21.2.1 Animal Population

Many animals rescued after a natural disaster and housed in a temporary shelter will be owned pets. Pet owners often intend to take their animals to safety (Day 2017) but, for any number of reasons, they may be unable to evacuate with their pets. For example, they may be caught up in the disaster and separated from their animals. Sometimes the people themselves need to be rescued, or they may even be killed. Other animals rescued in a disaster are free‐roaming, such as stray and feral animals (see Box 21.1 for definitions).

If the disaster occurs in an area where rescuers anticipate that free‐roaming animals are likely to be caught and brought to the shelter, it is critical to identify feral and severely undersocialized animals quickly and make alternative arrangements for them. Sometimes the local people can advise on whether the animals are known to be feral. These animals will be unaccustomed to being confined or handled and are likely to be extremely stressed when in proximity to people. If the locale requires a lengthy hold period before designating an animal as unowned, the authors advise petitioning to get the hold time reduced in the wake of a disaster primarily so that undersocialized and feral animals can be removed from the stressful shelter environment as soon as possible.

In the United States, cats are the species most likely to be feral or undersocialized, as free‐roaming dogs are relatively rare. It can be a significant challenge to distinguish undersocialized and feral cats from cats who are shut down because of the trauma of the disaster, the rescue, and/or the stress of the shelter environment. The Feline Spectrum Assessment is currently the best tool available for identifying feral cats (Slater et al. 2013a, 2013b). Depending upon local regulations, adult cats may be candidates for desexing and returning to the area where they were trapped. The prognosis for taming adult feral and extremely undersocialized cats is poor, so if a return to a community cat colony is not possible and the only option is long‐term confinement, euthanasia may be the most humane outcome (see Chapter 7 for additional discussion of community cat management). Box 21.2 presents a case study of feral dogs rescued in St. Croix in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

21.2.2 Housing and Husbandry

Regional or national organizations or coalitions of groups, such as the National Animal Rescue and Sheltering Coalition, often step in to rescue animals, particularly when local animal shelters are damaged or destroyed during a disaster. As the animals are rescued, they need safe housing and medical and behavioral care.

Transporting animals out of the disaster area to provide housing or fostering animals in individual homes may seem ideal from a welfare perspective, but the potential impacts of these options on pet‐owner reunification should be considered. The more logistically difficult it is for people to reclaim their pets, especially if they are homeless and have no ability to travel, the more likely it is that animals will remain unclaimed. Not only does this leave animals in need of new homes; pet loss following a disaster is a significant source of psychological distress for the human survivors (Hunt et al. 2008).

Thus, the best option is often to shelter the animals at a temporary central location, such as a warehouse or other large structure that wasn’t designed to house animals. Due to the urgency of the situation and the lack of available resources, pets are often kept in hastily constructed enclosures, pens, or wire crates. Usually, there isn’t the ability to house cats in a building or room separate from dogs, and the best that can be accomplished is to hang tarps to provide a visual and nominal sound barrier to minimize stress for the cats.

Compatible pets from the same household should be co‐housed if possible. The next best option is to make sure pets from the same household are positioned next to each other. The cages or crates should be touching so that bonded animals can be in physical contact through the bars if they choose. If the pets come from a multispecies household, the best that can be done may be to assess how disruptive the dog(s) would be in the cat area or how distressed the cat(s) would be in the dog area and choose the least unsettling option.

Providing opportunities for animals to relieve themselves away from their feeding, drinking, and sleeping areas is especially important when caring for owned pets (Wagner et al. 2014). Dogs that are housed in small enclosures or crates need to be walked regularly to allow opportunities for elimination outside. Most owned dogs are housetrained and will be reluctant to eliminate in an enclosure. Some will even refuse to eliminate inside a building. Well‐housetrained dogs will become distraught if unable to eliminate outside for lengthy periods of time. These individuals should be identified as quickly as possible and prioritized for walks first and last during operational hours as well as frequently and regularly throughout the day so they can anticipate a routine schedule. Cats can have strong substrate preferences for elimination and may refuse to use a litterbox with unfamiliar litter. If possible, a variety of litter types should be on hand to offer cats who are reluctant to use the standard litter provided.

