Grouping protocol in sheltersOswaldo Santos , Gina Polo, Rita Garcia, Eduardo Oliveira, Adriana Vieira,

Néstor Calderón, Rudy De MeesterPublished Online: June 29, 2012DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2012.03.002Article OutlineI. AbstractII. IntroductionIII. Material and methodsA. Phase 1—distance recognition (scheduled time, 5 minutes)B. Phase 2—progressive approximation (scheduled time, 11 minutes 30 seconds without considering extra repetition caused by aggressive manifestations)C. Phase 3—approach without head collars (scheduled time, 5 minutes)D. Phase 4—introduction of a group into the kennel (scheduled time, 5 minutes)IV. ResultsV. DiscussionVI. Conclusion

Abstract

Dog population dynamics in shelters often requires the grouping of individuals, and changes to the composition of those groups. We developed a protocol to maximize the positive effects and reduce the negative effects associated with grouping dogs. Twenty-three neutered dogs that had to be grouped participated in the study. Fifteen were adult females, 7 were adult males, and 1 was a juvenile female. The protocol was divided into phases that allowed the use of environmental enrichment (occupational, social, nutritional, and sensorial) and behavioral modification (systematic desensitization and counter-conditioning).

There were no fights involving bites during the formation of groups. In 5 (18.5%) of formed pairs, we observed unidirectional manifestations of aggression that did not involve physical contact. Three pairs (10%) could not be formed because we saw bidirectional aggression manifestation involving physical contact but no bites. The proposed protocol is a viable alternative to improve grouping of dogs in the context of shelters. The protocol also has the potential to promote wellness, enhance production of desirable behaviors, and decrease the presence of behavioral problems.

Introduction

In some Brazilian states, euthanasia of healthy companion animals in public and private animal shelters is prohibited(São Paulo, 2008; Rio Grande do Sul, 2009; Pernambuco, 2010). As a consequence, dogs must be housed until they are rehomed, die, or are euthanized for medical reasons.

Constant transit of dogs in shelters, changes in their health status, and behavioral problems (e.g., aggression) often necessitate grouping new dogs or rearranging established groups (Newbury et   al., 2010 ). According to recent directives, housed animals should be maintained in stable groups of compatible individuals (Anonymous, 2010). In cases where single housing is needed, the duration should be limited to the minimum period necessary, and visual, auditory, olfactory, and/or tactile contact should be maintained (Anonymous, 2010). Group housing of dogs, mainly in pairs, has positive effects on human–animal relationships, behavioral health, adoption rate, and adoption success (Mertens and Unshelm, 1996). Moreover, group housing may reduce the frequency of vocalizations (Hetts et   al., 1992 ), could act as a social buffer compensating for the lack of space (De Palma et   al., 2005 ), and might contribute to a positive social experience, which allow faster integration of dogs to new situations (Sonderegger and Turner, 1996). Nevertheless, group housing is also associated with negative consequences, such as fighting, physical risks of infectious disease exposure, and also fear, stress, and anxiety in some members of the group (Newbury et   al., 2010 ).

Dog fighting has negative implications for the welfare of animals and also can result in bite injuries suffered by personnel who try to separate dogs. In addition, some injuries may require complex treatments, increasing the costs associated with their care through use of additional supplies, staff commitment, and extra days of care for dogs that cannot be offered for adoption because of the severity of injuries.

Some experiences can cause or exacerbate the presentation of aggressive behaviors (Mertens, 2002; Bradshaw et   al., 2009 ; Haug, 2008), and fighting could be one of such experiences. This is relevant considering that behavioral problems, including aggressiveness, have been identified as an important reason for relinquishment, and often those dogs were sourced from shelters originally (Salman et   al., 2000 ; Corridan, 2010).

Using environmental enrichment, it is possible to increase behavioral diversity, reduce the frequency of behavioral problems, increase the number of normal behavioral patterns, and increase the ability to cope with challenges(Calderón, 2010; Ellis, 2009). Behavioral modification techniques, such as systematic desensitization and counter-conditioning, have been shown to be effective in the management of interdog aggression in shelters (Orihel and Fraser, 2008). Both approaches may improve the behavior and welfare of dogs, and this means that adoption programs can offer animals more appropriate for establishing healthy human–dog bond.

