Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:40:48.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of stakeholders’ opinions on the priority issues affecting the welfare of companion dogs in Great Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EL Buckland ,
MC Whiting ,
SM Abeyesinghe ,
L Asher ,
S Corr  and
CM Wathes
EL Buckland*
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, South Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
MC Whiting
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, South Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
SM Abeyesinghe
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, South Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
L Asher
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK
S Corr
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK
CM Wathes
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, South Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: elbuckland@rvc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An online survey, using open and prompted response questions, was undertaken to collate the views of stakeholders on the priority welfare issues currently facing companion dogs (Canis familiaris) in Great Britain and on dogs’ general quality of life. The stakeholder sectors targeted broadly comprised Education, Government, Industry, Charity and Veterinary. Overall, respondents described companion dogs as, at minimum, having a life worth living. Whether welfare issues were openly described or ranked within a set list, those of high priority in the perceptions of stakeholders matched those cited in published scientific literature; particularly, exaggerated physical features, inherited disease, obesity and inappropriate socialisation. Puppy farming and status dogs, which have been highlighted recently in the media, were also viewed as important. Lack of appropriate mental stimulation, irresponsible ownership and inappropriate environment were raised as priority issues by stakeholders and are under-reported in scientific literature. Significant differences between stakeholder sectors in ranking of welfare issues perceived importance, urgency to rectify, impact (on the individual) or prevalence in Britain may be explained by vested interests, organisational roles, differences in terminology and the contexts within which stakeholders came into contact with companion dogs. Pet travel, dew claw removal and complementary and alternative medicines were amongst those issues thought to be of least urgent welfare concern. Issues perceived to enhance welfare included the quality of veterinary care, physical stimulation, educational resources, responsible ownership, the high status of dogs in society and the work of welfare organisations.

Keywords

animal welfarecompanion animaldogquality of lifestakeholdersurvey
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 239 - 253
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon 2008 Impact of pet travel on animal and public health. The Veterinary Record 162: 429–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.162.14.429Google Scholar
APGAW 2009 A healthier future for pedigree dogs. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare: UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC and SandØe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11: 283–294Google Scholar
Arman, K 2007 A new direction for kennel club regulations and breed standards. Canadian Veterinary Journal 48: 953–964Google ScholarPubMed
Asher, L, Buckland, EL, Phylactopoulos, CI, Whiting, MC, Abeyesinghe, SM and Wathes, CM 2011 Estimation of the number and demographics of companion dogs in the UK. BMC Veterinary Research 7: 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-7-74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asher, L, Diesel, G, Summers, JF, McGreevy, PD and Collins, LM 2009 Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182: 402–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balcombe, JP 2006 Laboratory environments and rodents’ behavioural needs: a review. Laboratory Animals 40: 217–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367706777611488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, P 2010 Independent inquiry into dog breeding. The Bateson Inquiry, Cambridge, UK. http://breedinginquiry.files.word press.com/2010/01/final-dog-inquiry-120110.pdfGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, EJ, Casey, RA and Bradshaw, JWS 2005 Firework fears and phobias in the domestic dog. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UK. Unavailable online.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, JWS and Casey, RA 2007 Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism as influences in the quality of life of companion animals. Animal Welfare 16: 149–154Google Scholar
Bradshaw, JWS, McPherson, JA, Casey, RA and Larter, IS 2002 Aetiology of separation-related behaviour in domestic dogs. The Veterinary Record 151: 43–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.151.2.43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burton-Jeangros, C and Losa, AD 2011 Human and nonhuman animals, mutually at risk: a study of the Swiss Information Media. Society and Animals 19: 337–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853011X590006Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, J 1995 Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In: Serpell, JA (ed) The domestic Dog: Its Evolution Behaviour and Interactions with People pp 7–20. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Collins, J, Hanlon, A, More, SJ, Wal, PG and Duggan, V 2009 Policy delphi with vignette methodology as a tool to evaluate the perception of equine welfare. The Veterinary Journal 181: 63–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, LM, Asher, L, Summers, JF, Diesel, G and McGreevy, PD 2010 Welfare epidemiology as a tool to assess the welfare impact of inherited defects on the pedigree dog population. Animal Welfare 19: 67–75Google Scholar