In‐kennel enrichment is particularly critical for pets who are confined to small cages for much of the day. Meals should be offered in puzzle toys to keep animals occupied for periods of time. Puzzles can be commercial products or “homemade” (e.g., placing food inside a cardboard box or tube). Opportunities to engage in certain repetitive movements such as chewing and licking appropriate items are considered important for alleviating stress in dogs. Chews can be zip‐tied or otherwise secured to the sides of enclosures so that, when space is limited, dogs can lie down and chew at the same time. This keeps chew items free of feces and urine. Similarly, tug toys that encourage object play can be suspended from the tops of crates to keep them clean. As with any form of in‐kennel enrichment, some animals will prefer variety, while others have strong preferences for specific items. In disaster sheltering, monitoring individuals for enrichment usage typically isn’t viable, so unless it’s obvious that the animal is really engaged with a particular item, it’s best to default to rotating items frequently (a DIY shelter‐enrichment webinar is available at https://www.aspcapro.org/webinar/20180221/cheap‐fun‐enrichment‐ideas).

By far, the most efficient and effective form of out‐of‐kennel enrichment for dog‐social dogs, and especially puppies, is to implement playgroups as soon as dogs are medically cleared (see Chapter 13). If an outdoor enclosure is not available, a play yard can be constructed from portable steel mesh kennel panels. At one ASPCA temporary disaster shelter, a makeshift play yard was created by attaching some existing fencing to the outside of the building, as in Figure 21.1. Makeshift setups may not be secure so it’s imperative to have dogs drag long lines (very long, lightweight leashes without loops at the end) attached to their collars to help prevent escape. Lines made of vinyl or polyurethane coated polyester webbing are preferable, as they are less likely to get caught around other dogs’ limbs or on fixtures. A few structures, such as cardboard boxes, overturned chairs, crates, or folding tables, should be available inside the space to provide safe areas for dogs who need a break from the action. These should be positioned away from perimeter fencing to prevent dogs from jumping up on them to escape.

The movement of dogs through the shelter for elimination breaks, on‐leash walks, and transit between their kennels and playgroup areas, can result in near‐constant commotion during operational hours. Tarps hung along alleyways can help reduce the visual stimulation of dogs walking past enclosed animals and lower the stress for dogs “walking the gauntlet.” Especially frightened or aggressive animals should be housed where traffic is minimal, with tarps or fiberglass reinforced panels (FRP) affixed to the fronts of their cages to serve as visual barriers. The visual barriers can be set up in a way that allows them to be opened and closed (tarps) or easily clipped on and off (FRP) to give animals access to visual stimulation when appropriate.

21.2.3 Enduring Post‐Disaster Stress

Little is known about the lasting psychological impact on pets who live through a natural disaster. After the 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri, survivors recounted stories of having their pets swept out of their arms or sucked away through blown‐out windows. Animals were trapped, some for days, under debris until rescuers were able to uncover them. As mentioned above, there are several potential sources of distress for animals affected by a disaster: the trauma of enduring the disaster itself; the experience of being displaced or abandoned; for some animals, the experience of being caught by rescuers (perhaps being lassoed or trapped); and the stay in a temporary field shelter. It is reasonable to assume that being caught and confined in a box trap is extremely stressful for some individuals, particularly undersocialized and feral animals. Wild species confined to box traps experience heightened cortisol levels, as well as increased body temperature, heart rate, and some blood metabolites associated with the physical activity of attempting to escape (Iossa et al. 2007; White et al. 1991). The administration of anxiolytics may help. Pankratz et al. (2017) demonstrated that a single dose of gabapentin reduced behavioral indications of stress in community cats trapped and brought into a clinic for sterilization. However, it remains unknown if there are long‐term negative repercussions from the experience of being trapped and confined.

While animal behaviorists remain conflicted about the question of whether dogs or cats suffer something clinically analogous to human post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a traumatic event (McMillan 2020; Siegmund and Wotjak 2006), animal models of PTSD are well established in the laboratory (Flandreau and Toth 2018; Foa et al. 1992; Richter‐Levin et al. 2019). Animals subjected to unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events can exhibit generalized fear and arousal, heightened vigilance, fear of specific stimuli, and passive avoidance/resignation (Seligman et al. 1971). In a study of 14 military working dogs who failed to perform well during deployments, Burghart (2013) reported signs of hypervigilance and hyperresponsivity to normally encountered stimuli, attempts to escape or avoid previously positive or neutral environments, failure to perform previously trained responses, and changes in social interactions with their handlers. Burghart (2013) felt these behavioral changes were sufficiently like the class of behaviors suffered by human PTSD patients to dub this syndrome canine post‐traumatic stress disorder (C‐PTSD).

Nagasawa et al. (2012) documented physiological and behavioral effects consistent with post‐traumatic stress in dogs following the 2011 earthquake in Fukushima, Japan. They compared the behavior and urine cortisol levels of 17 dogs who were abandoned after the earthquake with a control group of eight homeless dogs from Kanagawa, an area in Japan not affected by the disaster. The dogs were all housed in a rescue center and subjected to the same rehabilitation processes. Caretakers reported on the dogs’ behavior through the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire at one and three months into their stay. The Fukushima dogs were reported to show significantly lower levels of aggression toward unfamiliar people, poorer trainability, and less attachment to their caretakers than the control dogs. Furthermore, the Fukushima dogs’ urine cortisol levels were 5‐ to 10‐fold higher than the control dogs, and the elevation persisted even after 10 weeks in the rescue center. Nagasawa and colleagues (2012) argue that their findings suggest the dogs who endured the earthquake and the abrupt separation from their families suffered extreme and long‐lasting trauma.

There is no question that companion animals suffer when separated from their primary attachment figures (Prato‐Previde et al. 2003; Konok et al. 2011; Stellato et al. 2020). After Hurricane Sandy, the ASPCA established a temporary shelter where people who were displaced from their homes could bring their pets. While these animals didn’t experience the trauma of being rescued by strangers, they presumably still suffered from being separated from their human families. Owners were encouraged to visit their pets at the temporary shelter and some came every day, while others were unable to come at all until they found alternative housing that would accommodate their pets. In a future disaster response, it would be enlightening to compare behavioral and physiological indicators of stress in the pets who are visited by their owners with those of animals who are only able to spend time with caretakers.

21.2.4 Reunification

Encouraging and enabling people to reclaim their pets after a disaster should be a critical component of any disaster response plan. Reuniting people and their pets not only frees up space in the temporary shelter for other animals, it also safeguards the mental health of both the pets and their owners. For example, people who permanently lost their pets after Hurricane Katrina were more likely to suffer symptoms of depression and PTSD than people who were reunited or were able to evacuate with their pets (Hunt et al. 2008). Likewise, Lowe et al. (2009) found that pet loss was a significant predictor of psychological distress in survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. At the ASPCA’s temporary shelter in Joplin, Missouri after the 2011 tornado, a human psychologist was available to counsel distraught pet owners—there were people who came day after day, searching for their pets, and never found them.

Reports on the success of reunification efforts after Hurricane Katrina are mixed. According to Lowe et al. (2009), an estimated 200,000 pets were displaced in the aftermath of the hurricane, of which just 5% were reunited with their guardians. However, the Louisiana SPCA, the agency that ran a temporary shelter for more than a year after the hurricane, reported that more than 15,500 animals came through their system and that 15–20% were reunited with their families (Louisiana SPCA n.d.). After the Joplin tornado, the ASPCA housed 1,308 dogs and cats in two warehouse spaces outfitted as temporary shelters, with dogs in one building and cats in the other. A total of 526 pets (40.2%) were reunited with their owners. It’s likely that the number of animals reclaimed was higher than after Hurricane Katrina because the devastation wasn’t quite as widespread. At a Hurricane Sandy temporary shelter in New York City, the ASPCA cared for 164 dogs, 115 (70.1%) of which were reclaimed by their owners, and 111 cats, 65 (58.6%) of which were reclaimed. The higher rate of reunion after Sandy is undoubtedly due to the fact that most animals were brought to the shelter by their owners for temporary boarding.

From an animal behavior perspective, one of the fascinating aspects of disaster sheltering is the actual reunion between pet and owner. Most dogs seem to recognize their owners right away when they come to collect them. In the authors’ experience during the Joplin tornado response, however, a few dogs appeared not to recognize their owners at first. Instead, they reacted as they would toward any unfamiliar person. But, after some time, often several seconds, each dog would suddenly seem to realize who the person was and engage in exaggerated greeting behavior, accompanied by high‐pitched vocalizations. Similar anecdotes exist about dogs who have been lost in the wilderness for lengthy periods of time before being found and reunited with their families, as well as dogs greeting their owners after the owner’s lengthy military deployment. Numerous examples of such dog‐ and cat‐owner greetings can be found online. (Not surprisingly, cats are much less demonstrative!)

