Stephanie Janeczko, Lila Miller, and Stephen Zawistowski It is generally believed that dogs living in animal shelters are subject to a range of conditions and stimuli that are not conducive to good physical and behavioral health. Environmental design and facility management practices impact the quality of life of sheltered dogs (Kiddie and Collins 2015), and there is a growing body of data and anecdotal information showing that appropriate housing and husbandry can mitigate the negative impact of many detrimental features commonly attributed to shelters. An evaluation of how dogs in animal shelters are cared for must begin with the initial observation that almost all dogs were removed from where they were living previously, unless they were born in the shelter. This may be the only aspect of their life history that most shelter dogs have in common. Some dogs may have lived in homes where they received excellent care for both their physical and behavioral needs, whereas others may have been subjected to neglect and abusive treatment. Still others may have been strays scratching out a living by scavenging for food and sleeping wherever they could. Between these extremes are a range of conditions that ensure that each dog brings her own unique life experience to the shelter. This individual variation in prior experiences, as well as the substantial genetic variations, are increasingly recognized as relevant considerations in providing appropriate housing and husbandry to dogs. This in turn presents a challenge to shelters in how they design their physical structures and implement animal care practices beneficial for individual animals and the population as a whole. A uniform approach will not provide each dog with the environment they require to attain the best possible welfare while in the shelter’s care. Ongoing observation and assessment of each animal’s behavior must begin at the point of intake and continue throughout their time in the shelter’s care, with this information used to tailor animal care to meet the needs of the individual. Alternate housing, including in foster care, as well as placement options should be urgently considered for animals exhibiting significant fear, anxiety, stress, or frustration in the shelter. Breed, sex, and age play a role in the onset and prevalence of poor welfare in kenneled dogs (Stephen and Ledger 2005). For example, younger dogs were found to be more likely to chew their bedding, breeds differed in their tendency to bark, and females engaged in tail chasing sooner than males, though this was a rare behavior. Fear‐related behaviors (hiding, escape attempts, and lack of appetite) were observed earlier in the shelter stay than wall bouncing, pacing, and circling. The frequency of the behaviors observed changed over several weeks, with substantial variation among dogs. It is therefore important to continuously evaluate each dog as an individual, so care and husbandry can be adapted in a way that meets their needs, provides the best possible quality of life while in the shelter, and helps prepare that dog for a successful life in a new home (Coppinger and Zuccotti 1999; Tuber et al. 1999). Within the animal welfare field, there is increasing recognition that intake by a sheltering organization is not always necessary nor in the best interest of a particular animal, the larger population of animals cared for by that organization, or the larger community. Instead, robust programs that provide resources, such as accessible veterinary care, behavioral counseling and training, or temporary boarding, support the human‐animal bond and help keep pets and people together. As a result, intake can be reduced and prioritized, allowing organizations to provide a higher level of individualized care for the animals that truly need traditional sheltering services (e.g., animals in need of significant veterinary and/or behavioral care, victims of cruelty) and do so in a more efficient manner. When rehoming is necessary, assisting the owner in doing so themselves or caring for and placing the animal directly via foster care is often an appropriate and preferable alternative to shelter intake and housing. Critical evaluation of whether each dog needs to be admitted by the shelter, and, if so, whether housing on‐site is the best option should be the first consideration when evaluating housing options in a shelter. When intake is the appropriate option, it is important to recognize that entry into an animal shelter environment is extremely stressful for most dogs (Hiby et al. 2006). Regardless of their living arrangements prior to intake, virtually all dogs entering the shelter will be without their human and/or animal attachment figures, and they will face an environment that is inherently more restrictive and lacking in choice than they had previously experienced. Dogs will be confronted with novel experiences, including contact with different humans and animals, changes to their movements and routines, and new surfaces, odors, sounds, and diets, among other changes. In each case, dogs experience psychological stressors that are known to activate stress‐related physiological responses through stimulation of the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal axis (Tuber et al. 1999). Physical and behavioral ailments may develop as a result of stress, which can further diminish animal health and welfare