Amelia J. Cook a & Emily McCobb a a Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings

This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 09 June 2015, At: 10:41 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/haaw20 Quantifying the Shelter Rabbit Population: An Analysis of Massachusetts and Rhode Island Animal Shelters Amelia J. Cook a & Emily McCobb a a Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University Published online: 25 Sep 2012. To cite this article: Amelia J. Cook & Emily McCobb (2012) Quantifying the Shelter Rabbit Population: An Analysis of Massachusetts and Rhode Island Animal Shelters, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 15:4, 297-312, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2012.709084 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2012.709084 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. 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 http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 15:297 312, 2012 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1088-8705 print/1532-7604 online DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2012.709084 ARTICLES Quantifying the Shelter Rabbit Population: An Analysis of Massachusetts and Rhode Island Animal Shelters Amelia J. Cook and Emily McCobb Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University Scholarly work on the nonhuman animal shelter population has widely focused on cats and dogs. As a result, little is known about the population dynamics of domestic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in shelters. The records from 4 companion animal shelters in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were analyzed to describe these dynamics. A majority of the rabbits at the 4 shelters were surrendered by their caregivers, were between 1 and 6 years old, and were unaltered at the time of intake. The most common reasons for surrender were the caregivers inability to care for the rabbits or a lack of interest in doing so. Over half of the total rabbit population was subsequently adopted and the overall live release rate (percentage of rabbits leaving the shelter alive) was 75.54%. In some cases, the use of a foster care system was correlated with a decrease in the euthanasia rate. The results from this study will help the sheltering field clarify the scope of the problem of homeless rabbits. There are currently an estimated 72 million dogs and 81 million cats who are nonhuman companion animals in the United States, with 6 to 8 million entering animal shelters each year (American Veterinary Medical Association, Correspondence should be sent to Emily McCobb, Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA 01536. Email: emily.mccobb@tufts.edu 297

298 COOK AND MCCOBB 2011; Humane Society of the United States, 2009). Although cats and dogs still remain the most popular companion animals, another pet who has become increasingly popular is the domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). The current estimated United States pet rabbit population is 6.2 million, an increase of almost 1 million since 2001 (Shepherd, 2008). As the caregiving (ownership) of pet rabbits has risen, the rabbit shelter population has risen as well (Cotter, 2001; Humane Society of the United States, 2010). Data on the intake, euthanasia, and adoption rates of shelter rabbits have not been previously collected and therefore the scope of the problem of unwanted rabbits remains largely unknown. Although scholarly research on pet rabbits in the United States is scarce, several studies have examined pet rabbit care in Europe. For example, researchers used a combination of field observations and an Internet survey to explore the housing and behaviors of pet rabbits in the Netherlands in 911 households (Schepers, Koene, & Beerda, 2009). Over half (58%) of the rabbits were kept outdoors, with 35% kept as indoor pets and 7% as both outdoor and indoor pets. The average age of the rabbits was 2.8 years. Overall the researchers found that many of the rabbits in the study showed signs of poor welfare. Both owner reports and direct observations revealed that the rabbits regularly displayed stereotypic behaviors, were housed in cages too small, and were fed inappropriate diets. A similar study assessed the welfare of 102 pet rabbits in England using owner interviews and behavioral observations of the rabbits. An overwhelming majority of the rabbits lived primarily outdoors, with only 4% of caregivers identifying their rabbits as full-time house rabbits. A total of 49% of the rabbits were bought for children; however, the caregivers indicated that adults were the rabbit s primary caretaker in 74% of the cases. Over half (57.84%) of the rabbits were altered (Mullan & Main, 2006).When they were asked to describe their rabbits personalities, the caregivers used a wide array of terms, such as friendly and inquisitive. Although there were certain deficits in the care of the rabbits, the caregivers also appeared to have a bond with their rabbits and saw them as complex animals. Very little is known about the population dynamics of rabbits in nonhuman animal shelters. According to the Humane Society of the United States, the American Humane Association, and the House Rabbit Society, rabbits are believed to be the third most surrendered pet to animal shelters (Cotter, 2001; Humane Society of the United States, 2010). Anecdotal reports suggest that rabbits are surrendered to shelters for a variety of reasons, including the child lost interest, I m too busy, and I didn t realize how much work the rabbit would be (Antoniades, 2005). In fact, a recent United Kingdom study of people purchasing rabbits at a pet store found that the respondents generally had limited knowledge of the needs of rabbits (Edgar & Mullan, 2011, p. 356). As a result, when uninformed owners are faced with the daily reality of rabbit care and maintenance, the rabbit often ends up in a shelter (Cotter, 2001, p. 18).

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 299 Once they have been taken in by a shelter, rabbits can pose a challenge to shelter personnel. The public may not necessarily equate animal shelter with any species other than dogs and cats. Pet caregivers interested in acquiring a rabbit may not think to look at a shelter and as a result shelters can experience a slow turnover rate for their rabbits. For some shelter managers, it becomes difficult to continue to maintain those animals [rabbits] and give them what they need on a consistent basis (Antoniades, 2006, p. 1). According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, roughly 70 million dogs and 80 million cats are currently owned in the United States, yet determining the amount of owned cats and dogs that enter the shelter system has proven difficult (Clancy & Rowan, 2003; Shepherd, 2008). Shelter population dynamics can vary widely by geographical region, type and size of shelter, and species (Scarlett, 2004). As a result, estimates of national intake, adoption, and euthanasia rates of dogs and cats vary widely. For example, in the early 1990s the national euthanasia estimates for dogs and cats ranged from 5 to 18 million per year (Nassar, Talboy, & Moulton, 1992; Patronek & Rowan, 1995; Scarlett, 2004). More current estimates put the number of cats and dogs euthanized by shelters each year at 3 to 4 million (Humane Society of the United States, 2009). Adoption estimates are just as varied, with rates for some open admissions shelters at 25% to 51.4% at others (Patronek, Glickman, & Moyer, 1995; Zawistowski, Morris, Salman, & Ruch-Gallie, 1998). Without accurate and consistent data it can be hard for shelters to evaluate programs and plan for new interventions to decrease their intake and euthanasia rates and increase adoptions (Clancy & Rowan, 2003). So far, attempts to address the issue by collecting accurate data and standardizing the record-keeping process have primarily focused on dogs and cats. For example, the Asilomar Accords deal with developing consistent reporting strategies among shelters for dog and cat intake, adoption, and disposition rates (Asilomar Accords, 2004). Surveys done by the National Council on Pet Population and Study, as well as numerous smaller regional studies, have just focused on quantifying and describing cat and dog shelter populations (Clancy & Rowan, 2003; Zawistowski et al., 1998). Given the fact that rabbits could be the third most common surrendered animal to shelters, it is important to collect shelter population data for rabbits as well. These data will clarify the scope of the problem of unwanted and abandoned rabbits. Anecdotal reports suggest that large numbers of rabbits are surrendered to shelters, but no statistics are available to confirm this claim. Therefore, the goal of this study was to collect data on rabbit populations at four Southern New England animal shelters. The main objective of this work was to bring attention to an understudied population within the humane field and to answer how and why rabbits enter shelters and what happens to them after they enter the sheltering system.

300 COOK AND MCCOBB METHODS Study Sites Data were collected on the rabbit population at four nonhuman animal shelters in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. All shelters included in the study were members of their respective state s federation or coalition of humane societies, kept electronic records on their animals, and accepted rabbits. Site 1 was a medium-size facility located in the suburb of Middletown, RI, that consisted of one branch. Site 1 serves Newport County, RI, which has an estimated population of 85,000 people (A. Chamard, personal communication, February 16, 2012). Site 2 was a smaller shelter that also consisted of one branch located in Providence, RI, a city with an estimated population of 178,042 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Sites 3 and 4 were large facilities with shelters in Boston as well as several Massachusetts suburbs; therefore, they serve many communities throughout the region. Currently Site 3 has three branches and Site 4 has four; however, during the study period both organizations had additional branches that have since closed. Site 4 had two other branches that closed in 2009. In 2007, Site 3 closed a shelter branch as well as a summer camp that housed some of their adoptable rabbits. All four participating shelters require potential rabbit adopters to fill out a small-animal adoption application, provide proof of home ownership or landlord approval, and pay an adoption fee. The current rabbit adoption fees for the four shelters are (a) Site 1: $45.00, (b) Site 2: $45.00, (c) Site 3: $60.00, and (d) Site 4: fees range from $55.00 to $75.00 based on the branch. These fees include spay/neuter surgery, which is currently required before adoption at all the study sites. Site 1 only began requiring spay/neuter prior to adoption for rabbits in 2006. Three of the shelters are private, nonprofit open-admission animal shelters. The remaining site is considered a planned admissions facility, meaning clients are asked to schedule an appointment before bringing an animal in to the shelter. In general, decisions at the four shelters on whether to euthanize an animal are based on the health and temperament of the animal and in some cases, the space available at the shelter. In addition to rabbits the study sites accept a variety of species, including cats, dogs, birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Both Sites 3 and 4 have at least one branch that accepts animals typically found on the farm. Data Collection and Analysis The rabbit records from a 6-year period (January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2010) were collected from each of the four shelters. These years were

