Oahu residents simply must accept the news that Hawaiian Humane Society animal-control services will be curtailed, unwelcome as that is, and find ways to give a voluntary assist to the city’s animal-control duties. This seems to be an outcome that was impossible to avoid at least in the short term, given the city’s budgetary shortfall.

And it’s likely only the first sign of fiscal distress taxpayers will see over the coming weeks.

The bottom line here is that while officials figure out how to shift some animal control duties to police and other city employees, the public will have to do a much better job at the front end, using more responsible pet ownership practices.

The nonprofit Humane Society last week announced that, without an additional $800,000 in its city contract, it would be unable to shoulder all the chores it’s done in the past. Officials of the organization have agreed to a $2.1 million payment for an 11-month service term. However, they have said it will be unable to pick up strays, deal with complaints on cats and barking dogs, or provide law-enforcement information, except in cases of animal cruelty.

The statistics on animal-control duties under the city contract are pretty startling. Jacque Leblanc, community relations director, said the funding is to pay the society for handling 21,000 stray animals, 22,000 microchipping procedures, 3,500 reports of loose dogs and 5,000 lost-and-found reports, among many other tasks.

The contract payment simply doesn’t cover all the work, Leblanc said, so the society has been shifting donated resources meant for its "front end" advocacy work — educational outreach and other jobs — to offset the shortfall.

That, she correctly noted, is going to cause more problems than it solves, simply because an uninformed public will control its pets poorly and add to the workload down the line.

So the organization has drawn its line, refusing to redirect any more private funds to this public work, and the Caldwell administration has signaled that it has no money to compensate it further.

It’s easy to see why that is: Last month city administration received the stunning news of a nearly 17 percent pay raise for the unionized police, the result of an arbitration award that was far more generous than anyone expected. That’s not the only fat bill the city faces, but it’s certainly the most unanticipated one.

Looking ahead, Leblanc said, there are likely to be discussions with city and state lawmakers about whether the current requirements for pet licensing and tagging, as well as their penalties, are sufficient. That would be an important step. The lack of compliance is what causes much of the animal-control workload, so it may be time to revisit the laws intended to maintain that control.

And, if budget shortfalls persist, the city also might want to consider whether additional pet fees could help offset costs.

But in the meantime, this should be a problem the public ought to help resolve. Some of the steps are as simple as making sure dogs and cats are properly tagged with the owners’ names and contact information, which would reduce a lot of the burden on the city and its contractors. Dog owners should attend to their barking animals. Residents should make sure their fenced yards are escape-proof, as much as possible, and cat owners should see that their felines are kept indoors or at least are sterilized.

Yes, animal control is a municipal function. But many county governments are having to curb spending in this area. Finally, these are pets, after all, and the owners need to step up and provide proper care, rather than lean so heavily on City Hall.