and may confuse the diagnosis of a variety of medical conditions. Stressed animals may act in unexpected or unpredictable ways. To further complicate matters, the same stressor or stressors will impact individual animals differently. For example, there is evidence that salivary cortisol levels are higher in intact dogs compared with those who were spayed or neutered and in small compared to large and giant dogs housed in an animal shelter (Sandri et al. 2015). Similarly, the severity and manifestation of the stress response is likely to vary across individuals. Some dogs may express their distress by becoming more active, while other dogs may become inactive (Hiby et al. 2006). Several studies have shown that dogs entering shelters will show an elevated plasma cortisol level (Hennessy et al. 1997, 1998), which is one physiological indicator of stress. This research indicates that the elevated cortisol levels will persist for several days but that brief 15‐ to 30‐minute sessions of positive interaction with a person can have a beneficial effect (Shiverdecker et al. 2013; McGowan et al. 2018; Willen et al. 2019). Starting at the time of intake, it is critical that concerted efforts are made to reduce stress‐inducing stimuli (e.g., excessive noise, random placement with other animals, rough handling) and proactively provide comfort and gentle handling to every dog. Staff involved in the intake process must take the dog’s behavior and demeanor, as well as his or her physical condition, into account, and they should use low‐stress handling techniques to minimize fear, anxiety, and stress (see Chapter 8). Psychopharmaceuticals should be considered during the peri‐intake period to alleviate stress and facilitate acclimation to the shelter environment. There is limited evidence from one study that administration of low doses of trazodone for up to 48 hours around the time of intake was associated with lower rates of infectious respiratory disease, shorter lengths of stay, and greater likelihood of adoption (Abrams et al. 2020). However, it is important to remember that association does not imply causation, and there are numerous effective interventions to control infectious disease, reduce time in shelter, and increase live outcomes. Further research is necessary to better understand what role psychopharmaceuticals may have in alleviating the stress of intake and housing in a shelter setting including which medications may be effective, when, at what dose, and for what time and duration. All medications should be prescribed judiciously and as part of a comprehensive plan to address the specific concern(s) for which a drug is prescribed; such use should not be considered a replacement for other interventions. The history, physical exam findings, and behavior of a dog will inform staff as to which initial housing options are most appropriate for that individual. Housing should be separated based on the dog’s species, age, health, behavior, and reproductive status (Newbury et al. 2010). Animals with evidence of contagious disease must be isolated from the general population to reduce the risk of disease transmission. Animals who are shy, fearful, or anxious should be provided with a consistent and structured environment that minimizes reassignment of enclosures and provides the same assigned caregivers on a regular basis. Over the years, dog husbandry and housing in shelters has moved away from what was largely a “one size fits all” strategy, instead adopting an approach focused on meeting the needs of the individual animal. In veterinary medicine, this is reflected in how vaccination protocols are now designed to fit an animal’s age, immune status, lifestyle, and risk of exposure to disease. Similarly, optimum feeding protocols now require matching nutrition to the life stage and health condition of the animal. In animal shelters, the change is reflected in how animals are increasingly housed and fed according to their individual needs, with attention paid to both their physical and behavioral health and welfare. Hubrecht (1993) asserted that a good housing system for dogs should allow them to exercise choice, to manipulate and chew safe objects, and to socialize with people and other dogs. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ (ASV) Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters are based on the Five Freedoms, originally developed in 1965 for farm animals in intensive husbandry settings in the United Kingdom but considered appropriate for shelter animals as well (Newbury et al. 2010). While all of the Freedoms are important, the second and fourth are particularly relevant to housing shelter animals. The second Freedom states that animals must be “free from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area,” and the fourth Freedom states that animals must be free to “express normal behaviors by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.” Specifically, the ASV Guidelines state the following: Primary enclosures must provide sufficient space to allow each animal, regardless of species, to make normal postural adjustments, for example, to turn freely and to easily stand, sit, stretch, move their head without touching the top of the enclosure, lie in a comfortable position with limbs extended, move about and assume a comfortable posture for feeding, drinking, urinating and defecating. In addition, cats and dogs should be able to hold their tails erect when in a normal standing position. Primary enclosures should allow animals to see out but should also provide at least some opportunity to avoid visual contact with other animals. (Newbury et al. 2010, p. 7) The British Veterinary Association (Animal Welfare. Fund), the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW) Joint Working Group on Refinement recommended “providing an enriched environment for dogs which permits them to express a wide range of normal behaviour and to exercise a degree of choice…combining this with a socialization, habituation and training programme” (Prescott et al. 2004). Both of these guidelines represent a departure from many previous recommendations for appropriate dog housing that focused on space designations only. Although it has been theorized for years that poor housing can lead to behavior problems in dogs, many facilities continue to house them in small, unenriched cages that do not take into account the importance of enrichment and do not permit the dog to make normal postural adjustments or exhibit normal behavior. Single, small, unenriched cages typically reflect a regulatory or engineering approach to caring for dogs that uses minimal space recommendations based on the dog’s size, rather than a results‐oriented welfare approach that considers the importance of providing for behavioral needs. The minimum and ideal space requirements per dog are unknown and could be expected to vary based on individual factors such as age, size, breed, physical health, behavioral health and well‐being, and prior experiences. Shelter medicine texts have previously recommended providing 35–64 ft2 of space per dog, best configured for an individual dog’s welfare as 8 ft. × 8 ft. rather than the traditional long and narrow 4 ft. × 16 ft. layout typical of runs in older facilities (Schlaffer and Bonacci 2013). While several studies (e.g., Hubrecht et al. 1992; Jongman et al. 2018) of sheltered or kenneled dogs have failed to find significant increases in activity with increasing cage size, the changes in the sizes studied may have still been too small to result in any measurable behavioral differences. However, when significant variation in enclosure size was investigated, dogs in larger pens were found to be more active and spent less time engaged in stereotypy (Hetts et al. 1992). More recently, Normando et al. (2014) found that shelter‐housed dogs given 9 m2 (approximately 100 ft2) of space showed increased general activity levels and visual exploration of the environment compared to dogs housed in enclosures half that size. Housing in larger enclosures also increased the probability of behaviors likely to increase chances of adoption, such as positive interactions with toys, co‐housed dogs, and people. In another study, dogs were found to spend more time in the front of their enclosure when housed in large kennels (10 m2 floor space) than in smaller kennels (3 m2 floor space) (Jongman et al. 2018). Dogs at the front of their enclosures were more likely to view other dogs and people, which may have a direct positive effect on welfare as well as an indirect effect by improving chances of adoption. Studies have shown adopter preference for dogs positioned at the front as opposed to the back of their enclosures (Wells and Hepper 1992) and that dogs selected for adoption were most likely to approach or greet the adopter when first met (Weiss et al. 2012). All portions of the primary enclosure, regardless if it is a pen, cage, run, kennel, condo unit, or double‐sided compartment, should be made from durable nonporous materials that are easily disinfected, safe, and sturdy, with no jagged or sharp edges that can injure the inhabitant. Wood should be avoided in primary enclosures and animal areas, as it cannot be effectively disinfected and can be damaged by chewing. If the enclosure contains a drain, it should be covered to prevent nails, paws, or even limbs from getting trapped in its holes. Flooring must be safe and comfortable for the dog when standing, walking, lying down, or eliminating. Floors should be solid, preferably with a non‐slip finish. Wire floors are not recommended (Prescott et al. 2004; Newbury et al. 2010) and should be avoided to prevent foot injuries and general discomfort. At least a portion of the enclosure that is accessible to the dog should always be dry, ventilated, fully shaded, and provide protection from temperature extremes. A strong preference to eliminate away from the area where they eat, drink, and sleep has been shown in shelter‐housed dogs (Wagner et al. 2014), and access to an area where the dog can urinate and defecate away from the “living areas” should be provided. The primary enclosure should be large enough to provide the dog with bedding or a bed, a platform (bedding may be placed on the platform if the dog indicates a preference to sleep there), toys, and the ability to hide or at least a partial visual barrier. The movement of dogs throughout the shelter should be minimized as much as possible so the dog can become familiar with her immediate scents and environment. In fact, unless there is a compelling reason to move dogs, they should remain in the same enclosure whenever possible for the duration of their stay. Shelters will ideally have some variety in the styles and sizes of primary enclosures available for housing dogs, arranged in a way that allows for appropriate separation. Housing must be available to sufficiently isolate dogs with contagious illnesses away from the general population. Similarly, separate areas must be available to safely house and care for dogs that may pose a safety risk to people or other animals. Housing areas must be served by heating, ventilation, and air‐conditioning systems that are adequate to maintain a comfortable environment, with suitable temperature, humidity, and air quality conducive to maintaining the dogs’ health and welfare. Separate ventilation for areas used to house dogs in isolation is necessary because canine respiratory pathogens may be spread through aerosolization. Regardless of the size, configuration, and location of the primary enclosure, providing social contact and environmental enrichment is critical for animals’ well‐being. One could reasonably expect dogs to benefit from larger enclosures up to a certain point, particularly when increasing their space also includes the provision of outdoor space. At the same time, the cost of housing dogs in significantly larger enclosures—either in a new building or when retrofitting an existing facility—is likely to be substantial and may not be the best use of limited resources. There is no compelling evidence that simply enlarging a dog’s living space without providing enrichment and social engagement will result in better welfare (Taylor and Mills 2007). One study of dogs housed long‐term in Italian shelters found the most important variable that improved the dogs’ welfare was the opportunity to regularly get out of the cage for a walk, while size of the enclosure had no effect (Cafazzo et al. 2014). Shelters are encouraged to direct their efforts and resources toward increasing the quality of the environment, interaction with people and conspecifics, and, perhaps most importantly, time out of the enclosure to have the greatest impact on the health and well‐being of dogs in their care. Additional information about enrichment and playgroups can be found in Chapters 11 and 13, respectively. There is increasing recognition that minimizing an animal’s length of stay is one of the most important things shelters can do to improve the health and welfare of individual animals as well as the population as a whole. This requires actively tracking and guiding each animal’s stay, starting at the time of intake and extending throughout her stay until the animal leaves—a process known as “pathway planning.” It involves making an initial assessment of the animal’s likely outcome(s), identifying all of the steps necessary to get the animal to that outcome, and ensuring that everything that needs to happen is scheduled and completed in a timely manner. The daily rounds process serves as the foundation for the active planning and daily evaluation necessary to efficiently and effectively care for animals. It involves a physical walk‐through and discussion of all animals in the facility by representatives from key teams (i.e., medical, behavior, operations). The purpose of this exercise is to identify the physical and behavioral needs of each animal and determine or confirm the animal’s pathway (see Chapter 19). Adjustments can be made to the pathway if necessary, and delays addressed promptly. Immediate actions should be taken to address each animal’s needs, with more robust response plans updated and enacted as necessary. Daily rounds and pathway planning together form a critical framework that ensures accountability across teams for humane and efficient individualized care. This approach emphasizes consideration of the whole animal, with continuous adjustments and adaptations to maximize the animal’s quality of life. All shelters have a finite capacity for care, which they cannot exceed if they are to meet the medical and behavioral needs of their animals to provide them with good welfare. This requires careful and continuous evaluation of the facility, housing, staffing, and available resources alongside the unique needs of the animals in the shelter’s care. Consideration should be given to placing dogs in foster care whenever appropriate and possible, rather than housing on‐site at the shelter. This is particularly important for dogs that have been in the facility for prolonged periods of time or are expected to have long lengths of stay, that are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases, or that require a greater level of individual attention, care, and treatment than is possible in the shelter setting. While foster care is especially important for the unique needs of animals just described, its value in better meeting the physical and behavioral needs of all individual animals should not be overlooked. The observations reported by foster caregivers are likely to provide a more accurate picture of a dog’s health and behavior than what could be obtained in the shelter, and this additional information may lead to a more informed, complete assessment that will help the shelter to better plan for appropriate care and placement options. Foster caregivers are often able to provide a greater level of individual animal attention and treatment than is possible in a busy shelter, increasing the feasibility and success of assessing, treating, and managing a variety of medical and behavioral conditions. Placement in foster care can be particularly helpful in evaluating a dog’s behavior, reducing stress, and providing treatment for known or subsequently identified behavioral concerns, often with support from shelter behavior and veterinary staff. Cleaning and disinfecting, collectively referred to as sanitation, comprise a critical part of daily shelter operations. The impact of sanitation protocols on dog behavior will be discussed here, and the reader is referred to several other readily available sources for further information on the subject (Newbury et al. 2010; Karsten 2021). Removing dogs from their enclosures for daily cleaning and disinfecting can be very stressful. It can be challenging for staff to take a shy, fearful, anxious, or aggressive dog from his or her cage every day without further exacerbating that dog’s negative emotional state and potentially putting themselves at risk. Housing dogs in double‐sided compartments so they can freely move from one side to the other without being handled is often the best husbandry and welfare option, especially for these dogs. Importantly, it also increases the efficiency of sanitation procedures, leaving more time for staff and volunteers to provide the dogs with enrichment, positive social contact, exercise, and training or behavior modification. Even if this option is available, it is important for all staff and volunteers who handle animals to receive training in animal behavior and low‐stress handling techniques so that the least amount of handling and restraint necessary can be used whenever possible. Routine husbandry practices should be as predictable as possible to further minimize stress (Rooney et al. 2009). It is important to establish a schedule for cleaning that ensures the same procedures are performed at the same time each day and by the same caregivers to the greatest extent possible. These procedures should be performed as quietly and efficiently as possible. If a dog must be removed from the enclosure for sanitation procedures but is resistant, it may be better to delay the activity until a later time, to use a different technique such as coaxing the dog into a crate that can then be gently moved, or to designate a different person who can better handle that particular dog. Staff and volunteers must understand that stress is a major contributing factor to disease transmission, reduced welfare, and the development of abnormal behaviors and that it should be avoided when possible. Removal of dogs from their enclosures for complete cleaning and disinfection is not only potentially detrimental but is also not always necessary. Spot cleaning is often preferable for dogs five months of age and older remaining in their primary enclosure. This process allows a dog to stay within his or her enclosure while feces, visible dirt, and debris are removed; food and water receptacles are cleaned and replenished; and the space is tidied up. Daily cleaning in this manner is necessary to maintain a comfortable and sanitary environment, while disinfection necessitating the removal of the dog should take place only when a new occupant is introduced into the enclosure or for disease‐control purposes. Spot cleaning can also help reduce animal stress by preserving the dog’s scent within the environment and minimizing movement in and out of the enclosure. If full cleaning and disinfection is necessary, dogs should be removed from the portion of the cage, kennel, or room by placing them on the other side of a partition, confining them to a solid‐sided or covered crate within the enclosure, or taking them out of the enclosure completely. Ideally, sanitation activities will be scheduled to occur at the same time dogs are walked or placed in playgroups (as appropriate to their physical and behavioral health conditions). When this is not feasible, dogs should be secured on the side of the kennel opposite to that being cleaned via a guillotine door or similar divider, placed in an outdoor exercise yard (weather permitting) or an indoor training/play area, or temporarily placed in a different, sanitized enclosure. The “move one down” method should be avoided whenever possible because it can be stressful for the dogs and because the need to thoroughly disinfect each enclosure sequentially and between dogs is labor intensive. Dogs should not be tethered during cleaning, as this may contribute to disease spread, lead to negative interactions between dogs, and pose a safety risk for personnel. Similarly, the practice of allowing a dog to run free in a room while his or her cage is being fully cleaned and disinfected should also be discouraged because of the challenges that poses to adequately and safely sanitizing the room afterward. Enclosures must never be hosed down while the dog is still inside that portion of the housing unit, as this is highly distressing and increases physical discomfort and disease susceptibility. For the same reasons, housing units should be fully dried before the dog is returned to the area. Disinfectants and cleansers that do not have strong or noxious odors should be chosen, remembering that a dog’s sense of smell is highly sensitive. All chemicals and products should be approved for use around dogs, effective against pathogens of concern in the given environmental conditions, and prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Rinsing enclosures to remove chemical residues may be a necessary