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 301 chosen because they provided a recent look at the trends in rabbit population dynamics for the study sites. The following data on all the rabbits taken in at the four shelters were collected during the study period: the intake date, the intake category (surrender, stray, etc.), the intake reason, the outcome category (adopted, euthanized, etc.), outcome date, age, and whether the rabbit was already altered upon intake. Incomplete records, rabbits identified as wild, cremation requests, dead on arrival, or rabbits being boarded were excluded from analysis. Owner-requested euthanasias were also excluded but reported separately. Intake and outcome categories were defined using American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) guidelines on shelter definitions. Using this scheme, returns were defined as rabbits brought back to the shelter within 30 days of being adopted from the same shelter. Those who were brought back after 30 days were considered owner surrenders. Rabbits born at the shelter or in foster care were listed as owner surrenders if their mothers had originally been surrendered by their owners. Information on the reason for relinquishment for all owner-surrendered and owner-returned rabbits (excluding rabbits born at the shelter) was collected. The reason for relinquishment was broken down into six categories, which are shown in Table 1. Age was coded as both a continuous and categorical variable, with the categories based on the average life span of 7 to 10 years for an indoor domestic rabbit (Cotter, 2001). Therefore, young rabbits were defined as those less than 1 year old, adults were those between 1 and 6 years, and older rabbits were those over 6 years. The length of stay for each rabbit was calculated, with the length set to 1 day for those rabbits entering and exiting the shelter system on the same calendar day. The live release rate (LRR) was also determined for each shelter. The LRR was calculated by dividing the total live outcomes TABLE 1 Categories of Reason for Relinquishment Reason Rabbit related Housing issues Owner problem Too many Inability to care for or lack of interest Other Description Destructive behaviors, etc. Moving, landlord wouldn t allow, etc. Allergies, pregnancy, illness or death in the family, etc. Too many rabbits No time, cost of rabbit, children lost interest, and no longer wanted Problems with other animal in house, children afraid of rabbit, and other miscellaneous reasons

302 COOK AND MCCOBB TABLE 2 Total Rabbit Intake for All Study Sites Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Site 1 63 51 35 23 58 43 273 Site 2 9 a 10 19 15 29 37 119 Site 3 236 218 164 139 139 119 1,015 Site 4 707 812 688 725 590 479 4,001 Total 1,015 1,091 906 902 816 678 5,408 a May 2005 through December 2005. (adopted, transferred, or returned to owner) by all total outcomes (excluding owner-requested euthanasia and returns; ASPCA, n.d.). The data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2007 and descriptive statistics were calculated. Percentages were used to describe intake and outcomes, spay/ neuter status, reasons for relinquishment, and LRR. Measurements of central tendency and range were calculated for length of stay and age of the rabbits. A linear correlation test was conducted to evaluate the amount of rabbits fostered versus euthanized for one of the study sites. Chi-square tests, with a significant p value at <.05, were used to assess variation in the number of monthly intakes at each of the four sites. Total Intake RESULTS Total intake of rabbits for all four study sites, excluding owner-requested euthanasias and rabbits in the wild, is presented in Table 2. Due to changes in the computer software used by the shelter, data from Site 2 were only available starting in May 2005. Intake Type The intake category for all the rabbits from each shelter is presented in Table 3. Although the data were not included in the totals or analysis, the number of rabbits brought in by their caregivers specifically to be euthanized was noted. At Site 1, 1 additional rabbit was brought in over the 6-year period by the caregiver specifically to be euthanized, 3 were brought into Site 2, an additional 70 rabbits to Site 3, and an additional 160 rabbits to Site 4.

