Do Thundershirts® Work?

Posted on June 26, 2021June 26, 2021 by John Reilly

In a dog’s world, fireworks and thunderstorms are very similar. Both involve sudden flashes of light, loud and low-level noises, new scents (ozone from a thunderstorm and gunpowder from fireworks). Dogs can become very fearful of these experiences, sometimes to the point of developing extreme fear responses or phobias. Much of this varies according to the dog’s experiences with sudden noises, its early exposure to these stimuli and the dog’s general personality (Blackwell, Bradshaw & Casey, 2013). In these cases, many owners have attempted to relieve their dogs’ fear by means of a pressure wrap, sometimes marketed under Thundershirt®.

Dogs have a variety of fear-related reactions to thunder or fireworks, including hiding.

Anxiety wraps have been used to treat behavioral issues in autism patients and to aid in reducing fear and stress. Deep pressure, such as firm hugs and muscle massage has been shown to release endorphins that can relieve pain and provide a sense of well-being in the short term (McKenzie, 2011). However, the question remains whether a light sense of pressure, such as provided by an anxiety-wrap, can provide the deep endorphin-releasing stimulus that a massage provides; and, if so, whether wearing a wrap for the duration of a fireworks display or thunderstorm is effective.

So, do they work? Possibly. But there’s very little evidence to support the claims made by manufacturers and marketers of these products.

First off, much of the evidence presented to support the claims of effectiveness are in the form of testimonials or product endorsements. This sort of claim should always be taken with a pinch of salt, as they are often simply invented by sales staffs.
The majority of the other claims of effectiveness are anecdotal reports by laypersons, based on their observations of their own pets. This sort of reporting is generally unreliable, simply because of the strong possibility of unintentional confirmation bias on the part of the dog owner. That, and the possibility of a sort of placebo effect on the owners’ part, in which they see improvement that may not actually be present.

With regard to clinical evidence, there is very little. The one quality study that I could find shows that pressure wraps do nothing to affect the physical symptoms of fear and anxiety (measured heart rate) but did result in some changes in the dogs’ anxiety-related behaviors. Which indicates that the dogs’ fear wasn’t reduced, but their behavior in expressing that fear was affected (King, Buffington, Smith & Grandin, 2014). This begs the question as to whether the pressure wrap is actually helping the dog. The dog may appear calmer, but is simply staying still because he feels inhibited in his movements (Buzhardt, nd). A review of related studies published in 2018 indicated that most studies were based on owners’ subjective assessments of their dogs’ emotional states and concluded that the vests may have small positive effects but that owners should have no expectation or any benefits from using them (Buckley, 2018).

As a behavior consultant, I am skeptical of the anecdotal claims made regarding these products. As stated above, a fair number of them are dubious in nature (this is the internet, after all) and may simply be cases of “astroturfing”. And, as discussed above, claims made by individual dog owners can’t be considered reliable, no matter how well-intentioned. They are not disinterested parties and are not making controlled studies. Also, the vast majority of owners do not have the training to accurately diagnose dogs’ behaviors, and do not have the facilities to measure heartrate, blood pressure and cortisol levels associated with severe anxiety.
I am also somewhat concerned about the use of these products without the involvement of behavior professionals: Incorrectly used, a dog may come to associate the vest with unpleasant stimuli that it is intended to alleviate, making the fear response worse. Also, if worn for extended periods, the dog may become habituated to the vest, making it ineffective. And, if a dog is overwhelmed by the noise, sight and smells going on around him, adding the stimulus of touch may be the worst thing that an owner can do.

Mainly, I am reluctant to recommend these products simply because they do nothing to reduce the dog’s fears. They do not address the underlying causes of the extreme anxiety and stress that the dog is experiencing.

