open #215174
Animal Control & Neglected Pets
3410 S Walnut ST
- Case Date:
- 10/23/2026
I am writing to formally log a complaint regarding a recent experience at the Bloomington Animal Shelter on [10/22/2026] and to offer feedback on current adoption policies and staff interactions. 1. STATEMENT OF INCIDENT On Oct 19, 20th, and 22nd, 2016: I visited the Bloomington Animal Shelter and expressed interest in adopting Thunder, a 10 week old cat on Oct 19. I took responsible deliberation overnight to ensure I was fully prepared for a long-term commitment. On Oct 20th, I returned to submit my application. Staff informed me I could submit my application, but noted that someone else had applied as well. However, Thunder was still there, indicating that whoever applied did not take him home, and that I had a reasonable chance of adopting him. I was under the impression that our applications would be compared, and that the best fit would be chosen. I told them I was ready to take him home today if they let me adopt him. The next day was Wednesday, so the center was closed. I came back as soon as it opened on Thursday, October 22, over 24 hours since both applications had been created. I arrived at the center 20 minutes before opening, one of the first there. More people came in around 1-5 minutes before it opened, one was a woman who unknowingly was the other person who filled out an application. I let her go ahead of me since I felt standing too close to the door made it feel a if I was pressuring the staff to open the door. When she walked up to the desk, she told the staff member she was ready to sign the adoption papers for Thunder and the staff, the same staff member who gave me the application two days ago, immediately gave her the papers, which she started signing in front me. The staff member saw me and said, “Right, your Thunder application 2 & she’s Thunder application 1 so you can just check out at other cats in the back”. I confronted her asking if they had even compared our profiles, and she said no, it was just based on who made the application first. Mind you, it had been over 24 hours since both of our applications were put in. She suggested I adopt another cat, and that they had more kittens. I expressed that he had a unique personality, that no other cat there had, which I deeply admired and felt very compatible with. I also remarked to various staff on previous days, specific things I liked about his personality, such as how focused he got on things, how curious and bold he was. Rather than reconsidering if they made the best decision, she deflected my concerns, suggesting I adopt another cat as if he was replaceable, and as if they were the same. I told her that none of them were like this cat.I saw nuances in his personality that I did not see in any other cat, and I have rarely felt, towards animals, but I felt a deep sense of compatibility with this cast personality. And it’s almost like the staff didn’t care, they just saw the cats is interchangeable in inventory that is simply a ‘cute face’. Which ironically correlates with the barely considering compatibility, because it’s almost as if they lack an understanding of the cats, nuanced personality, and only see them as a cute accessory. Kittens, are especially vulnerable to people adopting them, who only like them because they’re kittens- cute and dependent. But as soon as they grow into adulthood, some pet owners, stop loving or caring about them as much, or try to create dependencies, weaknesses, and fears in their animal to- make the animal more dependent on them like they once were as a kitten, both are very abusive, and these cats deserve staff who advocate for them, and help choose the best future possible for them, and that is NOT done by choosing their future based on who writes a paper faster. SUMMARY CONCERNS REGARDING POLICY & CUSTOMER SERVICE Rigid Adoption Processing: Treating animal adoptions on a strict "first-come, first-served" application bias when there is more than one application over for an animal, speed basis—rather than considering applicant compatibility—treats animals as interchangeable inventory rather than living creatures with distinct needs. Staff Demeanor: Dismissive language ("just look at other animals") diminishes the thoughtful emotional commitment potential adopters make and reflects poorly on the shelter's public-facing standards. REQUESTED ACTIONS & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS I respectfully request that shelter management review the following: Consider implementing a matchmaking or comparative screening process for adoption applications to prioritize long-term animal compatibility over processing speed. Ensure adoption hold and application policies are clear, transparent, and consistently communicated to the public. Please confirm receipt of this email and inform me of how this complaint will be logged and reviewed. I also request that this correspondence be shared with the Animal Care Control Commission for public record. Sincerely, Livia Nitsche