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 303 TABLE 3 Intake Type Type Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Total Owner surrender 233 (85.38%) 105 (88.24%) 625 (61.58%) 3,215 (80.35%) 4,178 (77.26%) Stray 34 (12.45%) 11 (9.24%) 255 (25.12%) 544 (13.60%) 844 (15.61%) Returned 5 (1.83%) 1 (.84%) 2 (.20%) 65 (1.62%) 73 (1.35%) Abandoned 1 (.37%) 2 (1.68%) 0 (0%) 36 (.90%) 39 (.72%) Transfer 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 43 (4.24%) 44 (1.10%) 87 (1.61%) Law enforcement 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 90 (8.87%) 97 (2.42%) 187 (3.46%) Total 273 (100%) 119 (100%) 1,015 (100%) 4,001 (100%) 5,408 (100%) Note. Abandoned D rabbit was left on shelter grounds; Transfer D rabbit was sent to another shelter or rescue group; Law enforcement D rabbit was seized by animal control or law enforcement officials due to poor care, hoarding, criminal case, etc. Intake Comparisons How the number of rabbit intakes ranked compared with other animals taken in at each shelter is presented in Table 4. Reason for Relinquishment The reason for relinquishment was analyzed for owner-surrendered and ownerreturned rabbits, and the results are shown in Table 5. Cases where a reason for relinquishment was not provided were excluded. Monthly Trends and Length of Stay The length of stay for the rabbits at each of the four sites is shown in Figure 1. The median length of stay for rabbits at Site 1 was 24 days, 29 days at Site 2, TABLE 4 Rank Order of Rabbit Intake Numbers Compared With Other Animals for All Study Sites Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Site 1 3 3 4 5 3 3 Site 2 Not available 5 4 3 3 Not available Site 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Site 4 3/4 a 3 3 3/4 a 3/4 a 4 a Rabbits had the third highest intake when including caged pet birds but were fourth when farm birds (chickens, geese, etc.) were included.

304 COOK AND MCCOBB TABLE 5 Reason for Relinquishment for 4,086 Rabbits at the Four Study Sites Reason Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Total Rabbit-related problem 5 (2.17%) 3 (3.00%) 20 (2.85% ) 110 (3.60%) 138 (3.38%) Housing issues 47 (20.43%) 37 (37%) 150 (21.40%) 667 (21.83%) 901 (22.05%) Owner-related 44 (19.13%) 20 (20%) 94 (13.41%) 580 (18.99%) 738 (18.06%) problem Too many 30 (13.04%) 9 (9.00%) 203 (28.96%) 641 (20.98%) 883 (21.61%) Inability to care for/lack of interest 73 (31.74%) 25 (25.00%) 203 (28.96%) 810 (26.51%) 1,111 (27.19%) Other 31 (13.48%) 6 (6.00%) 31 (4.42%) 247 (8.09%) 315 (7.71%) Total 230 (100%) 100 (100%) 701 (100%) 3,055 (100%) 4,086 (100%) 34 days at Site 3, and 26 days at Site 4. The range in length of stay for Site 1 was 1 to 273 days, 1 to 241 days for Site 2, 1 to 339 days for Site 3, and 1 to 635 days for Site 4. The seasonal trends in intake can be seen in Figure 2. The median number of rabbits taken in per month at Site 1 was 22.5, 8 at Site 2, 81.5 at Site 3, and 310 at Site 4. For Site 1 the month with the highest intake was June and the lowest intake was March. For Site 2 the highest intake was May and the lowest was July. At Site 3 the highest was October and the lowest were June and November, and at Site 4 the highest was July and the lowest was April. FIGURE 1 Length of stay for rabbits at four study sites.

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 305 FIGURE 2 Total number of rabbits received per month. The effect of month on rabbit intake at Sites 3 and 4 was statistically significant (p D.0001) but not at Sites 1 and 2 (p D.13, p D.21). Gender and Age Distribution Whether the incoming rabbits were already spayed/neutered was examined. At the time of intake, gender was known for 265 (97%) of the rabbits at Site 1, for 113 (94.56%) at Site 2, and for 3,704 (92.58%) of the total incoming rabbit population at Site 4. Given the limitations with Site 3 s software system, data on gender could only be collected for 2010. For that year, the spay/neuter status was available for 113 (97.48%) of the incoming rabbits. The percentage of rabbits unaltered at intake is presented in Table 6. Estimated age was available for 219 (80%) of the rabbits at Site 1, 101 (85%) at Site 2, 922 (97.73%) at Site 3, and 3,094 (77.33%) of the rabbits at Site 4. The distribution of the rabbits ages in presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 Characteristics of Rabbits at the Four Sites Characteristic Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Total Young 87 (39.73%) 35 (34.65%) 320 (32.36%) 34 (1.10%) 476 (10.80%) Adult 129 (58.90%) 66 (65.63%) 668 (67.34%) 2,270 (73.37%) 3,133 (71.11%) Older 3 (1.37%) 0 (0%) 4 (.40%) 790 (25.53%) 797 (18.09%) Average age 1.55 years old ( 1.42) 2 years old ( 1.66) 1.6 years old ( 1.26) 4.88 years old ( 2.30) 3.87 years old ( 2.55) Unaltered 219 (82.64%) 101 (84.47%) 95 a (81.90%) 3,005 (81.13%) 3,420 (81.53%) a Data from 2010 only.