In this context, an ethological approach is needed to (1) evaluate the animals’ behavior, (2) offer rehabilitation opportunities to animals with behavioral problems, (3) determine in which conditions the adoption of an animal is safe and convenient, and (4) implement a postadoption monitoring program (Newbury et   al., 2010 ).

In the past, the staff of the Zoonoses Control Center (ZCC) of Guarulhos subjectively decided which dogs were suitable to group, and the formation of groups was made in a closed environment, with dogs being off leash. Although no detailed data were available, fighting during grouping of dogs was considered by the staff of the ZCC of Guarulhos as one of the major problems. Owing to ethical considerations, we decided not to make a control group. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of a new protocol that uses environmental enrichment and behavioral modification techniques to form or rearrange groups of dogs.

Material and methods

This study was conducted in a public shelter from Guarulhos, Brazil, between May and June 2010. There was a mean of 120 sheltered dogs distributed in groups of 3 and 4 maintained in kennels with a length of 4.9 m and a width of 3.80 m. Two intact adult male dogs were selected because they had completed the quarantine period, and incoming dogs were required to be placed in the quarantine kennels. Twenty-one neutered dogs (15 adult females, 5 adult males, and one 5-month female) were selected because the dogs with which they had been grouped fought, got ill, or were adopted, thereby leaving free space available for other dogs. In formation of groups, we tried to mix dogs of different sex with similar size. Before grouping, the dogs were trained to sit and to walk without pulling, using procedures described byLuescher and Medlock (2009)); however, instead of using the Gentle Leader (Premier Pet Products, LLC, Midlothian, VA), we used a rope to make a head collar with functionality similar to that of the commercial product (Figure   1 ).

Once the dogs obeyed the commands without failing after 3 consecutive times, they were considered ready for the grouping procedure.

The grouping protocol developed used 4 phases that allowed the application of different kinds of environmental enrichment and behavioral modification techniques. Phase 1 allowed distance recognition

between dogs; phases 2 and 3 emphasized on progressive approach to them; and in phase 4, dogs being grouped were placed in a kennel. Dogs wore head collars during the first 2 phases.

The grouping protocol began with 2 dogs, each associated with a handler identified as A or B. When there was a need to create groups of 3 or 4 dogs, all possible pairs between those dogs were formed and then, beginning with 1 pair, the group was completed by adding the remaining dogs (one first and then the other in cases of groups of 4 members).

Phase 1—distance recognition (scheduled time, 5 minutes)

In an open place, 3 points were identified, forming an imaginary triangle of 10 × 10 × 14 m. Dogs passed each of the 3 points in turn, maintaining the distance between 2 points. Dogs could urinate, defecate, and smell at each point. The handlers positively reinforced calm behaviors with affective words, treats, or/and petting at each point. Between points, the handlers just used positive words as a positive reinforcement of calm behaviors.

Handler B with his dog first began in the front and, having passed the third point, walked out at least 5 m away from the triangle. Then, handler A and his dog completed the pass by the last point, and all this was repeated one more time, with handler A in the front and handler B in the back. The dog from the back had the opportunity to smell the places the dog in the front had passed. Finally, dogs were walked to the place used for the second phase, maintaining a minimal distance of 5 m between them.

Phase 2—progressive approximation (scheduled time, 11 minutes 30 seconds without considering extra repetition caused by aggressive manifestations)

In an open place of 10 × 10 m2, we designed a circle with points on the ground to guide the handlers. The circle had a 10-m diameter, and in clock positions 12 and 6, there were 2 points identified with letters A and B. Another 2 points were designed in clock positions 3 and 9. Inside the circle, 4 equidistant points were marked with letters and numbers (Figure   2 ).

Figure 2Circle on the ground to guide handlers in phase 2—progressive approximation.

This phase consisted of 5 steps, and progression from one step to the next was only made when it was possible to repeat the step 3 times without any aggressive incident from either of the dogs. In this phase, calm behavior was positively reinforced with affective words, treats, and petting. If it was not possible after 3 attempts, the entire grouping process was repeated the following day using a different pair composition. If the second grouping attempt failed, the dogs were appointed to an individual kennel.

