure the owner has access. This prevents “weekend traps” where an animal’s time expires while the facility is locked.

Northeast Region

New York

Agriculture and Markets Law § 117 governs seizure and creates a bifurcated notification system.

  • Identified: 7 to 9 days (depending on notification method—7 days if served personally, 9 days if by mail).15
  • Unidentified: 5 days.
  • New York City Exception: NYC has specific exemptions allowing for shorter holds in certain high-volume contexts, though state law generally applies.

Massachusetts

Chapter 140, Section 151A mandates a 7-day hold for dogs.

  • Disposition: After 7 days, the animal control officer may make the dog available for adoption. Euthanasia is restricted to specific humane methods (barbiturates), banning gunshot except in emergencies.35 This statute specifically designates the Animal Control Officer (ACO) as the agent of these powers.

Maine

Title 7 § 3913 requires a 6-day hold.

  • Abandoned Dog Provision: Ownership vests in the shelter immediately if the animal is “obviously abandoned,” a subjective legal standard that creates an edge case for animals found in crates or with notes.36

III. The Mechanics of the “Hold”: Time, Identification, and Exceptions

The “Stray Hold” is not a uniform concept. It is a variable calculated differently depending on jurisdiction, creating confusion for owners working across state lines.

Calendar vs. Business Days

The distinction between “calendar days” and “business days” is the single most significant factor in actual reunification opportunity.

  • Calendar Days: States like Arkansas (Little Rock) and Texas (Houston) often count calendar days.29 A dog impounded on Friday afternoon in a facility closed weekends could technically have its hold expire by Monday morning, leaving the owner almost zero operational hours to reclaim it.
  • Business Days: States like California and Utah mandate “business days”.9 This ensures that the clock only ticks when the facility is accessible to the public. This model is universally recognized by animal welfare experts as the superior standard for due process.

Identification Differentials

A persistent theme in the research is the “Identification Bonus.” States overwhelmingly penalize the owners of unidentified pets with shorter holds.

  • The Logic: Legislators presume that an uncollared, unchipped dog is more likely to be truly stray or abandoned.
  • The Reality: Collars slip off; microchips migrate or have outdated info. The differential (e.g., Ohio’s 3 days vs. 14 days) disproportionately affects owners whose pets lose their collars during escape.

The “Immediate” Exceptions

Nearly all 50 states include “relief valve” clauses that allow for the immediate destruction of an animal, bypassing the hold.

  • Suffering: As seen in Utah (§ 11-46-103) and Minnesota (§ 343.29), animals deemed to be suffering can be euthanized immediately.9
  • Ferality: As noted in California (§ 31752.5), cats deemed “feral” (wild/unsocialized) can often be euthanized or released immediately, as confinement is considered cruel.39

IV. Systemic Barriers to Reunification

Research indicates that the “Stray Hold” is only the first hurdle. Even when an owner identifies their pet within the legal window, systemic barriers often prevent physical reunification. These barriers function as “filters,” reducing the number of successful reclamations at each stage.

1. The Cost of Care Barrier (“Ransom” Fees)

Almost every jurisdiction surveyed authorizes the collection of “Impoundment Fees” and “Boarding Fees.” These fees are ostensibly designed to recover costs, but they often function as punitive fines.

  • Cumulative Costs: In Houston, Little Rock, and Omaha, fees accrue daily. A 5-day hold can result in fees exceeding $150-$200, plus vaccination costs.40
  • Civil Liability: In Tennessee and Mississippi, owners can be held civilly liable for these costs even if they do not reclaim the animal.42 This creates a paradox where an owner surrenders the animal to avoid the debt, permanently severing the bond.
  • Constitutional Questions: The imposition of high fees on property recovery raises due process concerns, particularly when the “property” (the pet) is destroyed for non-payment. However, courts generally uphold these as administrative fees for a public service.
  • Waiver Discretion: Some codes, like Alaska’s Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Houston, explicitly grant the Animal Care Director the discretion to waive fees for “good cause” or enter payment plans.43 This administrative discretion is the single most effective tool for overcoming the financial barrier, yet it is often underutilized or poorly advertised.

2. Mandatory Sterilization and “Intact” Permits

A growing number of municipalities use impoundment as a trigger for mandatory sterilization. While intended to control population, this acts as a significant barrier to reunification for owners who either cannot afford the surgery or philosophically oppose it.

  • San Antonio, TX: Dogs found free of restraint are subject to mandatory sterilization at the owner’s expense before release.30 This effectively adds hundreds of dollars to the reclamation bill.
  • Albuquerque, NM: The “HEART Ordinance” is one of the strictest in the nation. Owners of impounded intact animals must pay a substantial permit fee ($150) or have the animal sterilized before release.45
  • California: Food & Ag Code § 30503 generally requires sterilization before adoption, but reclaiming owners are often exempt unless local ordinances (like Los Angeles or San Francisco) superimpose a mandatory spay/neuter for impounded strays.21
  • Insight: These laws create a class-based system of reunification. Wealthy owners pay the “intact permit” fine and reclaim their pet; low-income owners are forced to choose between unwanted surgery or surrendering the animal.

3. The “Microchip Trap”

While microchips are hailed as the gold standard for reunification, they create legal edge cases regarding privacy and data integrity.

  • Oklahoma: Explicitly prohibits governmental entities from requiring microchipping 47, treating it as a privacy/bodily integrity issue. This libertarian stance prevents the state from mandating the most effective reunification tool.
  • Illinois & Virginia: Mandate extensive searching (certified mail) if a chip is found.
  • The Data Gap: A major barrier identified is outdated chip data. If a chip leads to a disconnected number, the “extended hold” (e.g., Illinois’ 7 days) merely prolongs the animal’s confinement without success. Maryland law (Agriculture § 2-1704) attempts to mitigate this by requiring shelters to have written protocols for chip scanning and owner notification.48

V. Jurisdictional Anomalies and Edge Cases

Beyond standard state laws, specific jurisdictions operate under unique legal frameworks that create “black holes” for reunification.

Federal Enclaves: Military Bases

Military installations operate as federal enclaves where state animal laws apply only to the extent adopted by base command.

  • Jurisdiction: Camp Lejeune (NC) and West Point (NY) have specific Provost Marshal protocols.50
  • Protocol: Bases typically hold strays for a very short window (24 hours) for “on-base” reunification. If unclaimed, they are transferred to county shelters.
  • Risk: This transfer resets the clock but moves the animal to a jurisdiction the owner may not check. A soldier living on base might look for their dog at the MP station, unaware it was moved to the Onslow County shelter the next day. The lack of integrated data between federal base police and county animal control is a critical failure point.

Sovereign Nations: Tribal Reservations

Tribal sovereignty means state stray hold laws do not automatically apply on reservation land.

  • Navajo Nation: Recently updated codes define a 72-hour hold for identified animals, but allow immediate euthanasia for unidentified animals in some contexts due to severe overpopulation and resource constraints. The code explicitly aims to reduce “nuisance” animals, reflecting a public safety priority over property rights.52
  • Hoopa Valley Tribe: Tribal courts have no jurisdiction over “abandoned” animals once the hold expires, strictly limiting legal recourse for owners. The code emphasizes that appeals are dismissed once the animal is deemed abandoned, creating a finality that state courts often lack.53
  • Standing Rock: Codes define a strict process where animals not redeemed become “stray” and subject to immediate disposal. The “tax” for redemption serves as a punitive measure similar to municipal fees.54

Disaster Declarations: The PETS Act

The PETS Act (Federal) mandates that states plan for pet evacuation to receive FEMA funding, but it doesn’t set hold times.

  • Florida’s Emergency Rule: Statute § 823.151 allows local governments to temporarily extend stray hold periods after a disaster to give displaced owners time to return.33
  • Post-Katrina Precedent: The chaos of Hurricane Katrina (where holds were effectively suspended or ignored) led to these laws. The trend is toward longer holds during declared emergencies, protecting ownership rights when physical access to shelters is impossible.
  • Impact on Euthanasia: Research indicates that shelters in hurricane-affected counties often see a decrease in euthanasia in the month following a storm, likely due to these extended holds and increased rescue transport activity.55

VI. The Feral Cat and “Community Cat” Edge Case

Statutes regarding cats are significantly distinct from dogs, often lacking the “due process” rigor applied to canine impoundment. This reflects a cultural and legal distinction where cats are often viewed as “free-roaming” rather than “at large.”

The “No Hold” Protocols

  • Michigan & Exemptions: As noted in Michigan, the lack of a specific cat statute allows shelters to bypass holds entirely for cats deemed “feral” or “unadoptable” to facilitate immediate TNR (Trap-Neuter-Return) or euthanasia.26 The Michigan Humane Society argues that without a specific mandate, the most humane option is immediate outcome rather than stressful confinement.
  • California: Food & Ag Code § 31752.5 allows for the immediate release (or euthanasia) of cats determined to be feral, bypassing the 6-day hold. This statute legally differentiates between a “stray” (potentially owned, social) and a “feral” (wild, unsocial) cat.39

Return-to-Field (RTF) Legalities

  • Delaware: Title 3 § 3004F exempts cats returned to the field as part of a sterilization program from the standard 72-hour hold.57
  • Property Rights Conflict: This creates a unique property rights conflict. If an “owned” outdoor cat is trapped, sterilized, and returned within 24 hours, the owner has been deprived of their property (the cat’s reproductive capacity) without the standard 3-5 day notice period. However, the state argues that the public benefit of population control outweighs this specific property interest.
  • New Jersey: Proposed legislation (“Compassion for Community Cats Law”) seeks to formalize this process, creating funds for sterilization and return, further cementing the “community cat” as a legal category distinct from “owned pet” or “stray”.58

VII. Recommendations for Reunification Protocols

Based on the analysis of barriers and effective statutory models, the following protocol adjustments are recommended for jurisdictions seeking to improve reunification rates:

  1. Shift to “Business Day” Standards: Legislatures should amend “calendar day” statutes to “business days” (as seen in California and Utah) to ensure owners have actual operational hours to reclaim pets.
  2. Fee Waivers for First Offenses: Municipalities should adopt “fix-it ticket” models where impound fees are waived if the owner microchips or registers the animal upon reclamation. Houston’s discretionary waiver code serves as a viable model.
  3. Standardized “Hold for Rescue”: Adopt the California model (§ 31108), requiring release to non-profits prior to euthanasia. This preserves the animal’s life even if the owner cannot be found within the window.
  4. Remote Verification: Allow owners to prove ownership digitally (photos, vet records) to place a “stop order” on disposition before they physically arrive at the shelter. This addresses the “access barrier” in rural or traffic-congested regions.
  5. Microchip Mandates with Privacy Protections: Follow Maryland’s lead in establishing clear protocols for notification while respecting the privacy concerns raised in states like Oklahoma.

VIII. Conclusion

The research protocol confirms that the United States lacks a cohesive “pet reunification system.” Instead, it operates a fractured network of property laws where a dog’s chance of returning home depends entirely on its geography, licensure status, and the specific “Home Rule” powers of the municipality where it was found. The divergence between Ohio’s 14-day protection for licensed dogs and Hawaii’s 48-hour turnover illustrates the extreme variance in how American law values the human-animal bond.

Until state legislatures harmonize these protocols—specifically regarding “business day” calculations and fee-waiver capabilities—systemic forfeiture will continue to be a primary driver of shelter overpopulation. The path forward requires shifting the legal framework from one of “pound seizure” (where the goal is disposal) to “community sheltering” (where the goal is reunification), a shift that requires not just policy changes, but a fundamental rethinking of the animal’s status as property under the law.