306 COOK AND MCCOBB TABLE 7 Outcomes for 5,408 Rabbits at the Four Sites Outcome Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Total Adopted 218 (79.85%) 70 (58.82%) 577 (56.85%) 2,343 (58.56%) 3,208 (59.32%) Euthanized 39 (14.29%) 7 (5.88%) 271 (26.70%) 906 (22.64%) 1,223 (22.61%) Died 3 (1.10%) 6 (5.04%) 15 (1.48%) 49 (1.22%) 73 (1.35%) Missing 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (.10%) 7 (.17%) 8 (.15%) RTO/Reclaim 2 (.73%) 6 (5.04%) 29 (2.86%) 41 (1.02%) 78 (1.44%) Transferred 11 (4.03%) 30 (25.61%) 121 (11.92%) 653 (16.32%) 815 (15.07%) Still available 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (.10%) 2 (.05%) 3 (.06%) Total 273 (100%) 119 (100%) 1,015 (100%) 4,001 (100%) 5,408 (100%) LRR 84.33% 88.98% 71.64% 75.55% 75.54% RTO D return to owner; LRR D live release rate. Foster Care Eight rabbits spent some time in foster homes during their stays at Site 1. Site 2 did not send any rabbits into foster care during the 6-year period. Over the study period, 36 rabbits, or 3.55% of the total population, spent some time in foster care at Site 3. Site 4 often used foster care as a way to manage its rabbit population during the study period, with 667 (16.67%) rabbits spending time in foster care while they were under the shelter s care. Site 4 s use of foster care also increased throughout the study period, with 237 rabbits spending time in foster care from 2005 to 2007 and 430 from 2008 through 2010. The correlation between the number of rabbits fostered versus the number euthanized per year at Site 4 was found to be statistically significant (r D 0.893, p D.0164). Outcome The outcomes and LRR for each site can be seen in Table 7. DISCUSSION The number of rabbits taken in over a 6-year period at each of the four shelters ranged from 119 to 4,001. The two sites in Rhode Island received substantially fewer rabbits than the two in Massachusetts. This difference is likely due to the smaller geographic size and population of Rhode Island and the larger shelter size of the two Massachusetts facilities. An overwhelming majority (77.26%) of the incoming rabbits at all sites were surrendered by their caregivers. This finding contrasts to the literature that suggests that owner-surrendered cats and dogs do not make up the bulk of

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 307 incoming animals at shelters (Patronek et al., 1995; Wenstrup & Dowidchuk, 1999). The larger percentage of rabbits surrendered by their caregivers may be at least partially related to the fact that it could be harder for rabbits to escape as they are sometimes kept in cages without access to an exit from the house. This higher rate could also be due to the geographical region of this study. Unpublished data from Massachusetts found that 73% of dogs were surrendered by their caregivers, which is a higher rate than studies done in other areas of the country (Clancy, Birkholz, & Luke, 1996). The next most common type of intake was stray rabbits. The percentage of strays taken in by Site 3 was notably higher than the other sites, yet the reason for this difference is unknown. Sites 3 and 4 serve similar populations in similar types of geographic areas, but the percentage of strays was higher only at Site 3. It is possible that for some reason people are more likely to bring in a stray rabbit to Site 3. Whether the higher rate of stray intake at Site 3 is true across all species is also unknown. At all four shelters a large percentage (81.47%) of rabbits was unaltered at time of intake. In comparison, Salman et al. (1998) found that slightly over half (54.7%) of the dogs in a survey of 12 animal shelters across the United States were intact, and fewer than half (46.8%) of the cats were unaltered. Rabbit caregivers thus appear to be much less likely to get their rabbits spayed and neutered than dog and cat caregivers. Potential reasons that rabbit caregivers fail to spay or neuter their pets could be that they are unaware of the health and behavioral benefits of doing so, want to breed their rabbits, are unable to afford the cost of the procedure, do not bring their rabbits to a veterinarian, or there is a lack of available veterinarians comfortable performing spay and neuter on rabbits. In fact, in a study of United Kingdom pet stores, researchers found that people who decided to purchase a rabbit that same day were less likely to have plans to get their rabbit altered than those individuals who had planned ahead of time to acquire a rabbit. The most common reason (95%) for not neutering was that the rabbit would have no access to rabbits of the opposite sex (Edgar & Mullan, 2011, p. 354). The percentage of unaltered rabbits in this study was much higher than the percentage (57.84%) of unaltered pet rabbits in the United Kingdom (Mullan & Main, 2006). This difference could be due to a divergence in cultural attitudes toward keeping rabbits as pets or the importance of spaying and neutering. The difference may also suggest that unaltered rabbits are more likely to be surrendered to shelters than sterilized rabbits. All of the rabbits at the participating shelters do end up being sterilized when they are adopted. However, not all animal shelters across the region or country surgically alter their rabbits for a variety of reasons, including cost and a lack of qualified veterinarians to perform the procedure (L. Hamrick, personal communication, July 11, 2011). Increased training for veterinary students on spaying and neutering rabbits could lead to more awareness among rabbit caregivers of

308 COOK AND MCCOBB the benefits of sterilizing their pets and an increased access to such services. It may also make it easier for shelters to do their part promoting responsible pet ownership. Because a majority of shelters now alter dogs and cats at adoption, spaying and neutering rabbits as well would be a more responsible action on the part of animal shelters. At all four sites, adult rabbits (1 to 6 years old) made up the largest share (71.11%) of the total rabbit population. At Sites 1 through 3, the remainder tended to be younger rabbits. These findings are consistent with studies done on dogs and cats, which found that most surrendered animals are adults (Patronek et al., 1995; Wenstrup & Dowidchuk, 1999). Site 4 s age distribution differed from the others in that they had very few young rabbits (under a year) and a higher rate of older rabbits (over 6 years old) than the other shelters. Whether the higher number of older rabbits and lower number of young rabbits are actual trends occurring at Site 4 or whether it is a reporting error is unknown. In this study, the most common reasons for surrendering a rabbit were an inability or lack of desire to care for the rabbit(s). This finding suggests that pet caregivers may not understand and be prepared for the amount of work that caring for a pet rabbit will entail. Other common reasons given for surrender included housing-related issues and having too many rabbits. The problem of too many rabbits (21.61%) combined with the high rate of unaltered rabbits turned over to animal shelters reflects the need for more education about spaying/neutering pet rabbits as well as the increased availability of spay/neuter services. More veterinary training in this area would also help alleviate this issue. Housing-related issues, including moving and problems with landlords, are common reasons for relinquishment among dogs and cats (Salman et al., 1998). However, unlike cats and dogs, behavioral issues were not a common reason for relinquishment among rabbits. It is possible that rabbit caregivers do not identify certain behaviors as problematic or are afraid that if they mentioned a problem, it would hurt the animal s chance of being put up for adoption. Also, because rabbits are generally confined, behavioral problems might not be perceived as problematic by their caregivers. The number of rabbits received at the four sites varied monthly, with the variation being statistically significant for Sites 3 and 4. At Site 3, the month with the highest overall intake was February. However, it is important to note that this is due to a hoarding case from February 2005. When this case is taken out of the total intake, February actually becomes the month with the lowest overall intake for Site 3. Within the sheltering community there is a widely held belief that rabbit intakes increase considerably in the months following Easter (Antoniades, 2005). Overall, our findings did not definitively support this belief. There was a slight increase in intake in May at all four study sites, but it was not found to be statistically significant. Whether this slight increase was due to unwanted Easter rabbits being surrendered is unclear.