We used the scale proposed by Netto and Planta (1997)) to categorize aggressive behavior.

Step 1 (scheduled time, 2:30 minutes): beginning at points A and B (Figure   2 ), dogs were walked clockwise on the circle to complete 1 spin. Calm behavior was positively reinforced with affective words and petting at the points located on the circle.

Step 2 (scheduled time, 1 minute): beginning at points A and B, dogs were walked to the 1A and 1B points, respectively, where calm behavior and sit command were positively reinforced before returning to A and B points.

Step 3 (scheduled time, 1 minute): beginning at points A and B, dogs were walked to the 2A and 2B points, respectively, where calm behavior and sit command were positively reinforced before returning to A and B points. On third repetition, the dog A was walked to point A and the dog B was also walked to point A (instead of point B) to continue with the next step.

Step 4 (scheduled time: 6 minutes): beginning at point A, dogs were walked clockwise on the circle, with handler A and his dog at the front and handler B with his dog following them closely but not allowing physical contact. At the points located on the circle, the dogs that were at the back had the opportunity to smell the other dog for 1 second, and calm behavior was positively reinforced in both dogs. After 1 spin, the dog at the back passed to the front, and one more spin was made.

Step 5 (scheduled time, 1 minute): walking one to the side of the other, dogs were taken to the position of phase 3.

Phase 3—approach without head collars (scheduled time, 5 minutes)

Each dog was held in an enclosed area with a dimension of 12 × 2 m2. At the same time, the dogs were released without the head collars, and handlers remained in silence, avoiding abrupt movements. When dogs completed 5 minutes of interactions without aggressive manifestations, the next phase could be started. When a bigger group had to be formed, all possible pairs between the dogs to be included in the group were formed at this point. When the last pair reached this phase, the dogs previously paired were added to the last pair, one by one, at 5-minute intervals, whenever aggressive manifestations were not observed.

Phase 4—introduction of a group into the kennel (scheduled time, 5 minutes)

Once the group had been completed, it was transported to the kennel and monitored until 5 minutes passed without any aggressive incident. If the dogs continued exhibiting aggression after 10 minutes, the grouping protocol was stopped and attempted again the following day. If the second attempt failed with this group composition, rearrangement of group members was attempted until a successful grouping was achieved. After finishing this phase, monitoring was performed every 30 minutes during the rest of the day.

Results

We formed 27 pairs of dogs from 30 attempted pairings. Nineteen (70.3%) of them were formed with dogs of opposite sex, and 8 (29.7%) were of females. Some of these pairs were subsequently combined to form 3 groups of 3 dogs and 2 groups of 4.

Twenty-two (81.5%) pairs were formed successfully without any aggressive manifestations. Further 5 pairs (18.5%) were formed, but although there were no fights involving bites, other unidirectional aggressive behaviors were observed in phase 3 (Table). The remaining 3 pairs could not be formed because the dogs demonstrated bidirectional aggressive behavior that did not resolve with the repetition of the phase, the same day or the next (Table). However, all dogs were successfully grouped when the composition of pairs was changed.

Table Aggressive behaviors observed in 8 pairs of dogs during the grouping protocol in the Zoonoses Control Center of Guarulhos, Brazil

