Grouping protocol in shelters

Oswaldo Santos , Gina Polo, Rita Garcia, Eduardo Oliveira, Adriana Vieira,
Nstor Caldern, Rudy De Meester
Published Online: June 29, 2012
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2012.03.002
Article Outline
I. Abstract
II. Introduction
III. Material and methods
A. Phase 1distance recognition (scheduled time, 5 minutes)
B. Phase 2progressive approximation (scheduled time, 11 minutes 30 seconds without considering extra repetition
caused by aggressive manifestations)
C. Phase 3approach without head collars (scheduled time, 5 minutes)
D. Phase 4introduction of a group into the kennel (scheduled time, 5 minutes)
IV. Results
V. Discussion
VI. 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(So 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(Caldern, 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
humandog 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 1distance 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 2progressive approximation (scheduled time, 11 minutes 30 seconds without considering extra
repetition caused by aggressive manifestations)

In an open place of 10 10 m
2
, 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 2
Circle on the ground to guide handlers in phase 2progressive 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 3approach without head collars (scheduled time, 5 minutes)

Each dog was held in an enclosed area with a dimension of 12 2 m
2
. 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 4introduction 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
Pair
Individual
sex 1
Aggressive
manifestation Phase
Individual
sex 2
Response 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 No
F, 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 dogs 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, Joo 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: 135144
3. Caldern, 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: 309312
5. Corridan, C.L. The Role of Owner Expectation in Development of a Successful Human: Dog
Bond. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK; 2010
6. 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: 261272
7. 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: 13071328
8. Ellis, S. Environmental enrichment practical strategies for improving feline welfare. J. Feline
Med. Surg.. 2009; 11:901912
9. 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: 143153
10. 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: 10231041
11. Hays, L.D. Effects of Standardized Obedience Program on Approachability and Problems
Behaviours in Dogs From Rescue Shelters [masters 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: 137155
13. 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: 6368
14. 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: 195215
15. Mertens, P.A. and Unshelm, J. Effects of group and individual housing on the behavior of
kenneled dogs in animal shelters. Anthrozos. 1996; 9: 4051
16. Netto, W.J. and Planta, D.J.U. Behavioural testing for aggression in the domestic dog. Appl.
Anim. Welf. Sci.. 1997;52: 243263
17. Newbury, S., Blinn, M., Bushby, P., Barker, C., Dinnage, J., Griffin, B., Hurley, K., Isaza, N., Jones,
W., Miller, L., OQuin, 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: 211219
19. 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: 400405
20. Pernambuco. Lei Ordinria 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 Pblico 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: 93106
23. So Paulo (Estado) (April 2008). Lei No 12.916, de 16 de Abril de 2008. In Dirio Oficial do Estado de
So 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: 391404
25. 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: 295308
26. Wells, D. Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for captive animals: a
review. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci..2009; 118: 111

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 shelter
Lynne Graham, Deborah L. Wells , Peter G. Hepper
Canine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT7 1NN, UK
Received: January 13, 2004; Received in revised form: August 16, 2004; Accepted: August 16, 2004;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.024
Abstract
This 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 shelters
: Effects of a standardized obedience program on approachability and problem behaviors in dogs from rescue
shelters
: Hays, Lauren Denise
: 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.
: Texas A&M University

The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption
success of shelter dogs
Andrew Urs Luescher , Robert Tyson Medlock
Accepted: November 4, 2008;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.001
Abstract
Approximately 34 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 Shelters
Authors: 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 Article
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279396787001662

Association of Shelter Veterinarians
Contact Us
The 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 Address
85 Denison Parkway E., #249
Corning, NY. 14830
*Please Note Office Hours: M-F 9:00-5:00 EST
Phone: 607-483-8682, Fax: 607-483-8682, E-mail: info@sheltervet.org, Web: www.sheltervet.org

Shelter medicine recognized
Shelter 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 medi cine
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 dogs
Elaine Tod , Donna Brander, Natalie Waran
Animal 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, Scotland
Accepted: January 21, 2005;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.007
Abstract
The 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 (L
eq
) and barking
frequency were significantly reduced in dogs subject to DAP exposure for 7 days (P < 0.001, <0.04, respectively), though
peak values (L
peak
) 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 review
Deborah L. Wells
School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN N. Ireland, UK
Accepted: January 8, 2009;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.01.002
Abstract
In 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.