The way to alleviate dogs’ (and peoples’) fear of objects or situations is to change their emotional state through desensitization and counterconditioning. These involve treating the dog’s sensitivity to the event that is causing the fear reaction, by gradually increasing the dog’s tolerance to it and/or by introducing a positive experience that the dog can come to associate with the anxiety-causing event (Todd, 2018). The goal is to help the dog by reducing the amount of fear and anxiety that he experiences in response to certain stimuli, in this case thunder or fireworks. The goal of a behaviorist is to help a patient be less afraid, instead of outwardly seeming less fearful.
In some cases, veterinary assistance may be needed. At the risk of introducing an anecdote, I have been involved in a case in which a dog was left alone in a house during a particularly violent thunderstorm and developed an extreme fear to them. This was treated by a veterinary behaviorist, who prescribed a low dose of valium to be taken when thunderstorms were imminent. After a few treatments, the dog “learned” that she was not fearful during the thunderstorms and her reactions to the storms were greatly lessened.

What’s the takeaway?

As stated by King et al, “This pressure wrap can be used adjunctively in a treatment program for dogs with these specific anxiety diagnoses, but should not replace current treatment options (behavior modification and medication) for canine Separation Anxiety and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Caution must be practiced if using the ThunderShirt for dogs with phobic reactions to loud noises or thunderstorms, as this had not been studied with the canine anxiety diagnoses.”

I suggest that they may be used as part of a treatment program that employs science-based behavior assessment and modification techniques to reduce the fear that dogs associate with thunderstorms or fireworks; but should not be relied upon by pet owners as a stand-alone treatment that is administered at home.

References

Blackwell, E. J., Bradshaw, J. W. S. and Casey, R A. (2013). Fear Responses to Noises in Domestic Dogs: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Co-Occurance with Other Fear Related Behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145 (1-2). 15 – 25. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.004

Buckley, L. A. (2018). Are Pressure Vests Beneficial at Reducing Stress in Anxious and Fearful Dogs? Veterinary Evidence, 3 (1). doi: 10.18849/VE.V311.152

Buzhardt, L. (nd). Anxiety Vests for Dogs. Retrieved from Anxiety Vests for Dogs | VCA Animal Hospital (vcahospitals.com)

King, C., Buffington, L., Smith, T. J. and Grandin, T. (2014). The Effect of a Pressure Wrap (Thundershirt®) on Heart Rate and Behavior in Canines Diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9 (5). 215-221. Doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.06.007

McKenzie, B. (2011) Pressure Wraps for Anxiety in Dogs. Retrieved from Pressure Wraps for Anxiety in Dogs | (skeptvet.com)

Todd, Z. (2018). What is Desensitization and Counter-Conditioning in Dog Training? Retrieved from What is Desensitization and Counter-Conditioning in Dog Training? (companionanimalpsychology.com)

Suburban Wildlife – Backyard Critters

Posted on April 4, 2021April 4, 2021 by John Reilly

Above and below: Local wildlife captured on a backyard trail cam

If you live outside of a major city, you might be surprised to learn that your home is part of an ecosystem. Your yard is a place where animals roam, hunt, forage and raise their young; and you are part of it by virtue of the boundaries you place on it, the shelter and food sources that you create, and the dangers that you bring to it.

Set up a trail cam outside your house before you settle down to an evening of television and you will see what I mean. In the mornings, you will see pictures of animal comings and goings in the night that you probably never knew were happening. You will find that you are sharing your turf with opossums, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, woodchucks, coyotes, foxes, owls and other critters that you may never have been aware of. They are your neighbors and live their lives right under your nose. They are the reason that your dog wakes you up in the night and barks to go outside.

What’s your part in this? The best thing you can do is be responsible and be aware of their behaviors.

First off: Control your pets. Always keep your cats indoors and do not let your dog outside at night without keeping an eye on him. Your cats are predators by nature and will attempt to hunt and kill birds and any other small animals that they can get. Further, your cat is prey for the larger predators in your area. By keeping your cat indoors, you are increasing its life expectancy by 12 to 15 years^1,2.