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 309 There was a wide range in the lengths of stay for individual rabbits at each of the shelters, from as few as 1 day at all four sites to a maximum of 634 at Site 4. However, a majority (ranging from 78.15 to 91.94%, depending on the study site) of the rabbits at the four sites were there for 3 months or less. The median length of stay for rabbits appeared to be longer than the stay for cats and dogs, indicating that shelters need to do more to increase rabbit adoptions. For example, at Site 3, during the study period the median length of stay for cats ranged from 15 to 23 days and from 9 to 18 days for dogs (H. Mulligan, personal communication, July 27, 2011). Over half (59.32%) of the total rabbit population under study were adopted, with adoption rates ranging from a high of 79.85% at Site 1 to a low of 56.85% at Site 3. Although Site 2 had a lower adoption rate of 58.82%, it had the highest LRR due to the frequency in which it transferred rabbits out of the shelter and into rescue groups. The rabbit LRR at Site 2 was higher than its LRR for cats (69.21%) and only slightly lower than the LRR for dogs (90.45%). The overall LRR for the rabbits at the four sites was higher than the rates reported in the literature for cats and was both higher and lower than the various published LRR for dogs (Morris, Wolf, & Gies, 2011; Patronek et al., 1995). Almost a quarter (22.61%) of the rabbits at all four sites combined were euthanized. This euthanasia rate is lower than the reported rate for dogs and cats in the literature, which ranges from 52% to 71.9%, with cats generally having higher rates than dogs (Wenstrup & Dowidchuk, 1999; Zawistowski et al., 1998). The percentage of cats and dogs euthanized over the study period at Site 1 also showed that cats had a higher euthanasia rate (16.6%) than the rabbits (14.29%); the dogs had a lower euthanasia rate (10%; A. Chamard, personal communication, August 15, 2011). Unpublished data from Massachusetts from 1995 put the euthanasia rate at 34% for dogs and cats combined, suggesting that the euthanasia rate may be lower in this part of the country (Clancy et al., 1996). In this study, rabbits were infrequently brought to shelters for owner-requested euthanasia (4.15% of the total rabbit intake). This rate is lower than rates reported in the literature for dogs and cats (Kass, New, Scarlett, & Salman, 2001; Patronek et al., 1995). A foster care system was not used to manage the shelter rabbit population at Site 2. However, although Site 2 did not send rabbits into foster care, they did transfer out a large percentage (25.61%) of their rabbits. Foster homes were not commonly utilized at Site 1, with 0.29% of their rabbits spending time in foster care. At Site 3, 3.55% of rabbits spent time in a foster home. Shelters may not use foster homes for rabbits because they have the capacity to house the number of rabbits they receive. Site 4 had the highest rate of foster care usage among all the sites, with 16.67 % of the rabbits spending some time in a foster home. Over the study period, Site 4 s use of foster homes increased while

310 COOK AND MCCOBB their euthanasia rate decreased. There was a statistically significant correlation between the use of foster care at this site and a decrease in rabbit euthanasia. At this shelter, the use of foster homes appears to have been a successful strategy to decrease the euthanasia rate for rabbits. It was not surprising that dogs and cats made up the majority of animals taken in by all four shelters in this study. Although rabbits are commonly believed to be the third most common animal in shelters, this was not always the case at the four sites under study. During some years, bird intake rates were slightly higher than rabbit intake rates, suggesting that birds may also be an understudied shelter population. As rabbits make up a small subset of the shelter population, shelter workers may have a tendency to overlook their needs, potentially impacting rabbit welfare. The results of this study cannot be generalized to the rabbit population dynamics on a national level because the characteristics analyzed in this study may be quite different at other animal shelters. For example, some shelters do not attempt to place rabbits at all and instead euthanize them on intake (Davis & DeMello, 2003). Several studies in the literature on dog and cat shelter populations acknowledge an apparent regional difference in population dynamics, and this same variation may be true for rabbits (Clancy & Rowan, 2003). In addition, like all studies of this type, this study relied on the rabbit data entered by shelter personnel with the inherent limitations of owner reporting bias and the possibility of errors. Conclusions and Future Research The findings of this study are the first of their kind on a much understudied animal shelter population as this is the first piece of scholarly work characterizing rabbits at United States animal shelters. Overall, the data from the four study sites were remarkably consistent, which suggests that the findings represent the shelter rabbit population in this region of the country. The fact that a majority of the rabbits were unaltered implies that there is a need for more affordable and accessible spay and neuter services for rabbits as well as education on the benefits of the procedures. In addition, the majority of rabbits were surrendered by their caregivers for reasons unrelated to the rabbits behavior, and this owner surrender rate is higher than the rate for dogs and cats reported in the literature. This finding suggests that the humane and sheltering community as well as the pet retail industry need to increase their efforts to educate the public about the needs of rabbits. This education would help potential rabbit caregivers have more realistic expectations of their pet rabbits, which could improve rabbit welfare. Future work should be done to collect more basic descriptive statistics on the rabbit population dynamics at other shelters across the country. This information will help to create a more comprehensive picture of the overall state of rabbits