PairIndividual

sex 1Aggressive

manifestation PhaseIndividual

sex 2Response to aggression

Protocol completed

1 F Showed teeth 3 F No Yes

2 M Snapped 3 F No Yes

3 M Snapped 3 F No Yes

4 M Snapped 3 F No Yes

5 F Snapped 3 M No Yes

6 F Snapped 3 F Growled No

7 M Snapped 3 F Snapped No

8 M Growled 2-3 M Growled NoF, female; M, male.

Discussion

Our aim was to create a simple protocol that could easily be incorporated into daily shelter routines. The protocol consisted of (i) 2 handlers, (ii) 2 ropes, (iii) 2 open spaces, and (iv) 1 enclosed space. We used ropes to make head collars owing to the low cost of this material and the wide use of it in the ZCC of Guarulhos. The 4 phases were organized to allow the implementation of environmental enrichment and behavioral modification techniques. We used desensitization (progressive approach between dogs when they were clamed) and counter-conditioning (positive reinforcement of calm behavior and sit command in the presence of the other dog) to manage interdog aggression(Orihel and Fraser, 2008). It has been demonstrated that olfactory, auditory, visual, and tactile stimulation may produce changes in the biological functioning that are suggestive of enhanced physical and/or psychological welfare (Graham et   al., 2005 ; Tod et   al., 2005 ; Wells, 2009). The use of 3 locations, all bigger than kennels and 2 of which were open spaces with grass areas, allowed the diversification of sensory stimulation and possibly contributed to the welfare of the dogs. Use of the protocol also encouraged physical activity that could act as a mental stimulation. Handlers also had additional exercise as part of the protocol, benefiting their health as well (Cutt et   al., 2007 ; Coleman et   al., 2008).Teaching dogs to sit down and walk without pulling facilitated their management and allowed for the use of behavioral modification techniques (Luescher and Medlock, 2009). This improves dog behavior, has the potential to enhance the adoption success (Hays, 2004; Luescher and Medlock, 2009), and may act as an occupational (mental) enrichment. Positive reinforcement of desirable behaviors through petting, affective words, and treats is also a means of implementing social (interspecific) enrichment, and at the same time, treats may also be a part of nutritional enrichment. It has been demonstrated that interspecific interaction can modify a dog’s behavior and facilitate adoptions (Normando et   al., 2009 ).

In the first 2 phases in which dogs were held with head collars, we did not observe aggressive behaviors (except in 1 dog), and in the third phase, when the dogs encountered each other without the head collars, aggressive behaviors were observed. The absence of aggressive behaviors during the first 2 phases could be due to the effects of desensitization, counter-conditioning, appropriate use of head collars, and putative environmental enrichment. It is possible that aggressive behaviors occurred in the third phase because of the anxiety caused by the physical encounter (Bradshaw et al., 2009). In phase 4, we did not observe aggressive behaviors; however, once finished the protocol, 1 dog behaved aggressively. This aggression manifested at the time of feeding, so the dog was subsequently fed in isolation; this resolved the problem.

The need for the availability of different locations to complete the different phases of the protocol and the availability of handlers to group dogs through the protocol may be a hindrance for its use; however, this must be balanced against the potential benefits. Efforts to overcome the difficulties related to the implementation of the protocol are cost-effective if problems associated with fights can be solved. Although the staff of the ZCC of Guarulhos considered the protocol effective, we could not compare the effectiveness of this protocol against previously developed protocols (e.g., leaving them off leash in a closed space) owing to the lack of data. This protocol did demonstrate potential to act as an environmental enrichment strategy and to enhance the effectiveness of adoptions.

Conclusion

The protocol proposed was developed as an alternative means of successfully grouping dogs in the ZCC of Guarulhos. Grouping dogs was one of the major issues for the staff owing to the seriousness of the problems associated with dog fighting. Having implemented this protocol to form 30 pairs of dogs, there were no fights involving bites. The protocol could be implemented not just to grouping dogs but also as a strategy of periodic environmental enrichment. Further studies could be conducted to evaluate the impact of the protocol in the success of adoptions.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Cristina Magnabosco, director of the Department of hygiene and Health Protection, from Health Secretary of Guarulhos City. They also thank Gilberto Sousa de Medeiros, Marcia Aparecida Grosso, Renata Reinhardt, Ana Carolina Sarmento de Oliveira, João Paulo Slupko da Silva, and all individuals who participated in this study. A special thanks goes to Claire Corridan for her linguistic help and the suggestions to improve the document.