Second: Keep your trash inaccessible and use bins that cannot be opened by wildlife. We do not need to attract wildlife to our homes or invite them to visit us for food.

Third: Do not feed them. If wildlife is present in your neighborhood, that means they have plenty of food and do not need you to supplement their diets. And, the fact is, the sugar, fat and salt content in our diet is just as unhealthy for them as it is for us. You are not doing them any favors by sharing it with them. I am not saying to take down your bird feeder, just don’t share your breakfast cereal or dinner leftovers with them. And absolutely do not feed your pets outdoors or leave their food bowls outside. Not only do your pets’ bowls attract wildlife – sharing them with wildlife is an avenue for diseases.

One of the main reasons to admire wildlife from a distance is that they can carry diseases and parasites that are dangerous to both humans and our pets. Not only profoundly serious diseases such as rabies and distemper, but tick-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever, parasites such as mange, fleas and scabies, and other communicable diseases. You can keep these illnesses and parasites outside by simply taking simple precautions about your pets and their food.

Lastly: Leave them alone. Do not try to make friends with them. In fact, the more wary they are of people, the better. If you see a critter that seems to be unafraid of you or tame; or if one approaches you, it is probably sick³. In fact, animal welfare organizations across the country are seeing increases in diseases such as canine distemper^4,5, a disease that can be spread to unvaccinated dogs.

Summing it up: Just recognize that we share the world with wildlife, and we should respect their space. We can enjoy them from a distance, but for our benefit and theirs we should minimize our intrusion into their lives. We also need to protect our pets by keeping them from having any interactions with wildlife and keeping their vaccinations up to date.

References:

Seresto collars

Posted on March 3, 2021March 3, 2021 by John Reilly

There has been great deal of interest and reporting about the EPA’s report on dog illnesses and fatalities linked to the Seresto flea and tick collar. Like most dog owners, I’m interested in this reporting. But I’m bothered by the reporting for much different reasons than most others whose comments I’ve seen.

The story, which first appeared in USA Today on March 2^nd, (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/02/seresto-dog-cat-collars-found-harm-pets-humans-epa-records-show/4574753001/ ), states that 1,700 pet deaths have been attributed to Seresto collars. As stated in the article “Seresto, one of the most popular flea and tick collars in the country, has been linked to hundreds of pet deaths, tens of thousands of injured animals and hundreds of harmed humans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documents show. Yet the EPA has done nothing to inform the public of the risks.” The article provides a link to the EPA’s website, containing an aggregate summary of pet deaths attributed to Seresto collars from 2012 through 2020. The report contains information about the total number of reported illnesses and deaths, along with reported severity of the illnesses. However, that’s all the information that was provided. The article doesn’t provide any amplifying information about the data collection.

For example, the article provides a link to the aggregate reporting of pesticide incidents attributed to Seresto, but does not state the source of those incident reports. There is no explanation as to whether the incidents were reported by private citizens, veterinarians, state agencies or the manufacturer. Every one of these potential sources can contribute to the EPA’s database, with varying degrees of reliability ( https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-incidents/introduction-pesticide-incidents ). And, although part of the data collection for incident reporting, the aggregate database cited in the article contains no information about the probability that the incident was accurately reported.

The fact that the article apparently used raw data without further examination leads to some questions about the data itself. For example, in previous investigations of flea and tick treatments, the EPA has found that a significant number of incidents were based on improper use of the products, including applying the wrong amount of treatment for the animals’ weight or age, or using the product for the wrong species of pet ( https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/safe-use-flea-and-tick-products-pets ). The EPA has addressed concerns with other topical flea treatments by requiring modifications to their safe use ( EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-on Products: Analysis and Plans for Reducing Harmful Effects | Protecting Pets from Fleas and Ticks | US EPA ).

