To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 08 June 2015, At: 08:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Characteristics of Animals Entering an Animal Control or Humane Society Shelter in a Midwestern City Elsie R. Shore & Kathrine Girrens Published online: 04 Jun To cite this article: Elsie R. Shore & Kathrine Girrens (2001) Characteristics of Animals Entering an Animal Control or Humane Society Shelter in a Midwestern City, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4:2, , DOI: / S JAWS0402_2 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

2 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 4(2), Copyright 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Characteristics of Animals Entering an Animal Control or Humane Society Shelter in a Midwestern City Elsie R. Shore and Kathrine Girrens Department of Psychology Wichita State University This study compared companion animals entering a humane society shelter with those entering an animal control shelter in the same city, and both to data on companion animals in the area. The study compared stray and relinquished animals. Adult dogs were more numerous than pups, particularly at the Animal Control facility, whereas cats and kittens entered the shelters in roughly equal proportions. Further, the study identified a very small proportion of both cats and dogs as having been altered. Labrador retrievers, German shepherds, chow chows, and rottweilers were the most common breeds at both shelters, and the last three appear to be overrepresented in comparison with their prevalence among owned dogs. Results are discussed in terms of their contribution to understanding local and regional differences in shelter populations and community use of two types of shelters, as well as in terms of the challenges facing Animal Control and Humane Society staff. Across the United States, animal shelters take in millions of unwanted companion animals each year. Calling them the front-line response to the problem of pet overpopulation (p. 1172), Moulton, Wright, and Rindy (1991) described three types of shelters: public shelters or animal control agencies, private shelters or humane agencies, and private agencies with public contracts to do animal control work. The goal underlying public animal control agencies is the protection of human populations by enforcing animal ordinances and picking up or accepting stray or unwanted animals. Private humane societies focus on animal welfare and view their shelters as refuges for companion animals who otherwise would be abandoned, abused, or inhumanely killed. Arkow (1991) pointed out Requests for reprints should be addressed to Elsie R. Shore, Department of Psychology, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS elsie.shore@wichita.edu

4 106 SHORE AND GIRRENS that the two have realized that they share many values and issues and that animal control agencies are increasingly undertaking public education and other programs traditionally associated with humane societies. Although animal control agencies and humane societies are similar in a number of ways, their mandates, funding, and activities in the community make them different in their daily activities and perception and utilization by the public. Studies of companion animals relinquished to shelters (New et al., 1999; Patronek, Beck, & Glickman, 1997; Scarlett, Salman, New, & Kass, 1999) have looked at populations in each type of facility, but none have compared the two. This study compares animals picked up or relinquished to an animal control facility with those entering a humane society shelter in the same community during the same time. The study focuses primarily on characteristics of the animals such as species, sex, age, and spay or neuter status. It also considers mode of entry and seasonal variations in numbers. Distinguishing between the two types of shelters can provide a more detailed picture of a community s stray and relinquished dogs and cats and their routes to shelters. This increased specificity, in turn, can lead to more focused interventions to reduce the numbers of animals lacking owners committed to housing and caring for them. Differences in animal populations also have implications for shelter staff development and training. METHOD Data for this study were obtained from a humane society and an animal control facility in Wichita, Kansas. The two facilities, each with an open-admissions shelter, primarily serve Wichita and the rest of Sedgwick County, a 1,000-square-mile area with a 1997 population of 439,007 people (Helyar, 1998). Both agencies also receive animals from, and permit adoptions to, individuals living outside of the county. The Kansas Humane Society is a private, not-for-profit agency governed by a board of directors and supported by donations and fees. It receives owned or stray animals whom individuals have relinquished but does not pick up animals. Occasionally, the Humane Society receives animals being held in abuse or neglect cases. The Animal Control Program is a division of the Wichita Sedgwick County Health Department. Its major function is stray animal pick-up. The shelter also accepts relinquished and stray animals brought in by individuals. Data were obtained from the records of both agencies from September 1, 1996 to August 31, 1997, inclusive. All intake information for the year, representing all animals entering the two shelters, was obtained. The agencies provided hard copies of the data, in the form of either individual records or printouts of computerized intake information. Both facilities collect much of the same information, with minor differences in type of data and categorization systems. For example, the animal control agency uses three age categories, whereas the Humane Society uses four