FAWC 2009 Report on farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htmGoogle Scholar
Geer, JG 1991 Do open-ended questions measure salient issues? Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 360–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossellin, J, Wren, JA and Sunderland, SJ 2007 Canine obesity: an overview. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 30: 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00863.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrell, FE 2003 Design: S functions for biostatistical/epidemiologic modelling, testing, estimation, validation, graphics, and prediction. Goodness-of-fit tests did not reveal any evidence for lack of fit (le Cessie-van Houwelingen test): complete dataset Z.732, p 50.083; vertebrate dataset Z521.764, p 50.083). http://biostat.mc.vand erbilt.edu/s/Design.htmlGoogle Scholar
Heath, TJ, LynchBlosse, M and Lanyon, A 1996 A longitudinal study of veterinary students and recent graduates 1. Backgrounds, plans and subsequent employment. Australian Veterinary Journal 74: 291–296CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hektoen, L 2005 Review of the current involvement of homeopathy in veterinary practice and research. The Veterinary Record 157: 224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heleski, CR, Mertig, AG and Zanella, AJ 2006 Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozöos 19: 290–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houpt, K, Goodwin, D, Uchida, Y, Baranyiova, E and Fatjo, J 2007 Proceedings of a workshop to identify dog welfare issues in the US, Japan, Czech Republic, Spain and the UK. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 221–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.005Google Scholar
Hubrecht, RC 1993 A comparison of social and environmental enrichment methods for laboratory housed dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 345–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90123-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalos, AC 2001 Social indicators research and health-related quality of life research. 8th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research pp 27–72. 7-10 November 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB 2006 A hypothetical strategy for the objective evaluation of animal well-being and quality of life using a dog model. Symposium of the British Veterinary Association Ethics Committee/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) pp 75–81. May 2006, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Murray, JK, Browne, WJ, Roberts, MA, Whitmarsh, A and Gruffydd-Jones, TJ 2010 Number and ownership profiles of cats and dogs in the UK. The Veterinary Record 166: 163–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.b4712Google ScholarPubMed
Overall, K 2002 Noise phobias in dogs. In: Horwitz D, Mills D and Heath S (eds) BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine pp 164–172. British Small Animal Veterinary Association: Gloucester, UKGoogle Scholar
PDSA 2011 Animal Wellbeing Report; the State of our Pet Nation. The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals: UK. http://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-health-advice/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-reportGoogle Scholar
Rooney, N, Sargan, D, Pead, M, Westgarth, C, Creighton, E and Branson, N 2009 Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: UK. http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/companio-nanimals/reportsandresources/details/-/article/CAD_ReportsAndResourcesPetsGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S 2003 Separation anxiety syndrome in dogs and cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 222: 1526–1532. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1526Google ScholarPubMed
Summers, JF, Diesel, G, Asher, L, McGreevy, PD and Collins, LM 2010 Inherited defects in pedigree dogs Part 2: disorders that are not related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 183: 39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.11.002Google Scholar
Taylor, KD and Mills, DS 2007a Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals? Animal Welfare 16: 55–65Google Scholar
Taylor, KD and Mills, DS 2007b The effect of the kennel environment on canine welfare: a critical review of experimental studies. Animal Welfare 16: 435–447Google Scholar
Wathes, C 2010 Lives worth living? The Veterinary Record 166: 468–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.c849CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF 2001 Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161: 229–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2000.0563CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1992 The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 1: 171–186Google Scholar
Wells, DL 2004 A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, canis familiaris. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 307–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wensley, SF 2008 Animal welfare and the human-animal bond: considerations for veterinary faculty, students, and practitioners. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 35(4): 532–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed