According to current legislation, the responsibility for abandoned animals in a city rests with the city council. Municipal authorities are tasked with organizing the intake and care of these animals, whether directly or through delegated arrangements. In practice, this means the council must ensure there is a formal system for collecting, sheltering, and reuniting lost pets, while also coordinating with other agencies as needed to protect animal welfare across the municipality.
To accomplish this, most city councils operate their own reception facilities for abandoned animals. In some cases, the facilities are managed by the city hall itself; in others, a private company or a local protective association handles the operation. There are also instances where private organizations or non-governmental organizations own and run the facilities. The common thread is that the municipality funds and oversees the service, ensuring humane treatment and timely processing of stray or surrendered animals. This framework is designed to maintain consistent standards of care regardless of who physically runs the facility, with governance and accountability clearly defined in municipal or regional contracts. (Cited from national animal welfare guidelines and local governance records, 2023–2024.)
Another widely used approach is the creation of associations that operate on a supra-municipal basis. These organizations bring together multiple municipalities to deliver animal control and shelter services, spreading the costs and administrative burdens. For smaller towns and rural areas—where the population base does not support a standalone facility—this collaborative model often becomes the most practical solution. Through shared service agreements, these associations can maintain longer hours, better staffing, and more comprehensive veterinary and quarantine capabilities, while ensuring that each participating municipality contributes fairly based on agreed formulas. (Cited from regional governance studies and comparative public service reports, 2022–2024.)
In some regions, similar arrangements exist at the provincial or regional level. Provincial councils may assume responsibility for providing animal collection and shelter services to all municipalities within a province, or only to those with populations below a certain threshold, such as 5,000 residents. This approach can help standardize care, reduce duplication of infrastructure, and achieve economies of scale, particularly in areas with limited administrative capacity. The overarching goal is to guarantee a minimum level of animal welfare, regardless of local resources, while maintaining clear accountability and transparent funding channels. (Cited from provincial service delivery manuals and public sector consolidation analyses, 2021–2023.)
Despite these frameworks, there remain municipalities that do not provide direct services for abandoned animals. In some cases, neighbors may offer temporary shelter or assistance while waiting for the owner to appear, but this is not a substitute for formal service. Bureaucratic hurdles, management gaps, or simple noncompliance can leave gaps in coverage, undermining welfare outcomes. The obligation to manage animal collection, including public roadways and stray animals, has historical roots dating back to the early 20th century. For example, the government introduced an obligation in the late 1920s, with Zaragoza often cited as one of the early adopters of systematic animal collection. This historical context underscores how service requirements have evolved, yet the need for reliable, 24/7 coverage remains a constant concern in contemporary practice. (Cited from historical legislative records and policy reviews, 1927–1930 and subsequent reforms.)
Over time, society has progressed in attitudes toward animals, yet acts of abandonment and mistreatment persist. As a result, dependable 24-hour animal collection services continue to be essential for protection, public health, and community well-being. Modern animal welfare programs prioritize rapid response, secure housing, medical care, and humane handling, with a focus on rehoming or reunification whenever possible. The system must balance humane treatment with clear documentation and traceability, ensuring that every animal receives appropriate welfare standards while authorities maintain accountability for the process. (Cited from contemporary welfare program reviews and municipal performance reports, 2019–2024.)