Abstract
Management of free-roaming dogs is a continuing challenge for animal welfare, public health and local administration. In Serbia, this challenge is shaped by a structural inconsistency: the Veterinary Law defines zoohygiene as a veterinary public health activity requiring professional competence and traceability, while the Public Utilities Law classifies it as a communal service. This dual framework has produced three institutional models with significantly different outcomes. This study compares the integrated veterinary public-service model, the municipal public utility model and the private contractor model. Legal documents, municipal records, financial reports and operational data obtained from local authorities were analyzed to assess how each model manages abandoned animals and ensures transparency and humane practices. Findings show that the integrated veterinary model provides reliable outcomes, including individual records, verifiable sterilization numbers and low mortality. The public utility model shows fragmented or absent data and high mortality despite substantial public spending. The private contractor model presents the lowest transparency, with municipalities lacking access to operational data and with outcomes inconsistent with humane population management. The results indicate that current Serbian practice diverges from European approaches, which place dog population management within veterinary or public health systems. Strengthening veterinary overview, improving data transparency and limiting reliance on non veterinary participants are necessary to support effective, humane and accountable population management.