References

1. Anonymous, 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at:http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:En:PDF.2. Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J., and Casey, R.A. Dominance in domestic dogs-useful construct or bad habit?. J. Vet. Behav.: Clin. Appl. Res.. 2009; 4: 135–1443. Calderón, N., 2010. Bienestar Animal. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Veterinarias, Vol. 1. pp. 48-57. Available at: http://issuu.com/academiacienciasveterinarias/docs/revistaacademian2v1#download. Accessed April 28, 2012.4. Coleman, K.J., Rosenberg, D.E., Conway, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., and Cain, K. Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev. Med.. 2008; 47: 309–3125. Corridan, C.L. The Role of Owner Expectation in Development of a Successful Human: Dog Bond. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK; 20106. Cutt, H., Giles, B., Knuiman, M., and Burke, V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place. 2007; 13: 261–2727. De Palma, C., Viggiano, M., Barillari, E., Palme, R., Dufour, A.B., Fantini, C., and Natoli, E. Evaluating the temperament in shelter dogs. Behaviour. 2005; 142: 1307–13288. Ellis, S. Environmental enrichment practical strategies for improving feline welfare. J. Feline Med. Surg.. 2009; 11:901–9129. Graham, L., Wells, D.L., and Hepper, P.G. The influence of olfactory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.. 2005; 91: 143–15310. Haug, L.I. Canine aggression toward unfamiliar people and dogs. in: Practical Applications and New Perspectives in Veterinary Behaviour. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice. Vol. 38. W. B. Saunders Co., Cornell Univeristy, USA; 2008: 1023–104111. Hays, L.D. Effects of Standardized Obedience Program on Approachability and Problems Behaviours in Dogs From Rescue Shelters [master’s thesis]. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; 2004 (Available at:)http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/1261. (Accessed January 27, 2011)12. Hetts, S., Clark, J.D., Calpin, J.P., Arnold, C.E., and Mateo, J.M. Influence of housing conditions on beagle behaviour.Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.. 1992; 34: 137–15513. Luescher, A.U. and Medlock, R.T. The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.. 2009; 117: 63–6814. Mertens, P.A. Canine aggression. in: D. Horwitz, D. Mills, S. Heath (Eds.) BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. BSAVA, Gloucester, UK; 2002: 195–21515. Mertens, P.A. and Unshelm, J. Effects of group and individual housing on the behavior of kenneled dogs in animal shelters. Anthrozoös. 1996; 9: 40–5116. Netto, W.J. and Planta, D.J.U. Behavioural testing for aggression in the domestic dog. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci.. 1997;52: 243–26317. Newbury, S., Blinn, M., Bushby, P., Barker, C., Dinnage, J., Griffin, B., Hurley, K., Isaza, N., Jones, W., Miller, L., O’Quin, J., Patronek, G., Smith-Blacmore, M., and Spindel, M. Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ; 2010 (Available at:)http://www.sheltervet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=29. (Accessed April 28, 2012)18. Normando, S., Corain, L., Salvadoretti, M., Meers, L., and Valsecchi, P. Effects of an enhanced human interaction program on shelter dogs’ behaviour analysed using a novel nonparametric test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.. 2009;116: 211–21919. Orihel, J.S. and Fraser, D. A note on the effectiveness of behavioural rehabilitation for reducing inter-dog aggression in shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.. 2008; 112: 400–40520. Pernambuco. Lei Ordinária N° 1521/2010. Estado de Pernambuco Assembleia Legislativa. Available at:http://www.alepe.pe.gov.br/paginas/index.php?id=3598&paginapai=3576&numero=1521%2F2010. Accessed January 27, 2011.21. Rio Grande do Sul. Lei Estadual N 13.193, DE 30 DE JUNHO DE 2009, In Ministerio Público Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Available at: http://www.mp.rs.gov.br/ambiente/legislacao. Accessed January 27, 2011.

22. Salman, M.D., Ruch, R., Kogan, L., New, J.C., Kass, P.H., and Scarlett, J.M. Behavioural reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci.. 2000; 3: 93–10623. São Paulo (Estado) (April 2008). Lei No 12.916, de 16 de Abril de 2008. In Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo. Available at:http://dobuscadireta.imprensaoficial.com.br/default.aspx?DataPublicacao=20080417&Caderno=DOE-I&NumeroPagina=1. Accessed January 27, 2011.ftp://ftp.saude.sp.gov.br/ftpsessp/bibliote/informe_eletronico/2008/iels.abril.08/iels73/E_LE-12916_160408.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2012.24. Sonderegger, S.M. and Turner, D.C. Introducing dogs into kennels: prediction of social tendencies to facilitate integration. Anim. Welf.. 1996; 5: 391–40425. Tod, E., Brander, D., and Waran, N. Efficacy of dog appeasing pheromone in reducing stress and fear related behaviour in shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.. 2005; 93: 295–30826. Wells, D. Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for captive animals: a review. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci..2009; 118: 1–11