Works cited

  1. DILLON’S RULE, HOME RULE, AND PREEMPTION - Public Health Law Center, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Dillons-Rule-Home-Rule-Preemption.pdf
  2. Federalism, Dillon Rule and Home Rule - American Legislative Exchange Council, accessed January 5, 2026, https://alec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-ACCE-White-Paper-Dillon-House-Rule-Final.pdf
  3. 3.2-6546. County or city public animal shelters; confinement and disposition of animals; affiliation with foster care providers - Virginia Law, accessed January 5, 2026, https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title3.2/chapter65/section3.2-6546/
  4. Code of Virginia Code - Chapter 65. Comprehensive Animal Care - Virginia Law, accessed January 5, 2026, https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title3.2/chapter65/
  5. PROFESSIONS, OCCUPATIONS, AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS (225 ILCS 605/) Animal Welfare Act. - Illinois General Assembly - -, accessed January 5, 2026, https://ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=1375&ChapterID=24
  6. CHICAGO ANIMiAL CARE & COiNTR’OL - City of Chicago, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cacc/PDFiles/Transfer_Policy.pdf
  7. CHAPTER 127 ANIMAL CONTROL - County Commissioners Association of Ohio, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.ccao.org/aws/CCAO/asset_manager/get_file/713186?ver=1
  8. State and Municipal Regulation of Dogs | Animal Legal & Historical …, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.animallaw.info/article/state-and-municipal-regulation-dogs
  9. State Holding Period Laws for Impounded Animals | Animal Legal & Historical Center, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.animallaw.info/topic/state-holding-period-laws-impounded-animals
  10. Georgia Animal Protection Act (O.C.G.A. § 4-11-1), accessed January 5, 2026, https://agr.georgia.gov/sites/default/files/documents/assets/legal/ocga/ocga-georgia-animal-protection-act.pdf
  11. IAC 6/16/21 Agriculture and Land Stewardship[21] Ch 67, p.1 CHAPTER 67 ANIMAL WELFARE, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/chapter/07-28-2021.21.67.pdf
  12. Division of Animal Health | Department of Agriculture, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.agriculture.ks.gov/divisions-programs/division-of-animal-health
  13. 47-1710 - Statutes, accessed January 5, 2026, https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch47/047_017_0010.html
  14. New Jersey Statutes Title 4. Agriculture and Domestic Animals 4 § 19-15.16 | FindLaw, accessed January 5, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/nj/title-4-agriculture-and-domestic-animals/nj-st-sect-4-19-15-16.html/
  15. New York Consolidated Laws, Agriculture and Markets Law - AGM § 117 - Codes - FindLaw, accessed January 5, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/agriculture-and-markets-law/agm-sect-117/
  16. California Code, Food and Agricultural Code (Formerly Agricultural Code) - FAC § 31108 - Codes - FindLaw, accessed January 5, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/food-and-agricultural-code-formerly-agricultural-code/fac-sect-31108/
  17. CA - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws - Animal Legal & Historical Center, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-dogs-consolidated-dog-laws
  18. Chapter 609 - Oregon State Legislature, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Archive/2017ors609.pdf
  19. ORS 609.090 – Impounding certain dogs - Oregon Law, accessed January 5, 2026, https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_609.090
  20. ORS 609.155 – Impoundment for harming or chasing livestock; determination of fact; costs, accessed January 5, 2026, https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_609.155
  21. Brief Summary of State Spay and Neuter Laws | Animal Legal …, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.animallaw.info/article/brief-summary-state-spay-and-neuter-laws
  22. Illinois Statutes Chapter 225. Professions,Occupations and Business Operations § 605/3.6, accessed January 5, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-225-professionsoccupations-and-business-operations/il-st-sect-225-605-3-6/
  23. Dog Laws & Regulations | Williams County, OH, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/222/Dog-Laws-Regulations
  24. MI - Impound - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Use of Dogs and Cats for Research., accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.animallaw.info/statute/mi-impound-chapter-287-animal-industry-use-dogs-and-cats-research
  25. MDARD AID Policy Animal Care and Holding in Animal Shelters eff011916 rev062023 - State of Michigan, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.michigan.gov/mdard/-/media/Project/Websites/mdard/documents/animals/animal-shelters/2023_aid_shelter_hold_times.pdf?rev=4b2f740e732b463a9a6fb8a79aabb6a7&hash=84EE73C1518EE30646CB3CE771115420
  26. A Note From Matthew Pepper on Cat Holding Times - Michigan Humane Society, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.michiganhumane.org/a-note-from-matthew-pepper-on-cat-holding-times/
  27. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 826. RABIES - Texas Statutes, accessed January 5, 2026, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/hs/pdf/hs.826.pdf
  28. Animal Control - Texas County Progress, accessed January 5, 2026, https://countyprogress.com/animal-control/