Although the article questions the safety of Seresto collars, it fails to consider how many reported incidents may be inaccurate. Or how many deaths and illnesses are attributable to other causes. Or how many reported incidents are the result of incorrect use. For example, one active ingredient in Seresto collars, imidacloprid, has been found to have no adverse side effects when applied topically, but is extremely toxic when ingested ( http://www.dogaware.com/articles/wdjmdr1.html ). This raises the possibility that dogs licked or chewed on a collar, or that the insecticide was ingested by excessive grooming or licking a hot spot, rather than becoming ill through normal use.

All this is not to say that the Seresto collars should not be re-examined for safety concerns and that mitigations may be needed. And there is clear evidence that the EPA has been lax in enforcement in recent years. But the article took one data element that is used to evaluate product safety, and drew somewhat inflammatory and potentially misleading conclusions from it. We need to be mindful that this is only part of the story.

Dog thefts

Posted on February 27, 2021February 27, 2021 by John Reilly

Dog Theft: Is it really on the rise?

Like everyone else who watches the news, I was shocked by the recent assault on Lady Gaga’s dog walker and the theft of her French Bulldogs. I was heartened by their quick return (Lady Gaga’s two French bulldogs have been returned safely, LAPD says – CNN), and more so by the fact that her dogwalker is getting the best of care and seems to be out of danger.

In light of all the press coverage, I had to wonder how prevalent dog theft really is, and how the pandemic is affecting the frequency of pet theft in the United States. There is a great deal of information on the seriousness of dog theft in the United Kingdom; the reporting of pet thefts has increased over one hundred percent in 2020. This is due to several factors: The stringent pandemic lockdowns in the UK have created an increased demand for puppies and dogs as Covid companions; while the lockdowns and European travel restrictions have created a shortage of purebred dogs for purchase or adoption (Huge increase in UK dog theft blamed on COVID-19 restrictions | Euronew s). This has resulted in an increased demand and a sort of black market for desirable dog breeds. There is little doubt that the rate of dog theft is drastically increasing (Puppy shortage amid COVID leads to uptick in animal thefts (radio.com)).

With regard to the United States, it turns out that it is hard to determine whether the pandemic is resulting in an increase in dognapping. There simply isn’t a lot of available data on this subject. Most states do not have dedicated statutes for pet thefts – these are considered to be crimes against personal property. Only fifteen states have specific criminal codes regarding dog theft. I have seen some reporting that dog thefts in the United States has increased substantially, but haven’t been able to locate any actual figures to support those claims. Many of the claims are anecdotal and, frankly, the media accounts are generally written to maximize their emotional impact. Also, since the AKC’s statistics have been derived from media reporting, this has the potential of being a self-licking ice cream cone: As public interest in dog theft increases, media outlets are more inclined to cover these thefts which, in turn, increases the number of thefts that appear in media-derived statistics.

Here’s what we do know:

Small breeds are very vulnerable to theft, simply because they are easy to snatch and hide (ref).

Stylish breeds, such as French bulldogs, are targeted by thieves because of their size and popularity. They are easy to sell.

Small, pure-bred dogs are generally stolen by dog-flippers, who sell them for profit, or by people who simply want one for themselves (Dognapping: How to Keep Your Dog Safe When Pet Theft Is on the Rise (akc.org)).

Only about ten percent of stolen dogs are recovered and returned to their owners (The Alarming State Of Stolen Dog Laws & How To Prevent – CanineJournal.com ).

The number of thefts has been steadily increasing in recent years, so it is reasonable to assume that we have had a significant increase in the number of thefts in 2020. Although our lockdowns have not been as widespread and draconian as in the UK; there has been a definite increase in the demand for small companion animals (ref) and breeders and rescues have had difficulties in transporting dogs.

And the fact is, from the standpoint of the criminals, dog theft is a relatively low-risk crime. Even in states with criminal statutes regarding dog theft, they are generally considered misdemeanors with minor penalties. Also, without compelling evidence such as high-quality video recording of the theft, these crimes are hard to prove. A thief can simply say that he found the dog wandering on the street (The Alarming State Of Stolen Dog Laws & How To Prevent – CanineJournal.com ).