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluating the temperament in shelter dogs Authors: Costanza De Palma ; Emanuela Viggiano ; Emanuela Barillari ; Rupert Palme ; Anne B. Dufour ; Claudio Fantini ;Eugenia Natoli Source: Behaviour, Volume 142, Issue 9-10 Abstract Seventy-four healthy mixed-breed dogs were studied collecting behavioural data by means of 'focal animal sampling' and 'all occurrences' methods; the ethogram utilised consisted of more than 100 behavioural patterns. All dogs were taken outside the shelter for a walk to analyse their reaction to a novel environment. In addition, three faecal samples were collected from each dog on three consecutive days during daily routine, to measure the levels of cortisol metabolites (CM) to evaluate adrenocortical activity. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) identified five primary factors: 'subordination/aggressiveness', 'intraspecific dominance-activity', 'anxiety-sociability towards dogs', 'playfulness' and 'sociability towards humans'. Dogs that showed a confident-independent temperament in a familiar context (within the shelter), showed fear in novel situations (outside the shelter). Despite the absence of a proper control we hypothesise that the stress levels were low both behaviourally and physiologically: neither stereotypies nor inactivity and lack of interest in the surrounding environment was observed, and the median CM concentration was moderately low. Lower concentrations of faecal CM were recorded in dogs with a temperament 'sociable to human beings' which were also associated with a longer stay in the shelter.

The influence of olfactory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelterLynne Graham, Deborah L. Wells , Peter G. HepperCanine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT7 1NN, UKReceived: January 13, 2004; Received in revised form: August 16, 2004; Accepted: August 16, 2004;DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.024AbstractThis study explored the influence of five types of olfactory stimulation (control, lavender, chamomile, rosemary and peppermint) on the behaviour of 55 dogs housed in a rescue shelter. The dogs were exposed to each type of olfactory stimulation, through the diffusion of essential oils, for 4 h a day for 5 days, with an intervening period of 2 days between conditions. The dogs’ behaviour was recorded on days 1, 3 and 5, during each condition of olfactory stimulation. Certain aspects of the dogs’ behaviour were influenced by the odours. Dogs spent more time resting and less time moving upon exposure to lavender and chamomile than any of the other olfactory stimuli. These odourants also encouraged less vocalisation than other types of aroma. The diffusion of rosemary and peppermint into the dogs’ environment encouraged significantly more standing, moving and vocalising than other types of odour. It is suggested that the welfare of sheltered dogs may be enhanced through exposure to appropriate forms of olfactory stimulation. Lavender and chamomile appear particularly beneficial, resulting in activities suggestive of relaxation and behaviours that are considered desirable by potential adopters. These types of olfactory stimulation may also appeal to visitors, resulting in enhanced perceptions of the rescue shelter and an increased desire to adopt a dog from such an environment.

Effects of a standardized obedience program on approachability and problem behaviors in dogs from rescue sheltersЗаглавие: Effects of a standardized obedience program on approachability and problem behaviors in dogs from rescue

sheltersАвтор: Hays, Lauren DeniseРезюме: Improved adoptability is a common goal among rescue shelters. Dogs are more likely to be adopted if they

are friendly, mannerly, and approachable. The possibility of improving rescue shelter dogs' behavior through an obedience program has not been examined. We developed an approachability test to determine whether

dogs became more approachable during and after a standardized 12-week obedience program. We also quantified jumping behavior and pulling on the leash to measure if these problematic behaviors also improved through training. The subjects consisted of 26 dogs donated to the Triple Crown School for Professional Dog Trainers for one of the 12-week sessions. The approach test was administered six times, at two-week intervals. The tests were videotaped and jumping and pulling behaviors were quantified after testing. Scores for approachability were based on the proximity between the tester and the dog at the end of each test. For the dogs that completed all 12 weeks of the study, contingency analyses were performed for each behavioral measure. Relative to the start of the 12-week training program, the dogs became more approachable (p<0.025), jumped less (p<0.025), and pulled on the leash less (p<0.025) than when the study began. These results reinforce the importance of obedience training as a tool for increasing a rescue shelter dog's adoptability and permanence once placed in a home.

Издател: Texas A&M University

The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogsAndrew Urs Luescher , Robert Tyson MedlockAccepted: November 4, 2008;DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.001AbstractApproximately 3–4 million dogs are housed annually in USA shelters. This study evaluated the effects of basic obedience training and environmental alterations on adoption rate of shelter dogs. One hundred and eighty dogs, 87 females and 93 males, passed through the one shelter during the 8 weeks of the experiment. They ranged in age from 10 weeks to 7 years (Mean 1.6 years, S.D. 1.5 years). Seventy percent were neutered before being put up for adoption. Almost 80% were considered to be of mixed breed. The dogs were randomly assigned to a trained or control group. Dogs in the trained group were trained once a day, during which they were desensitized to wearing a head halter, taught to come forward in the cage when approached, to walk on a leash, to sit on command and not jump up on people.Every week of the experiment was randomly designated as a week with environmental modifications, or as a control week. Environmental modification consisted of providing blankets and toys in the kennels, colored instead of black-and-white identification cards on the kennel doors, and artificial plants.Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics; forward stepwise logistic regression analysis for binary outcome variables to assess the effect of various dog characteristics and training on being adopted; and Chi Square to assess effect of environmental modification.Of the 180 dogs, 116 dogs were adopted of which 1 was re-relinquished, 57 were euthanized, 4 went to a rescue organization, 2 were returned to their owners, and 1 died. Trained dogs were 1.4 times more often adopted (P = 0.007) than untrained animals. Among individual factors, only being good with other dogs increased adoption rate significantly (P = 0.035). Being good with children (P = 0.043) did not remain statistically significant in the logistic regression model (P = 0.519). There were 42 dogs adopted during weeks of environmental modification, and 33 during control weeks (P = 0.299). The study demonstrated that training shelter dogs increases adoptability.

Effects of Group and Individual Housing on the Behavior of Kennelled Dogs in Animal SheltersAuthors: Mertens, Petra A.; Unshelm, J.Source: Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996, pp. 40-51(12)Publisher: Bloomsbury Journals (formerly Berg Journals)Abstract:To emphasize the effects of group- and single housing of kennelled dogs, the behavior of 211 dogs in two German animal shelters was tested and observed. After being placed, 197 of the dogs' new owners were interviewed.Although 51% of the German animal shelters already keep dogs in groups, there is strong prejudice against group housing because of the fear of fights. This study demonstrates that this apprehension is unfounded. Ninety-one percent of the social confrontations between dogs housed together were settled by the use of behavioral rituals. Keeping dogs in groups, furthermore, leads to a significant reduction in noise emission (p<.001). Group housing fulfills the dog's need for social interaction and the need to move. Dogs that were housed in groups displayed a closer human-animal relationship (80%) than those that had been kept individually (43%). A high percentage of individually housed dogs suffered from behavioral problems (31%) and 10% developed stereotypes. The percentage of behaviorally disturbed dogs observed in group housing was 11%, and stereotyped forms of behavior did not occur. Dogs who had been kept in groups were, on average, placed within 10 days, and were returned to the animal shelter less often (9%) compared to those housed individually (25%). Dogs that were housed separately needed an average of 17 days to be placed. Even after being placed, there is a correlation between the animal shelter's type of housing and the dog's behavior. Within four weeks after picking up their pet, 88% of the owners of dogs that had been housed individually complained of problems compared to the owners of the dogs that had been kept in groups, 53% of whom were completely satisfied with the adoption.Despite the fact that these results might be influenced by the small number of shelters examined, the study leads to the conclusion that keeping dogs in groups is a suitable alternative for dog housing in animal shelters and, for the animals' welfare, is preferable to individual housing.Document Type: Research ArticleDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279396787001662