5 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDWESTERN SHELTER ANIMALS 107 and records the animal s actual or estimated age. We attempted to make the data sets comparable without distorting the information provided. Variables included date of intake, species, breed, sex, neuter status, and age. Also included were the way in which the animal came to the shelter (e.g., pick-up, stray, relinquishment), the reason for relinquishment, and the animal s identification(e.g., tag, tattoo, or microchip). We attempted to determine whether the animal arrived as part of a litter, but variations in reporting and staff difficulty in determining whether young animals arriving or picked up together were littermates made such assessment unreliable. Additional information included whether the animal was sick or injured, was suspected of having rabies, had bitten, or was considered aggressive, as well as whether the owners requested euthanasia. When available, the address at which the animal was picked up or the address of the owner was recorded. To compare shelter to owned animals, a survey of pet owners in the Wichita area was conducted in the winter of The sample for the Pet Ownership Study was generated using a random digit dialing technique. Of 855 individuals reached, 315 were pet owners who consented to be interviewed. Of these, 174 owned only dogs, 73 owned only cats, and 68 owned both dogs and cats. Pet owners were asked about each dog or cat in the household, up to four animals. Basic information about each target animal (e.g., sex, breed, age, and spay or neuter status) was requested, as was information on how the person obtained the animals and where the animals spend their days and nights. Respondents were asked about the benefits and problems of pet ownership and whether they had ever thought of getting rid of their pets. Demographic data and information about the respondent s home (owned or rented, presence of a fenced yard) were obtained. People who did not own pets (n = 380) were asked whether they had owned any animals in the past year. One hundred sixty individuals refused to participate. RESULTS In the course of the year studied, 21,907 live animals entered the two shelters. There were nearly twice as many dogs as cats. Rodents, rabbits, exotic and wild animals, livestock, birds, fighting cocks, small mammals, and horses completed the census (Table 1). Animal Control housed 11,317 (51.7%) live animals; the Humane Society housed 10,590 (48.3%). Both shelters received more dogs than cats. As shown in Table 1, however, the difference was greater at the Animal Control facility. Put another way, 59.6% of the dogs in the Wichita shelters during the study period were at the Animal Control shelter, whereas 62.9% of the cats were at the Humane Society shelter. The flow of animals into the shelters fluctuated over the course of the year. The summer months were the heaviest, with the largest proportion (10.6%) entering in July. The winter months were comparatively light, with a low of 6.7% of intakes in

6 108 SHORE AND GIRRENS TABLE 1 Some Characteristics of Animals, by Shelter Animal Control Humane Society Total Characteristics n % n % n % Dogs 8, , , Cats 2, , , Other Mode of entry Owner relinquishment 2, , , Officer pick-up 7, n/a n/a 7, Stray a , , Other (e.g., abandoned) Age Dogs < 6 months 1, , , months to < 8 years 6, , , years Cats < 6 months , , months to < 8 years 1, , , years Spay neuter status Dogs Altered Intact , , Unknown 7, , , Cats Altered Intact , , Unknown 2, , , a Strays brought to shelter by private citizens. December. The pattern was similar for each shelter, with a more pronounced seasonal difference at the Humane Society (Figure 1). Mode of Entry All Humane Society animals were brought to the shelter by private individuals, primarily owners relinquishing their pets. A small number had been abandoned on Humane Society grounds. In contrast, Animal Control officers had picked up 70.3% of those at the Animal Control facility. Police and others are call on the latter shelter to house animals lacking care because their owners have been taken to a hospital, involved in an accident, or arrested. During the study period, 222

7 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDWESTERN SHELTER ANIMALS 109 FIGURE 1 Incoming animals by month. such animals were received, of whom 41 were released to their owners, relatives, or friends on the same day they were picked up. The agency does not classify these cases separately, yet 202 were included in the officer pick-up category, and 20 were listed as abandoned. Rabies Suspects, Bite Animals, Sick and Injured Animals suspected of having rabies or animals who had bitten comprised 2.8% of the shelter population. In Kansas, all such animals must be held under observation. After a mandatory holding period, unclaimed animals generally are destroyed and tissue samples tested for rabies (D. Graves, personal communication, June 12, 2000). As might be expected, given its mission and presence on the streets, Animal Control handled more of these (n = 458) than did the Humane Society (n = 156). Animal Control handled roughly equal proportions of rabies suspect and bite dogs and cats (229 [50%] dogs; 213 [46.5%] cats; 16 [3.5%] other species). At the Humane Society, however, proportions were unequal, with cats comprising the larger number of rabies suspect and bite animals (114; 73.1%). Animal Control received more sick and injured animals, 748 versus 366, and euthanized 41 additional animals immediately on pick-up. The Humane Society received more animals who had been adopted and were being returned (246 vs. 8) and more animals brought in by owners requesting that they be euthanized (352 vs. 1). The low Animal Control numbers, however, may reflect the agency s reporting practices rather than actual animals brought in under these conditions.