What could be happening here? Is the dog’s recognition of her owner linked to olfaction and, for some individuals, it takes a bit of time for her to retrieve her olfactory memory? Belief in dogs’ olfactory prowess is widespread (Taslitz 1990), while their visual acuity is regarded as relatively poor compared to that of humans (Byosiere et al. 2018). Perhaps because of this, it is generally assumed that dogs rely heavily on olfaction for individual recognition of conspecifics and familiar humans. However, it is unlikely dogs use olfaction as the primary means of identifying their owners. Experimental evidence suggests they also use visual and auditory cues in social recognition of con‐ and heterospecifics (Adachi et al. 2006; Ratcliffe et al. 2014; Taylor et al. 2011). In one study, when the cues were tested individually, visual cues were significantly better than auditory or olfactory cues for dogs engaged in a human‐detection task (Fukazawa and Watanabe 2017). It seems much more likely that dogs rely on a combination of cues to create composite, multimodal “signatures” of their owners.

Perhaps the explanation for some dogs not immediately recognizing their owners lies more in the context where the reunification occurs. Research on violating expectations may be relevant here. Violation of expectation (VOE) studies assess the effect of “impossible” or incongruent scenarios—for example, a wheel rolling uphill—on cognition by measuring looking time. Longer looking times indicate increased cognitive processing of the scenario because the subject’s expectations were violated. Dogs exhibit VOE in relation to incongruent physical scenarios, such as when one object is substituted for another, physically different object while out of the dog’s view; in such cases, dogs look significantly longer at the incongruent object compared to congruent scenarios (Pattison et al. 2013). Could the appearance of the owner in the disaster shelter be so improbable to some dogs that they have no expectation of encountering them there? Performance of known behaviors is significantly slowed in contexts where dogs don’t expect to have to perform the behavior (Fugazza et al. 2016), indicating the cognitive processing involved when expectations are violated does lead to a delay in behavior output. Therefore, it seems plausible that the appearance of a familiar human in an incongruent context could delay the processing of the owner’s individual “signature,” thereby slowing recognition and subsequent greeting behavior.

21.3.1 Behavior Forensics

It is recommended that all dogs from large‐scale cruelty cases undergo a formalized behavior evaluation in order to develop, over time, a behavioral profile of dogs from specific types of cruel conditions (Reid 2013). In the authors’ experience, dogs from substandard commercial breeding operations (i.e., puppy mills) and hoarding circumstances, for instance, tend to show more fear of humans and environmental stimuli than shelter dogs from other backgrounds. As an example, in one population of 35 Labrador retrievers belonging to a suspected animal hoarder, the authors determined 17 (48.6%) to be so fearful that they needed behavior modification before adoption. In contrast, only 8 of 94 (9%) Labrador retrievers and Labrador mixes from other types of cruelty cases were determined to be too fearful for immediate adoption. Pit bull dogs kept for organized dogfighting, however, are more likely to be aggressive to conspecifics than pit bull dogs with no known history of organized dogfighting. Using a model dog as a stand‐in for a real dog, the authors found that almost twice as many pit bull type dogs from suspected dogfighting cases exhibited aggression (45%; n = 363) than did pit bull type dogs from defunct sanctuaries (26%; n = 46) (P. Reid, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data).

By collecting and documenting these descriptive comparisons, a characteristic behavior profile of dogs from various circumstances, including puppy mills, animal hoarding situations, and organized dogfighting can be developed. These data can then lend support to the prosecution of animal cruelty in a particular case when the behavior of the animals seized in the case more or less matches the overall profile for animals from other puppy mill, hoarding, or dogfighting cases. This information is important because, while prosecutions traditionally rely exclusively on physical evidence of injury and neglect, physical insults can heal or manifest themselves in ways that are not externally apparent. In the United States and Canada, legal definitions of “cruelty” often include some reference to suffering, which opens the door to considering psychological trauma. There is a growing body of evidence that dogs living in puppy mills or intensely crowded conditions, such as animal hoarders’ homes, and those exposed to chronically harsh conditions, particularly in early life, manifest epigenetic changes (Bissell 2019), physiologic changes (Lezama‐García et al. 2019), and long‐term behavioral deficits (McMillan et al. 2013). This suggests that dogs from these types of circumstances are likely to behave in distinctly different ways than dogs with no known history of abuse or neglect. In Canada, charges of cruelty have been based solely on the behavior of the animal when no physical injuries were present (Ledger and Mellor 2018).

21.3.2 Dogfighting

In the United States, organized dogfighting, in which dogs are pitted against each other to fight for prize money and gambling profits, almost exclusively involves the American Pit Bull Terrier and mixes of similar morphology (Miller et al. 2016). Despite it being a felony in all states, dogfighting is prevalent, and animal welfare organizations have rescued thousands of dogs destined for the fighting pit. Established dogfighters often have large numbers of dogs in their yards, even into the hundreds, which may include dogs being conditioned for fighting, proven studs and brood bitches for breeding, young dogs and puppies as future fighting prospects, and/or dogs for sale. Few dogs will be elderly unless they are especially prized for breeding.

