Search

Although companion animal management practices used by caregivers can influence the welfare of the companion animals, there is little existing information about the ways in which people attempt to meet their companion animals' needs. A representative sample of rabbit guardians (n = 93, representing 63,000 people) and bird guardians (n = 203, representing 157,000 people) in Victoria, Australia, completed an online survey. Items were related to the environmental, diet/exercise, behavioral, social, and health management practices used by guardians. Guardians sometimes meet their companion animals' welfare needs, but they do not always engage in best practices. Most (79%) bird guardians reported that they interacted with their birds daily, but only 68% of rabbit guardians did the same. Likewise, 32% of rabbit guardians and 55% of bird guardians never had their companion animals vaccinated. These results may be used for educational campaigns for improving companion animal welfare.

Simple Summary: Companion animals continue to be relinquished by their guardians to shelters. Historically, animal behavior has been seen as the main cause for companion animals to be relinquished. Therefore, we wanted to understand whether companion animals are relinquished due to issues related to the animal themselves or due to challenges in the companion animal's guardian's life. Previous research indicates that socioeconomic difficulties of the guardian, such as financial constraints and inadequate housing, contribute to companion animal relinquishment. Relinquishment data are crucial for a better understanding of how socioeconomic factors intersect with the care of companion animals. This study analyzed relinquishment data from five Australian shelters over the period of Australian Financial Years (FY July 1 to June 30) 2018/19 to 2022/23 and analyzed data on the 46,820 companion animals relinquished. The most common reason for relinquishment was housing for both low and high socioeconomic groups. Financial constraints were reported more in lower socioeconomic groups, whereas healthcare of the human as a reason for relinquishment was greater in the higher socioeconomic groups. This highlights the need for comprehensive, cross-disciplinary strategies that address both human and animal welfare needs holistically. Such integrated approaches can improve outcomes for companion animals and their human caregivers by addressing the underlying socioeconomic factors affecting their well-being. It is important to understand the reasons for companion animal relinquishment to help reduce the financial and ethical problems arising from too many dogs and cats in shelters. This study investigates the socioeconomic factors and reasons behind companion animal relinquishment in Australia, utilizing data from five animal shelters, over a five-year period (Financial Year 2018/19 to 2022/23). Descriptive statistics reveal that the median Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) decile of companion animal guardians who relinquished their companion animal was decile 4 out of 10, indicating that they live in areas of lower-than-average socioeconomic status. Cats accounted for 59.4% and dogs for 40.6% of all relinquishments, with more relinquishments from lower socioeconomic deciles (1–5) (cats: 62.6%, dogs: 65.8%). The median age of relinquished cats was 5 months and dogs 16 months, with human factor-related issues (e.g., Housing, Financial Constraints, Human Healthcare) cited in 86% of cases. Descriptive analysis for the five financial years shows a declining trend in numbers of relinquishments, with housing issues (31.2%) identified as the primary reason, followed by ownership decisions (16.2%), financial constraints (11.2%), and human health issues (10.4%). Comparing the reasons for relinquishment between lower (decile 1–5) and higher (decile 6–10) socioeconomic status demonstrated that financial difficulties were a more common reason in lower vs. higher socioeconomic groups, while human health and family-related issues are more common in higher vs. lower socioeconomic groups. These findings highlight the critical role of socioeconomic factors in understanding why people relinquish their companion animals, which can inform targeted interventions to support companion animal welfare across different socioeconomic backgrounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The role of the social determinants of health (i.e., physical, social and economic factors affecting human health) and their impact on companion animal welfare have not been fully explored. Through a social determinants lens, it is possible to improve the understanding of companion animal guardian challenges in managing their companion animal's welfare needs. Considering the five domains of animal welfare in conjunction with the social determinants enables us to explore the impact of the social determinants of human health on animal welfare. This highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration to achieve positive health outcomes for guardians and positive welfare outcomes for their companion animals. The social determinants of health (SDH) focus on the social, physical and economic factors that impact human health. Studies have revealed that animal guardians face a range of challenges in attaining positive welfare outcomes for their companion animals, which can be influenced by socioeconomic and environmental factors. Despite this, there is a lack of research specifically exploring the relationship between SDH and animal welfare outcomes. Given that the SDH impact on humans, which in turn directly impacts on their companion animal, it is important to adapt an SDH framework for companion animal welfare by characterising the impact of the SDH on companion animal guardians in their attempts to care for their animals and, by extension, the associated welfare outcomes. This paper explores how these human health determinants may impact animal welfare and the possible challenges that may arise for the guardian when attempting to meet their companion animal's welfare needs. By integrating the SDH with other key frameworks, including the five domains model of animal welfare, through multidisciplinary collaboration, this framework can be used to inform future programs aiming to improve animal welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Giving evidence in court can be stressful, especially for children. Since increased anxiety is associated with an increased likelihood of unreliable testimony among children, reducing anxiety in this context is important to improve the quality of evidence. Dogs have been used in legal settings, such as courtrooms, to provide comfort for vulnerable witnesses. Preliminary evidence supports their use, but further research is needed to better understand this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to characterize the employment of dogs in legal settings for survivors of sexual and/or family violence (SFV), as reported by adult professionals working in those contexts. This qualitative, exploratory study included interviews with 11 professionals (9 women, 2 men) working with dogs in legal contexts. Participants reported considerable benefits for survivors when dogs are integrated into these settings. Participants reported that survivors felt more comfortable opening up about their experiences, remaining calm enough to give reliable evidence. Several participants reported that this willingness to give evidence in court led perpetrators of SFV to plead guilty to the charges. In addition to reported benefits for survivors, participants also indicated that staff morale improved. Challenges identified included logistical (e.g., managing staff with dog allergies) and structural (e.g., lack of support from other members of the legal community) issues. Animal welfare was a priority for all participants, but some dogs experienced high workloads. Future research should empirically examine these benefits, to understand whether the use of dogs in legal settings should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Owner practices affect pet welfare, and little is known about the ways in which reptile owners attempt to meet their pet's welfare needs. We asked 316 pet lizard owners in Victoria, Australia, for information on the ways in which they seek to meet their pet's environmental, dietary, behavioral, social, and health needs. Items were generated based on the Victorian Code of Practice (CoP) for the Private Keeping of Reptiles and in collaboration with the then President of the Victorian Herpetological Society. Results suggest that many owners are not fully complying with the CoP. Moreover, even those who are compliant may not be meeting their animal's full repertoire of needs. Nearly half of the owners do not have an enclosure large enough to meet the standards set in the CoP, and a similar percentage do not seasonally vary the environmental conditions provided in their lizard's enclosure. It is likely, therefore, that many lizards experience captivity-related stress because of inadequate enclosures. Many owners underestimate the likely total cost of their pet lizard over the course of its lifetime, suggesting that educational campaigns highlighting the financial and time costs of lizard ownership are merited. Future behavioral research should aim to better understand pet lizard needs to optimize welfare outcomes for these animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence suggests that there is variation in support for specific chicken farming practices amongst stakeholder groups, and this should be explored in more detail to understand the nature of these differences and work towards convergence. Online focus groups were used to assess attitudes to animal welfare in meat chicken farming in this pilot study. Across six online chats, 25 participants (general public, n = 8; animal advocacy group, n = 11, meat chicken industry, n = 3; research or veterinary practice who had experience with poultry but no declared industry affiliation, n = 3) discussed meat chicken intensification and welfare. Of those, 21 participants completed pre- and post-chat surveys gauging perceptions and objective knowledge about meat chicken management. Main reasons for intensification support were perceptions of improved bird health, and perceptions that it is a cost-effective, sustainable farming system. Reasons for opposition included perceptions that a large number of birds kept are in close proximity and have limited ability to perform natural behaviours. Misunderstandings about current practices were clarified in chats which contained industry representation. Participants agreed on the need for enforceable standards and industry transparency. Industry-affiliated members rated welfare of meat chickens higher, and gave lower ratings for the importance of natural living, than other stakeholder groups (both p = 0.001). On average, while objective knowledge of intensification increased after chat participation (p = 0.03), general welfare ratings and support for intensification did not change over time, counter to assertions that lack of knowledge results in lack of support for some practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Snakes are sentient animals and should be subject to the accepted general welfare principles of other species. However, they are also the only vertebrates commonly housed in conditions that prevent them from adopting rectilinear behavior (ability to fully stretch out). We conducted a literature search and review regarding recommendations for enclosure sizes for snakes. We found that recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes shorter than the snakes were based entirely on decades-old 'rule of thumb' practices that were unsupported by scientific evidence. In contrast, recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes that allowed snakes to fully stretch (rectilinear posture) utilized scientific evidence and considerations of animal welfare. Rectilinear behavior is normal, distinct, and common across snake species, and is essential and fundamental to snake health and welfare. Scientific evidence-based recommendations for providing enclosures allowing snakes to fully stretch now constitute mainstream guidance information and good practice as a minimum spatial provision, both during short-term and long-term situations. Snakes are sentient animals and should be subject to the accepted general welfare principles of other species. However, they are also the only vertebrates commonly housed in conditions that prevent them from adopting rectilinear behavior (ability to fully stretch out). To assess the evidence bases for historical and current guidance on snake spatial considerations, we conducted a literature search and review regarding recommendations consistent with or specifying ≥1 × and <1 × snake length enclosure size. We identified 65 publications referring to snake enclosure sizes, which were separated into three categories: peer-reviewed literature (article or chapter appearing in a peer-reviewed journal or book, n = 31), grey literature (government or other report or scientific letter, n = 18), and opaque literature (non-scientifically indexed reports, care sheets, articles, husbandry books, website or other information for which originating source is not based on scientific evidence or where scientific evidence was not provided, n = 16). We found that recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes shorter than the snakes were based entirely on decades-old 'rule of thumb' practices that were unsupported by scientific evidence. In contrast, recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes that allowed snakes to fully stretch utilized scientific evidence and considerations of animal welfare. Providing snakes with enclosures that enable them to fully stretch does not suggest that so doing allows adequate space for all necessary normal and important considerations. However, such enclosures are vital to allow for a limited number of essential welfare-associated behaviors, of which rectilinear posturing is one, making them absolute minimum facilities even for short-term housing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]