So, if you have a puppy or a dog that happens to be a popular breed, what can you do?

First off: Microchip your dog. Although this may not prevent your dog from being stolen, it greatly increases your ability to positively identify him or her.

Second: Don’t leave your dog unattended in a public place. Don’t leave them tied up outside a store, or in your car. And if your yard is plainly visible from the street and can be accessed by passers-by, don’t leave your dog unattended outside for any length of time.

Third: Be conscious of your surroundings while walking your dog. Make sure that you are aware of cars that are driving too slowly, or that you see more than once. Be aware of who is walking behind you. Carry a whistle or other kind of alarm.

Lastly: Be aware of your dog’s social media presence. Do you really need to show him off to the entire internet? You do not know who is looking for available dogs in your neighborhood.

Shelter Dog Welfare

Posted on February 7, 2021February 7, 2021 by John Reilly

This is a short paper that I did a couple of years ago. Its still current today.

Shelter Dog Welfare Challenges

Dogs hold a unique place in American society. They have been our companions and work partners for many thousands of years and are unique among non-human animals in their ability to form attachments with members of other species. They are the most commonly found companion animal in the United States; a recent survey found that 48 percent of US households include at least one dog, and the majority of dog owners are described as considering their dogs to be family members (Humane Society of the United States, n.d.). Despite the affinity between dogs and humans, approximately 5.5 million are put in shelters every year (Woodruff and Smith, 2017).

Dogs enter shelters or rescue organizations from three primary sources: They may have been confiscated by local animal control or police as abused or endangered, or because their owners were taken into custody. They may have been picked up as strays, having been lost or abandoned by their owners; or simply as “street dogs”. Lastly, the dogs may have been surrendered by their owners for any of a variety of reasons, such as loss of income, the family having to move, medical issues or behavioral problems. In some cases, dogs are moved from one shelter to another either for space and funding restrictions, or to provide a better chance for placement.

In any case, the dog entering shelters face multiple challenges to their emotional and physical welfare; some of these issues stem from limitations of care available from the shelter organization, and some simply from the shelter’s environment. This paper will attempt to identify these issues and their impact on the dogs, and will discuss possible ways to mitigate these challenges to improve the dogs’ welfare while they are kept in shelters. This will conclude with possible ways of influencing the outcomes of their stays in these organizations.

Welfare Challenges

Methodology. This review of welfare concerns will deal with dogs in shelters that meet the following criteria: First, the shelters must be “intake facilities”, meaning that they accept dogs from various sources including owner surrenders and confiscation by authorities. Second, they must adopt dogs to the public. Third, the shelters must be “brick and mortar” facilities, meaning that they have a physical location for housing and caring for the dogs. No distinction will be made between shelters operated by local governments and those run by private organizations. The various challenges addressed in this paper are drawn from peer-reviewed studies and from data collected and published by animal welfare organizations.

Welfare Issues

Euthanasia.

When a dog is placed in a shelter the possible outcomes are limited. Strays can be returned to their owners. Dogs can be adopted or transferred to other organizations such as breed-specific rescue organizations or shelters and rescues with higher adoption rates. Lastly, the dogs can be euthanized due to space and funding concerns, medical reasons or behavior issues that are judged to make the dog unadoptable. In many cases, owners surrender dogs to shelters for the purpose of euthanizing them, often for reasons of age, health issues or behavioral concerns (Patronek, Glickman & Moyer 2015).

Estimates of euthanasia rates vary widely, as there are no real metrics maintained by state or local agencies. Recent survey data shows that approximately 777,000 dogs are euthanized annually; however, there is no information available on how many were “put to sleep” for medical or behavioral concerns or based on owners’ instructions. Further, the likelihood of a dog being euthanized by a shelter varies by geographic area; shelters in the southeast and southwest united states are more likely to euthanize unadopted dogs than shelters in other regions of the US (Woodruff & Smith, 2017). In any case, approximately 14 percent of all dogs in placed in shelters every year will be euthanized.