21.3.2.2 Housing and Husbandry

Proper housing is critical to the successful management of dogfighting populations, due to the agitation and arousal created by sheltering numerous dog‐aggressive dogs in close proximity to each other. Fighting dogs cannot be housed in regular wire crates or airline crates; they are liable to break free of these enclosures if they have visual, olfactory, or auditory contact with other dogs. Further, a highly motivated crated dog can move her crate a large distance across the floor as she thrashes about in an attempt to reach another dog or escape confinement. This is highly problematic because a crated dog can bite and cause damage through her closed crate door.

Fighting dogs must be housed in permanent or temporary kennels made of sturdy metal with secure tops, as highly motivated dogs can easily scale a wall to fight with other dogs. Most permanent and temporary kennels require additional reinforcement of the kennel door, such as a sturdy chain and carabiners, to ensure that dogs cannot break open the door or squeeze through a gap. In a temporary field shelter, care should be taken to erect kennels on a solid surface so that the dogs cannot dig and tunnel under kennel panels.

Adjacent kennels cannot be in physical contact unless they are built‐in kennels with solid, permanent partitions, such as cinderblock or solid metal, because dogs can displace less sturdy kennel partitions and will take any opportunity to grab neighboring dogs’ feet or tails. Dogs housed in temporary kennels may be highly agitated by the close proximity of dogs in immediately adjacent kennels. Adjacent temporary kennels should be physically separated by 1 ft. or more because dogs can slide large, heavy metal kennels across the floor as they jump with force against the side panel of their kennel toward neighboring dogs.

Visually separating adjacent kennels with a visual barrier may be necessary to further reduce agitation and the likelihood of a dog escaping or moving her enclosure in pursuit of neighboring dogs. It may be necessary to fully cover the side walls of her kennel with visual panels if she persistently leaps above the visual barriers. However, it is important to never fully eliminate her view from the kennel, leaving, at minimum, the front panel free from visual barriers. Using sturdy, rigid visual barriers, as opposed to cardboard or fabric, serves to further safeguard against dogs in adjacent kennels making physical contact with one another. For temporary shelters, a cost‐effective visual barrier option is using FRP, which is relatively easy to clean and rigid (see Figure 21.2).

Subdividing housing into small sections (pods) of 10 to 12 kennels may reduce dogs’ arousal and improve ease of care (see Figure 21.3). Even if dogs can see and hear activity in other pods, over time, most dogs appear to habituate to this activity and eventually stop reacting. Therefore, agitation and arousal can be reduced to only the pod in which the activity (cleaning, dog movement, etc.) is happening. Because fighting dogs in a yard habituate to the sights, smells, and sounds of neighboring dogs, the authors recommend mimicking the yard layout to reduce stimulation as much as possible. Folklore has it that when a dog escapes from her chain space in a dog yard, the dog rarely fights with her neighbors; instead, she will go farther afield to a dog she cannot see from her customary vantage point. Subdividing sections of kennels into pods with a secure physical perimeter also serves to contain dogs should one escape from her kennel or escape from her handler while on leash. Due to the risk of damaging fights between dogs, it is strongly advised that only one dog is out of her kennel at a time within a secure perimeter. Secure perimeters around each pod allow for dogs in different pods to be moved simultaneously without risk of contact. To further reduce the risk of dogs contacting one another, portable two‐way radios or another communication system can be used to announce dog movement.

Arranging kennels in a U‐shape within each pod, as opposed to arranging kennels in rows, creates a large, open center space, ideal for kennel staff and handlers to clean and to move dogs without forced proximity to other kenneled dogs.

If kennels are arranged in rows instead of in a U‐shape, care should be taken to leave wide walking aisles between the rows. Walking dogs on leash close to kenneled dogs creates intense arousal and reactivity, rendering the kennel environment highly stressful for the dog being moved as well as the dogs housed within visual or auditory range. The handler may have difficulty restraining the leashed dog to prevent her from contacting the kenneled dogs, and fights can ensue. The leashed dog may become so aroused that she redirects aggression toward the handler.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Related posts:

1. Canine Enrichment
2. How Animals Learn
3. Feline Behavioral Assessment
4. Training and Behavior Modification for Shelter Cats

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join