King County should get out of the animal-control and shelter business.

CONSIDERING its poor performance, King County should stop providing shelter care and animal control.

Nearly two years of scathing reports chronicle deplorable conditions at animal shelters. The county spent $1 million on improvements and hired a new manager to oversee animal welfare. But lingering problems, most notably excessively long response times to dog attacks, underscore the need to find a better answer.

County Executive Kurt Triplett has a plan but it is only a partial one. Triplett wants to spend $3 million transitioning animal control and shelters to a regional organization. Several members of the County Council, including Dow Constantine, the candidate for county executive, support the county's move out of the animal control business.

This decision ought to be step one. Now we need a thoughtful and airtight implementation plan. The county cannot just get out of the business and leave suburban governments to their own devices. There ought not be a surfeit of hastily constructed shelters, rules and emergency procedures in every community.

A promising solution would likely be an interlocal agreement supported by suburban governments, animal-welfare agencies and non-profits. The county's cities and towns, which have been passing on to the county pet-license fees in exchange for services, should take on more animal control and shelter programs.

Timing is an area where county leaders must be more sensitive. The suburbs are being given nine months to come up with a plan. It could take longer. And where's the plan for animal control in unincorporated areas?

The county executive has taken the right first step. At a time when parks, health clinics and human-service programs are being truncated, county government must be reserved for core services. And while animal control is an integral part of public safety, it can be done by private or nonprofit entities.

The next step ought to move this smart idea into a workable plan.