Medical Welfare Issues.

Dogs housed in shelters are particularly at risk for exposure to infectious diseases. The population of dogs in any shelter is fluid, as new dogs arrive frequently from multiple sources in varying degrees of health. In many cases, dogs are surrendered or seized by authorities with no, or unreliable, information on their immunizations, medical history or current state of health. Dogs seized by authorities as a result of criminal activity, such as dog fighting operations, have been found to have had a very low degree of preventative care and are at high risk for spreading disease and disease-bearing parasites (Cannon et al, 2016).

A 2014 study found that dogs entering shelters from the local community with infectious respiratory illness, such as Canine Influenza, had a very high incidence of affecting other dogs held by the shelter (Pecoraro, Bennett, Nuyvaert, Spindel & Landolt, 2014). Further, the majority of shelters do not have on-site veterinary staff and use local veterinary clinics on a periodic or ad hoc basis (Laderman-Jones, Hurley & Kass, 2016). The training and disease awareness of shelter staff and volunteers is also a subject of concern, creating higher risk of disease transmission within shelters (Steneroden, Hill & Salman, 2010).

The gaps in veterinary staffing and availability mean that intake evaluations are conducted by shelter staff with varying levels of expertise, increasing the risk that medical conditions or infectious diseases will not be detected (Steneroden, Hill & Salman, 2011). Further, shelters have a high concentration of animals, which creates a situation in which animals are more likely to be exposed to diseases than they would be in private residences (Newbury, et al., 2010). Although guidelines have been published for the vaccination of shelter dogs (AAHA Canine Vaccination Guidelines, 2017), they are not implemented uniformly (Pecoraro, Bennett, Nuyvaert, Spindel & Landolt, 2014), increasing the likelihood of disease transmission within kennels and by transfer of dogs between shelters.

Stress-related welfare issues.

The experience of being housed in a shelter is stressful for dogs. Upon entering a shelter, dogs find themselves separated from any personal attachments they may have, isolated in unfamiliar surroundings and being cared for by strangers. This naturally creates a state of heightened fear and anxiety, which impact their health and behavior. This fear reaction can result in dogs’ exhibiting defensive behavior and avoidance of humans and other dogs (McMillan, 2017). Aside from the direct impact on a dog’s quality of life, the behavioral indications of stress, such as stereotypic behavior, increased arousal or displays of anxiety, negatively affects dogs’ chances of being adopted (Wright, Smith, Daniel & Adkins, 2007).

There are multiple stressors affecting shelter dogs’ quality of life:

Separation.

Dogs have lived with humans for tens of thousands of years and have adapted to be human companions. They affiliate with humans and form attachment bonds with their owners and caregivers, and these bonds provide a measure of security for dogs when they are in unfamiliar situations (Bradshaw, 2012; Mariti, Ricci, Zilocchi & Gazzano, 2013). Isolation from their human attachment figures and people in general, particularly in an unfamiliar environment, causes anxiety and stress. This condition persists as long as the animal remains isolated (Marston & Bennett, 2003).

Further, dogs are social animals with a natural desire to interact and form attachments with other members of their species. To reduce the transmission of disease and the possibility of aggression and fighting, shelters typically isolate them from each other. Thus, shelter dogs are aware that other dogs are nearby, but are unable to engage in normal social activity with them. They can detect stress and excitement from the other dogs’ vocalizations, but are unable to communicate and interact with them as part of their natural behavior (Hedges,2017). This serves to increase their frustration and anxiety while housed in shelters (Grigg, Nibblett, Robinson & Smits, 2017).

Confinement and reduced activity.

While kept in shelters, dogs are housed in confined spaces and have limited access to outdoor spaces. The fact of being kept in a restricted space with no means of exit and no opportunity to engage in any play or physical stress-relieving behavior has been shown to increase the anxiety and stress reactions of dogs in shelters (Normando, Contiero, Marchesini & Ricci, 2014). The confined space also requires dogs to engage in an unnatural behavior of eliminating and urinating in close proximity to the spaces in which they eat, drink and sleep, adding to their anxiety (Wagner, Newbury, Kass & Hurley, 2014).