QUANTIFYING THE SHELTER RABBIT POPULATION 311 in animal shelters, which could help to improve the management and welfare of rabbits at nonhuman animal shelters. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. Allen Rutberg for his guidance in developing this study and assistance with data analysis. We also thank all of the shelter personnel for their participation and cooperation. REFERENCES American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (n.d.). $100K challenge data definitions. Retrieved from http://challenge.aspcapro.org American Veterinary Medical Association. (2011). Market research statistics: U.S. pet ownership 2007. Retrieved from http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp Antoniades, K. (2005). Bunny basics. Retrieved from http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_ library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2005/bunny_basics.html Antoniades, K. (2006). Bunny adoptions: Helping humans cohabit with rabbits. Retrieved from http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/may_jun_2006/helping_ humans_cohabit_with_rabbits.html Asilomar Accords. (2004). The Asilomar Accords. Retrieved from http://www.asilomaraccords.org/ 2004-accords5.pdf Clancy, E. A., Birkholz, E., & Luke, C. J. (1996). Comprehensive models of dog and cat population flows in Massachusetts (Unpublished master s thesis). Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, MA. Clancy, E. A., & Rowan, A. N. (2003). Companion animal demographics in the United States: A historical perspective. In E. A. Clancy & A. N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals II: 2003 (pp. 9 26). Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States. Cotter, M. (2001). Rabbits revisited. Retrieved from http://www.rabbitcare.org/aspca.pdf Davis, S. E., & DeMello, M. (2003). Stories rabbits tell: A natural and cultural history of a misunderstood creature. New York, NY: Lantern. Edgar, J. L., & Mullan, S. M. (2011). Knowledge and attitudes of 52 UK pet rabbit owners at the point of sale. Veterinary Record, 168, 353 358. Humane Society of the United States. (2009). HSUS pet overpopulation estimates. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/overpopulation_estimates.html Humane Society of the United States. (2010). Getting a new rabbit. Retrieved from http://www. humanesociety.org/animals/rabbits/tips/getting_a_rabbit.html Kass, P. H., New, J. C., Jr., Scarlett, J. M., & Salman, M. D. (2001). Understanding animal companion surplus in the United States: Relinquishment of nonadoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 237 248. Morris, K. N., Wolf, J. L., & Gies, D. L. (2011). Trends in intake and outcome data for animal shelters in Colorado, 2000 to 2007. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 238, 329 336. Mullan, S. M., & Main, D. C. J. (2006). Survey of the husbandry, health, and welfare of 102 pet rabbits. Veterinary Record, 159, 10 109.

312 COOK AND MCCOBB Mullan, S. M., & Main, D. C. J. (2007). Behavior and personality of pet rabbits and their interactions with their owners. Veterinary Record, 160, 516 520. Nassar, R., Talboy, J., & Moulton, C. (1992). Animal shelter reporting study 1990. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association. Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., & Moyer, M. R. (1995). Population dynamics and the risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös, 8, 31 43. Patronek, G. J., & Rowan, A. N. (1995). Determining dog and cat numbers and population dynamics. Anthrozoös, 8, 199 205. Salman, M. D., New, J. G., Jr., Scarlett, J. M., Kris, 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, 207 226. Scarlett, J. (2004). Pet population dynamics and animal shelter issues. In L. Miller & S. Zawistowski (Eds.), Shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff (pp. 11 24). Ames, IA: Wiley Blackwell. Schepers, F., Koene, P., & Beerda, B. (2009). Welfare assessment in pet rabbits. Animal Welfare, 18, 477 485. Shepherd, A. J. (2008). Results of the 2006 AVMA survey of companion animal ownership in U.S. pet-owning households. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 232, 695 696. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Providence (city) quickfacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/44/4459000.html Wenstrup, J., & Dowidchuk, A. (1999). Pet overpopulation: Data and measurement issues in shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2, 303 319. Zawistowski, S., Morris, J., Salman, M. D., & Ruch-Gallie, R. (1998). Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion animals: New insights on old and new data. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 193 206.