8 110 SHORE AND GIRRENS Age of Animals To compare the two agencies, we converted the ages reported by the Humane Society into categories comparable to those used at the Animal Control shelter (Table 1). Dogs between 6 months and 8 years old were more than twice as numerous as pups. The proportions of adult cats to kittens were nearly equal. Animal Control handled greater numbers of adult animals. The Humane Society saw nearly equal numbers of dogs and pups but almost 50% more kittens than adult cats. The Humane Society also received more dogs and cats 8 years or older. A little more than 70% of the older animals in the two shelters were relinquished by their owners. Participants in the Pet Ownership Study provided age data on 371 owned dogs and 210 owned cats. The majority of owned animals were adults between 1 and 7 years old; puppies and kittens constituted the smallest groups (Table 2). The area shelters had more than twice the proportion of pups and kittens but only about one fifth the number of senior cats and one tenth as many senior dogs. Sex and Spay or Neuter Status Overall, male dogs outnumbered female dogs (51.1% male; 46.4% female; 2.4% sex unknown; χ 2 [1, 4576] = 41.8, p <.001). The Humane Society received slightly, but not significantly, more female (50.8%) than male (48.6%) dogs. The difference at Animal Control was statistically significant, with that facility taking in more male dogs (52.8% male; 43.5% female; χ 2 [1, 8043] = 74.68, p <.001). At Animal Control, sex was reported as unknown for 309, or 3.7% of the dogs; at the Humane Society, sex was not reported for 34 (0.6%) of the dogs. TABLE 2 Some Characteristics of Owned Animals, Wichita, Kansas (Pet Ownership Study) Dogs Cats Characteristic n % n % < 1 year old years old years old Male Female Spayed neutered Intact Pure breed a Mixed breed a a Based on respondent s report.

9 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDWESTERN SHELTER ANIMALS 111 Lack of reporting the sex of cats was more common. At the Humane Society, sex was unknown for 3.9% of the cats; of the rest, 52.0% were female and 44.0% were male, χ 2 (1, 4576) = 32.22, p <.001. At Animal Control, sex was not reported for slightly more than 72% of the cats, ruling out further comparisons. Pet Ownership survey data indicate a somewhat different pattern for owned animals (Table 2). Owned female dogs outnumbered owned male dogs (56.7% female; 43.4% male; χ 2 [1, 367] = 6.54, p <.02). The difference among owned cats (55.3% female; 44.7% male) was not statistically significant. As might be expected when handling large numbers of stray or abandoned animals, in almost half the cases shelter workers did not record whether the incoming animal had been altered (Table 1). Those known to have been altered comprised 6.4% of the dogs and 8.5% of the cats. Looking only at adult animals, the figures increase to 9.2% of dogs and 15.8% of cats. In comparison, pet owners surveyed reportedthat63.2%oftheirdogsand77.7%oftheircatshadbeenspayedorneutered. Breeds of Animals The shelters determined animal breed in one of two ways: asking the owner or relinquisher, or making an educated guess based on the animal s appearance. Dogs were considered purebred in this study if they were given only one breed designation. Dogs who had received more than one designation (e.g., lab chow), been classified as mixed, or been given a breed designation modified by the word mix (e.g., shepherd mix) were considered mixed breed. Thus defined, mixed breed dogs comprised 67.5% of the shelter dogs. The proportion was higher at the Humane Society (78.3% vs. 60.1%), but this difference probably reflects reporting and recording procedure differences rather than actual variations between the two facilities. We asked participants in the Pet Ownership Study whether their dogs were pure or mixed breed (Table 2). Based on owner self-report, 58.5% were reported to be purebreds. Using the system based on primary and secondary breed designations, and employed with shelter dogs, the proportion of purebred-owned dogs increased to 71.6%. In either case, the proportion of purebreds is higher among owned than among shelter dogs. The discrepancy between the two ways of determining pure versus mixed breed status, however, highlights the difficulty in gathering reliable information in this area. The first breed listed for each dog was used to determine the prevalence of different breeds in the shelters. Using this procedure, a poodle terrier mix, for example, would have been counted as a poodle, a terrier poodle would have been counted as a terrier. German shepherds, Labrador retrievers, chow chows, and rottweilers, the most common breeds at both shelters (Table 3), accounted for slightly more than 48% of the dogs. In the Pet Ownership Study, Labrador retrievers and German shepherds were found to be the two most common breeds; rott-

10 112 SHORE AND GIRRENS TABLE 3 Most Common Dog Breeds a at Two Shelters Animal Control Humane Society Total Pet Ownership Study b Breed n % n % n % n % German shepherd 1, , Labrador retriever , Chow chow 1, , Rottweiler a Based on first breed listed for each animal (pure or mixed). b n = 342. weilers and chow chows were sixth and seventh. The difference between the proportions of German shepherds, chow chows, and rottweilers at the shelters and those reported by pet owners suggests that these three breeds or breed mixes are overrepresented in the shelters. The numbers of Labrador retrievers in the two samples are roughly comparable, suggesting that they showed up at these shelters in proportion to their prevalence in the community. As might be expected, almost all cats were classified by hair length. Domestic short hair cats comprised 68% of the population, 15.2% were domestic medium hair, and 9.8% were described as domestic long hair. Standard breed designations were given to 424 (5.6%), of which 277 were Siamese. Of the 424 cats, 216 had no secondary breed designation, suggesting that 2.9% of the cats at the two shelters were purebred. In contrast, Pet Ownership survey respondents reported that 18.9% of their cats were purebred. DISCUSSION Researchers (Patronek, 1997; Patronek & Rowan, 1995; Scarlett et al., 1999) have called for local as well as national data on animal shelter populations, pointing out that the former provide information on regional differences in types and severity of problems. Local data also can help communities develop responses targeted to their needs. This project provides such information and looks at differences in shelter utilization within one large Midwestern city. Comparing the population at a humane society to that of an animal control shelter in the same geographic area reveals variations in how different types of unwanted animals are dealt with, and may suggest that the public has different images and expectations of the two shelters. A study of a single community is limited, however, because its findings may not apply to similar types of shelters in other locations. This study focused on shel-

11 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDWESTERN SHELTER ANIMALS 113 tered animals, and its results cannot be generalized to at-large, feral, or other community populations. Finally, archival records were used, limiting the researcher to the data and categorization systems employed by the respective agencies. As is the case in many other open admission shelters, the two Wichita facilities received and cared for a large number of animals. The seasonal pattern of incoming animals was comparable at the two shelters, summer months being the high point. Patronek, Glickman, and Moyer (1995) found a similar pattern and suggested that, for dogs, this may be related to numbers running at large. Such an interpretation easily can apply to Animal Control pick-ups. The high summer influx at the Humane Society probably is linked more closely to the shelter s receiving many very young animals. The running-at-large explanation also may apply because greater numbers of private citizens, the main source of Humane Society animals, spend time outdoors in the summer and thus are more likely to find, capture, and relinquish a stray animal. Relinquishment or abandonment of adult, especially young adult, animals is a substantial component of the pet overpopulation problem (Salman et al., 1998). The same is true in this case, where adults comprised more than 65% of the dogs and close to 50% of the cats. Animal Control, probably because of its presence on the streets, handled over two thirds of the adult dogs. In both shelters combined, male dogs outnumbered females, largely because of their numbers at the Animal Control facility and thus correlated with being picked up as running at large. In contrast, respondents to the Pet Ownership Study reported having significantly more female dogs than male dogs. Owners also reported that almost all of their pets were altered, whereas such was the case for few of the shelter animals. These data are limited because spay or neuter information was unavailable for 60% of the dogs and 45% of the cats. However, they do mirror those of other studies in finding that males and unaltered animals comprise significant proportions of shelter populations (Patronek, Glickman, Beck, McCabe, & Ecker, 1996a, 1996b; Patronek et al., 1995; Salman et al., 1998). The need for spaying or neutering to become more widely accepted in this community is especially evident with reference to cats: Nearly half of the felines entering shelters were 5 months or younger. Comparison to the Pet Ownership Study, in which kittens were only 15% of the owned cats and puppies only 9% of the owned dogs, suggests that these shelters are functioning as repositories for the community s unwanted litters. This issue is especially critical for the Humane Society, which received 75% of the kittens and 61% of the puppies sheltered during the year. German shepherds, Labrador retrievers, chow chows, and rottweilers predominated in both facilities, entering both as strays and as owner-relinquished animals. Patronek et al. (1995) found Labrador retrievers, German shepherds, golden retrievers, and beagles to be the top four breeds at the shelter they studied. This difference may provide evidence supporting the call for local data and the study of regional variations in animal populations. It should be noted, however, that breed informa-

12 114 SHORE AND GIRRENS tion in the two studies was based on different samples. Patronek et al. (1997) looked only at purebreds, whereas we looked at both purebred and mixed breed dogs. Compared to breeds reported in the Pet Ownership Study, German shepherds, chow chows, and rottweilers are overrepresented in relation to their prevalence in the community. Thus, these breeds, although popular, may be more problematical for owners. Therefore, it might help to target prevention and education efforts toward owners or potential owners of these breeds. The similarities and differences between the two shelters affect staff job descriptions and the challenges that they face from both the animals and the humans involved. Animal Control officers worked mainly with strays animals not under human control about whose behavior and history little or nothing is known. Animal Control also handled more rabies-suspect, bite, and sick and injured animals. In contrast, private citizens, who generally had the animals under control and could provide information about them, had brought almost all of the Humane Society animals to the shelter. The Humane Society received more returns of recently adopted animals and more citizen requests for pet euthanasia. Contact with such large numbers of citizens, many of whom are upset and highly reactive (DiGiacomo, Arluke, & Patronek, 1998), can be stressful and time consuming. Both Animal Control officers and the Humane Society staff must deal with upset citizens, albeit often in very different contexts on the street or on private property versus at a shelter. In terms of the role they play in their communities and, in large part, their philosophies and values, Humane Societies and Animal Control agencies are cousins (Arkow, 1991, p. 1167). That word seems particularly apt as it connotes both kinship and difference, both of which are seen in the shelters studied here. It might prove cost-effective and mutually beneficial for the cousins to work together on prevention initiatives, educational programs, and staff training needs that overlap, while each develops separate approaches to issues of greater individual concern. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by a grant from the Edith J. Goode Residuary Trust for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We thank Sheri Canfield, Dennis Graves, and the staff at the Kansas Humane Society and Wichita Animal Control for their assistance and cooperation. REFERENCES Arkow, P. (1991). Animal control laws and enforcement. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 198,

13 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIDWESTERN SHELTER ANIMALS 115 DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. (1998). Surrendering pets to shelters: The relinquisher s perspective. Anthrozoös, 11, Helyar, T. (Ed.). (1998). Kansas statistical abstract Lawrence: Institute for Public Policy and Research, University of Kansas School of Business. Moulton, C., Wright, P., & Rindy, K. (1991). The role of animal shelters in controlling pet overpopulation. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 198, New, J. C., Salman, M. D., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., Vaughn, J. A., Scherr, S., & Kelch, W. J. (1999). Moving: Characteristics of dogs and cats and those relinquishing them to 12 U.S. animal shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2, Patronek, G. J. (1997, September). Adoption and relinquishment: Issues for shelters and rescue groups in the 21st century. Presentation to the Michigan Purebred Dog Rescue Alliance, Ann Arbor. Patronek, G. J., Beck, A. M., & Glickman, L. T. (1997). Dynamics of dog and cat populations in a community. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 210, Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Ecker, C. (1996a). Risk factors for relinquishment of cats to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 209, Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Ecker, C. (1996b). Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 209, Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., & Moyer, M. (1995). Population dynamics and risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös, 8, Patronek, G. J., & Rowan, A. N. (1995). Determining dog and cat numbers and population dynamics. Anthrozoös, 8, Salman, M. D., New, J. G., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., Ruch-Gallie, R., & Hetts, S. (1998). Human and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, Scarlett, J. M., Salman, M. D., New, J. G., & Kass, P. H. (1999). Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal shelters: Selected health and personal issues. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2,