Environmental stressors.

The lack of a familiar environment in a shelter can be exacerbated by sensory overstimulation. The dogs are suddenly thrust into completely new surroundings and the sounds and smells within a kennel can be overwhelming. Their senses are suddenly bombarded by intense new odors and sounds. The noise level found in shelters is particularly concerning from a welfare standpoint.

Dog shelters are noisy environments. The shelter interiors are generally hard, smooth walls and floors to facilitate cleaning and disinfecting. While these hard surfaces are beneficial from the standpoint of hygiene, they contribute to the problem of excessive noise levels inside the buildings. Although dog’s hearing is far more sensitive than that of humans and extends to frequency ranges that are not audible to humans, dogs housed in kennels are regularly exposed to continual noise levels that exceed ranges considered safe for a human work environment. The sound levels in shelters has been found to regularly exceed 100 decibels; by contrast, the mean sound level of human houses is 45 decibels (Coppola, Enns & Grandin, 2006). Although the physical effects of this noise exposure in dogs has not been adequately explored, the noise levels commonly found in kennels have been found to cause damage and stress in animals with less sensitive hearing (Sales, Hubrecht, Payvandi, Milligan & Shield, 1997).

Conclusion

Dogs in a kennel environment face unique challenges to their health and general welfare. The causes for these challenges tend to overlap, requiring great care in identifying and addressing particular issues.

The most pressing concern is the possibility that shelter dogs will be euthanized for non-medical reasons. Although there are no statistics available to determine the number of dogs that shelters euthanize for medical reasons, the raw numbers suggest that non-medical euthanasia occurs at a high rate. Short of increasing space, funding and training for shelter staff and volunteers, the most obvious solutions would appear to provide outreach and assistance to owners in the process of surrendering their dogs and to increase the dogs’ chances of being adopted once they are in the shelter. Anecdotal evidence suggests that interviews with owners who are surrendering dogs to shelters, coupled with assistance in resolving the issues leading to the surrender, would assist them in keeping their dogs at home (Protopopova & Gunter, 2017). Increasing dogs’ chances of being adopted once in the shelter can be accomplished by human interaction and socialization, coupled with enrichment of their environment and training in basic behavior. (Luescher & Medlock, 2008).

The next major concern is the risk to dogs’ health. Animals in shelters are at a heightened risk of exposure to contagious diseases due to the density of the shelter population and the varying states of preventative care that the animals received prior to intake. Steps should be taken to increase the level of training among shelter staff and volunteers in disease awareness and transmission, and to encourage the administration of all recommended and optional immunizations for shelter dogs, regardless of their medical history (Steneroden, Hill & Salman, 2011; American Animal Hospital Association, 2017).

The above steps would also serve to remove causes of stress and anxiety in these dogs, enabling them to interact with visitors and becoming more adoptable. When it is all said and done, the best way to improve a shelter animal’s welfare is to have a family take it home.

References

American Animal Hospital Association (2017). Vaccination Recommendations – Shelter-Housed Dogs. Retrieved from: https://www.aaha.org/guidelines/canine_vaccination_guidelines/shelter_vaccination.aspx

Bradshaw, J. (2012, November 19). The bond between pet and owner. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pets-and-their-people/201211/the-bond-between-pet-and-owner

Cannon, S. H., Levy, J. K., Kirk, S. K., Crawford, P. C., Leutenegger, C. M., Shuster, J. J.,…Chandrashekar, R. (2016). Infectious diseases in dogs rescued during dogfighting investigations. The Veterinary Journal 211 (2016). 64-69. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.02.012

Coppola, C. L., Enns, R. M. and Grandin, T. (2006), Noise in the animal shelter environment: Building design and the effects of daily noise exposure. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9 (1). 1-7. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0901_1