  29. BARC releases animals to persons or organizations under the following circumstances - City of Houston, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.houstontx.gov/barc/pdfs/rescuelaws.pdf
  30. ARTICLE VII. - ANIMAL NUISANCES; IMPOUNDMENT | Code of Ordinances | San Antonio, TX | Municode Library, accessed January 5, 2026, https://library.municode.com/tx/san_antonio/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH5AN_ARTVIIANNUIM_S5-150ANNUSTREDOFRRE
  31. ORDINANCE NO - Miami-Dade County, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/legistarfiles/Matters/Y2025/250045.pdf
  32. FL - Miami-Dade County - Chapter 5 - ANIMALS AND FOWL., accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.animallaw.info/local/fl-miami-dade-county-chapter-5-animals-and-fowl
  33. The 2025 Florida Statutes - Online Sunshine, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0823/Sections/0823.151.html
  34. SECTION 117 Seizure of dogs; redemption periods; impoundment fees; adoption - NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/117
  35. Massachusetts General Laws Part I. Administration of the Government (Ch. 1-182) Ch. 140, § 151A - Codes - FindLaw, accessed January 5, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/ma/part-i-administration-of-the-government-ch-1-182/ma-gen-laws-ch-140-sect-151a/
  36. Title 7, §3913: Procedure for stray dogs - Maine Legislature, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/7/title7sec3913.html
  37. Arkansas Code § 5-62-106 (2024) - Disposition of animal - Justia Law, accessed January 5, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-62/subchapter-1/section-5-62-106/
  38. Sec. 343.29 MN Statutes - MN Revisor’s Office, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/343.29
  39. Guide to Shelter Regulations, Pt 1: Alabama - Mississippi - ASPCApro, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/guide_to_shelter_regulations_2006_al_ms.pdf
  40. ARTICLE V. - DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS | Code of Ordinances | Houston, TX, accessed January 5, 2026, https://library.municode.com/tx/houston/codes/code_of_ordinances/312514?nodeId=COOR_CH6ANFO_ARTVDIIMAN_S6-137RERAAFIM
  41. title 9. animal control - Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.omahatribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Title-9-OTN-Tribal-Code-2013-Title-09-Animal-Control.final_.passed.10.30.2023.pdf
  42. 16 Delaware Code § 3003F (2024) - Animal adoption, recovery, and rehabilitation., accessed January 5, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/delaware/title-16/chapter-30f/subchapter-i/section-3003f/
  43. Chapter 6.28 IMPOUNDMENT - Houston - General Code, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Houston/html/Houston06/Houston0628.html
  44. chapter 24.15: impoundment, adoption, and euthanasia of animals - General Code, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/MatanuskaSusitnaBorough/html/MatanuskaSusitnaBorough24/MatanuskaSusitnaBorough2415.html
  45. Ethical Animal Treatment - HEART Ordinance Information - City of Albuquerque, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.cabq.gov/pets/animal-protection-services/heart-ordinance-information
  46. Hayden Law - Maddie’s Fund, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.maddiesfund.org/hayden-law.htm
  47. 2024 Oklahoma Statutes :: Title 63. Public Health and Safety :: §63-1-1430. Forced implantation of microchip or permanent mark prohibited. - Justia Law, accessed January 5, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-63/section-63-1-1430/
  48. 2016 Regular Session - House Bill 494 Chapter - Maryland, accessed January 5, 2026, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/chapters_noln/Ch_267_hb0494T.pdf
  49. Maryland Code, Agriculture § 2-1704 | FindLaw, accessed January 5, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/md/agriculture/md-code-agric-sect-2-1704/
  50. Who let the dogs out? - Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.lejeune.marines.mil/News/Article/Article/511795/who-let-the-dogs-out/
  51. 24 Stray Animal Control - Army Garrisons, accessed January 5, 2026, https://home.army.mil/westpoint/download_file/view/198c7533-f629-4ccb-ab80-7311af8cecb5/619
  52. Navajo Nation Animal Control Laws – CJY-64-18 - NNDFW, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.nndfw.org/docs/Navajo%20Nation%20Animal%20Control%20Laws%20-%20CJY-64-18.pdf
  53. hoopa valley indian reseration animal control ordinance title 68, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Title68-Animal-Control.pdf
  54. Title XXII – (22) Animal Control - Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.standingrock.org/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/Title%20XXII%20-%20(22)%20Animal%20Control.pdf
  55. Disaster event effects on cat and dog populations within United States animal care facility services: A cross sectional study | PLOS Climate, accessed January 5, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000066
  56. (PDF) Disaster event effects on cat and dog populations within United States animal care facility services: A cross sectional study - ResearchGate, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362758388_Disaster_event_effects_on_cat_and_dog_populations_within_United_States_animal_care_facility_services_A_cross_sectional_study
  57. Chapter - Delaware General Assembly, accessed January 5, 2026, https://legis.delaware.gov/SessionLaws?volume=84&chapter=171
  58. Bill S1034 - NJ Legislature, accessed January 5, 2026, https://njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2020/S1034/bill-text?f=S1500&n=1034_R1