step for safety reasons. Even when not required, rinsing should be considered to further reduce odors that could be unpleasant to dogs, as long as rinsing is not contradicted by the manufacturer’s instructions for efficacy or safety reasons. Increasing the concentration of chemicals or indiscriminate mixing is likely to increase the risk of human and animal discomfort, toxicity, and safety concerns. Products that have shorter contact times and are environmentally friendly should be selected whenever possible. Dogs have a highly developed sense of smell, which is key to communication, exploration, foraging, and hunting. They are very sensitive to trace odors that may not be noticed by or even seem pleasant to humans. Olfactory stimulation as a form of sensory enrichment has been documented in a variety of species with a variety of scents, but only limited studies have investigated the impact on kenneled or shelter‐housed dogs. A small number of studies suggest that essential oils and other scents may also provide beneficial effects for dogs in shelters. Coconut and ginger were found to decrease vocalizations and movement and to increase sleeping in shelter‐housed dogs (Binks et al. 2018). In another study, lavender and chamomile seemed to increase behaviors associated with relaxation in shelter dogs—more resting, less movement, and less vocalization—while rosemary and peppermint stimulated more standing, movement, and vocalization (Graham et al. 2005). These behaviors are likely to be attractive to potential adopters and the scents may also appeal to visitors, enhancing their perception of the shelter. Some essential oils that are beneficial (or harmless) to humans may be toxic to dogs, and a veterinarian should be consulted before instituting their use as part of a shelter enrichment program or for treatment of individual dogs. Although these oils may be intended for aromatherapy use only, an accident or careless handling could result in some of these oils being spilled or coming into inadvertent contact with the dog’s skin and then being licked off and ingested. Similarly, oils and other scents should not be applied to bedding due to the risk of irritation, absorption, or ingestion and because such use may result in the lack of a comfortable sleeping space if a dog finds the scent aversive. Dog‐appeasing pheromone (DAP) has been used with mixed results to calm dogs and relieve anxiety. Much of the literature surrounding the use of DAP has focused on pet dogs in typical home settings, and there is a lack of consensus regarding its benefit and value in alleviating stress and anxiety in shelter‐housed dogs. A study by Tod et al. (2005) suggested that DAP continuously administered over a seven‐day period may help reduce some behavioral indicators of stress, such as barking, and increase resting and sniffing behavior in kenneled dogs. However, in other studies the use of DAP spray failed to reduce the frequency of barking or stress‐related behaviors in shelter dogs (Hermiston et al. 2018), and a DAP diffuser was not shown to have an effect on the behavior of beagles separated from their owners in a laboratory environment (Taylor et al. 2020). The presence of other natural pheromones may mute the impact of DAP. It is important to keep in mind that if a shelter has a high‐efficiency ventilation system that generates 10–15 air exchanges per hour in the kennel area, circulating DAP may be quickly removed from the environment, so the use of a DAP collar or spraying a suitable object in the enclosure may be more efficacious, but there is little data to support this. Pheromone products are likely to be most beneficial when used in conjunction with other techniques as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce stress and provide an enriched environment. Most shelters, particularly those with limited resources, would be better served by focusing on opportunities to increase dogs’ interactions with people and other dogs and to reduce the time spent in their enclosures, as well as through efforts to efficiently move dogs to foster care or successful placement. Staff should be made aware that excessive noise, including barking, is harmful to both human and dog hearing and can cause stress that is detrimental to welfare. It must be remembered that dog hearing is substantially more sensitive than human hearing, and dogs confined in shelter settings may be exposed to noise for prolonged periods of time. The non‐absorbent surfaces that facilitate good sanitation also tend to reflect rather than absorb sound, and poor shelter design can contribute to loud noise levels. Some acoustical vibrations in the 20–40 kHz range, which are not detectable by humans, will still be heard by dogs given the differences in the species’ auditory ranges, and efforts must be made to identify and control these sources of excess noise as well.
10
Canine Housing and Husbandry for Behavioral Well‐Being
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Admission to the Animal Shelter
10.3 General Housing Considerations
10.3.1 Size, Layout, and Construction of Enclosures
10.3.2 Social Interactions and Environmental Enrichment
10.3.3 Daily Rounds and Pathway Planning
10.3.4 Foster Care
10.3.5 Sanitation Considerations
10.4 Behavior and Sensory Factors to Consider for Dog Housing
10.4.1 Smell
10.4.2 Hearing
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