Grigg, E. K., Nibblett, B. M.. Robinson, J. Q. & Smits, J. E. (2017). Evaluating pair versus solitary housing in kenneled domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) using behavior and hair cortisol: a pilot study. Veterinary Record Open 4 (193) doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2016-000193

Hedges, S. (2017). Social behaviour of the domestic dog. Veterinary Nursing Journal 32 (9). 260-264. doi: 10.1080/17415349.2017.1333474

Humane Society of the United States (n.d.).Pets by the numbers. Retrieved from: https://www.animalsheltering.org/page/pets-by-the-numbers

Laderman-Jones, B. E., Hurley, K. F. & Kass, P., H. (2016). Survey of animal shelter managers regarding veterinary medical services. The Veterinary Journal 210 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.02.007

Luescher, A. U. & Medlock, R. T. (2008). The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science 117 (1-2). 63-68. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.001

Mariti, C., Ricci, E., Zilocchi, M. & Gazzano, A. (2013). Owners as a secure base for their dogs. Behaviour 150 (2013). 1275-1294. doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003095

Marston, L.C. and Bennett, P., C. (2003) Reforging the bond – toward successful canine adoption. Applied Animal Behavior Science 83 (3). Doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00135-7

McMillan, F. D. (2013). Quality of life, stress, and emotional pain in shelter animals. In L. Miller and S. Zawistowski (Eds.), Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff (pp 83-92). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell

Newbury, S., Blinn, M. K., Bushby, P. A., Cox, C. B., Dinnage, J. D., Griffin, B.,…Spindel, M. (2010). Guidelines for standards of care in animal shelters. Retrieved from: http://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf

Normando, S., Contiero, B., Marchesini, G. & Ricci, R. (2014) Effects of space allowance on the behavior of long-term housed shelter dogs. Behavioral Processes 03 (103). 306-314. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.01.015

Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T. & Moyer, M. R. (2015). Population dynamics and the risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös 8 (1). 31-43. doi: 10.2752.089279395787156455

Pecoraro, H. L., Bennett, S., Huyvaert, K. P., Spindel, M.E. & Landolt, G. A. (2014). Epidemiology and ecology of H3N8 Canine Influenza Viruses in US shelter dogs. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 28 (311). doi: 10.1111/jvim.12301

Protopopova, A. & Gunter, L. M. (2017) Adoption and relinquishment interventions at the animal shelter: a review. Animal Welfare 2017 (26). 35-48. doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.1.035

Sales, G., Hubrecht, R., Peyvandi, A., Milligan, S. & Shield, B. (1997). Noise in dog kenneling: Is barking a welfare problem for dogs?. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52 (3). 321-329. Doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01132-X

Steneroden, K. K., Hill, E. H. & Salman, M. D. (2010). A needs-assessment and demographic survey of infection-control and disease awareness in western US animal shelters. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011). 52-57. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.11.001

Steneroden, K. K., Hill, A. E. & Salman, M. D. (2011). Zoonotic disease awareness in animal shelter workers and volunteers and the effects of training. Zoonoses and Public Health 58 (7). 449-53. Doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2011.01389.x

Wagner, D., Newbury, S., Kass, P. & Hurley, K. (2104) Elimination behavior of shelter dogs housed in double compartment kennels. PLoS ONE 9 (5). doi: 10/1371/journal/pone.0096254

Woodruff, K., A. & Smith, D. R. (2017), An Estimate of the Number of Dogs in US Shelters [Slide presentation]. Retrieved from: https://petleadershipcouncil.org/resources/uploads/MSU_Shelter_Census_Presentation_NAVC_2017.pdf

Wright, J., Smith, A., Daniel, K., Adkins, K. (2007). Dog breed stereotype and exposure to negative behavior: Effects on perceptions of adoptability. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10 (3). 255-265. doi: 10.1080/10888700701353956