Association of Shelter VeterinariansContact UsThe mission of our organization is to improve the health and wellbeing of animals in shelters through the advancement of shelter medicine. We seek to advance the practice of shelter medicine, be a resource for dissemination of information, and support the ongoing study of veterinary medicine in a shelter environment. As such, we are unable to respond to individual questions regarding animal care, shelter operations, allegations of animal cruelty or engage in political advocacy.Helpful links on the ASV website include: Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters Veterinary Medical Care Guidelines for Spay-Neuter Programs View our Position Statements on a variety of issues impacting animal shelters.Mailing Address85 Denison Parkway E., #249Corning,  NY. 14830*Please Note Office Hours: M-F 9:00-5:00 ESTPhone: 607-483-8682, Fax: 607-483-8682, E-mail: info@sheltervet.org, Web: www.sheltervet.org

Shelter medicine recognizedShelter Medicine Practice has officially become the newest recognized veterinary specialty!   The AVMA Executive Board voted at the beginning of April to approve provisional recognition for the board specialty under the umbrella of the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners (ABVP). The process of establishing shelter medicine as a recognized specialty has been the result of significant effort and a lengthy process that stretches back almost 10 years when the Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV) appointed a task force to explore the development of such a specialty. Now that provisional recognition has been granted, the organizing committee will continue its work to ensure all processes are in place for shelter medicine to function as a board specialty. Credentialing applications will be accepted later this year for the first certification exam, which will be offered in November 2015.  An application for full recognition will be made between 2018 and 2024.  Find more updates here as they become available.

Animal Sheltering:http://www.animalsheltering.org/resources/all-topics/stress-and-compassion-fatigue.html

Efficacy of dog appeasing pheromone in reducing stress and fear related behaviour in shelter dogsElaine Tod , Donna Brander, Natalie WaranAnimal Behaviour and Welfare Group, Division of Animal Health and Welfare, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Easter Bush, Roslin EH25 9RG, ScotlandAccepted: January 21, 2005;DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.007AbstractThe behavioural effects of dog appeasing pheromone (DAP) continuously administered over a 7-day period, were evaluated in adult dogs housed in a public animal shelter. Barking amplitude (dB) and the frequency of discrete behavioural responses to two temperament tests associated with fear, separation and excitable behaviour (Arrowsmith, unpublished data) were recorded in 37 treatment and 17 control dogs. Mean barking amplitude (Leq) and barking frequency were significantly reduced in dogs subject to DAP exposure for 7 days (P < 0.001, <0.04, respectively), though peak values (Lpeak) were not significantly altered. There was also some reduction in the barking amplitude of dogs during the 1 min recovery period, following a distraction. Following 7 days of DAP exposure, there were significant differences in resting (P = 0.03), barking (P < 0.04) and sniffing frequency (P = 0.01) in response to a friendly stranger. There were no highly significant differences in response to a neutral stranger. The preliminary tests indicate that DAP is a useful palliative tool for reducing some behavioural indicators of stress in dogs. Further tests are necessary to investigate the use of DAP in canine stress reduction in conjunction with traditional behavioural therapy programmes.

Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for captive animals: A reviewDeborah L. WellsSchool of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN N. Ireland, UKAccepted: January 8, 2009;DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.01.002AbstractIn the wild, animals are exposed to an ever-changing array of sensory stimuli. The captive environment, by contrast, is generally much more impoverished in terms of the sensory cues it offers the animals housed within. In a bid to remedy this, and promote better welfare, researchers have started to explore the merits of sensory stimulation (i.e. stimulation designed to trigger one or more of an animal's senses) as a potential method of environmental enrichment for captive animals. This paper reviews the research in this area, focusing specifically on auditory, olfactory and visual methods of

sensory stimulation. Studies exploring the efficacy of each type of stimulation as an enrichment tool are described, where appropriate, making a distinction between those that occur in the animal's natural habitat, and those that do not. Overall, it is concluded that sensory stimulation harbours enrichment potential for some animals housed in institutional settings, although the specific merits gained from these enrichments are likely to depend upon a wide variety of factors including, for example, species, sex, age and housing conditions. Programmes of sensory enrichment that target the dominant sense for the species under scrutiny, using harmless, non-stressful stimuli, are likely to result in the greatest benefits for animal welfare. Stimuli specific to a species’ natural habitat should not always be considered meaningful, or advantageous, to an animal's welfare; in some cases stimuli that do not occur naturally in the wild (e.g. classical music) may offer more in the way of welfare advantages. Shortcomings in the research, and factors to consider when implementing enrichment of this nature, are discussed throughout.