Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T14:10:45.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The recognition of canine pain behaviours, and potentially hazardous Catch-Neuter-Return practices by animal care professionals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

HJ Bacon ,
H Walters ,
V Vancia  and
N Waran
HJ Bacon*
Affiliation:
Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK
H Walters
Affiliation:
Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK
V Vancia
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Calea Mănăştur 3-5, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
N Waran
Affiliation:
Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Roslin, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK Eastern Institute of Technology, 501 Gloucester St, Taradale, Napier 4112, New Zealand
*
* Contact for correspondence: Heather.Bacon@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assessment of animal welfare is reliant upon the application of animal- and resource-based indicators. Animal-based indicators (physical, physiological and behavioural) are considered to be more representative of an animal's welfare state but are more difficult for an assessor to interpret. In order to build a robust composite framework for the assessment of welfare of dogs (Canis familiaris) within Catch-Neuter-Return (CNR) programmes, including both resource- and animal-based indicators, it is necessary to first evaluate whether appropriate capture and handling techniques plus behavioural, animal-based indicators can be reliably assessed by staff working in CNR programmes. Results of a video-based survey of experienced dog management staff and CNR practitioners are reported and indicate that staff experienced in canine CNR are reliably able to agree on acceptable and unacceptable handling and capture techniques. However, there is only fair agreement between observers in positively recognising pain. Thus, dog welfare in CNR may be at risk unless staff are effectively trained at recognising behavioural indicators of poor welfare including pain behaviours. This paper suggests that non-invasive, visual indicators of pain, such as facial tension and body posture, may be a reliable and effective approach to recognising post-operative pain in street dogs.

Keywords

animal welfareCanis familiarisCatch-Neuter-ReturndogTrap-Neuter-Returnwelfare assessment
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 299 - 306
Copyright
© 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacon, H, Vancia, V, Walters, H and Waran, N 2017 Canine trap-neuter-return: A critical review of potential welfare issues. Animal Welfare 26(3): 281–292. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.3.281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, H and Walters, H 2014 Development of a robust composite canine welfare assessment for dogs in trap-neuter-return programmes. The University of Edinburgh, UK, unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
Barnard, S, Pedernera, C, Velarde, A and Dalla Villa, P 2014 Welfare assessment protocol for shelter dogs. Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise: Teramo, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007 Aggregation of meas-ures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1: 1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, KD 1992 The facial expression of pain. Better than a thou-sand words? APS Journal 1: 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/1058-9139(92)90001-SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Minero, M, Lebelt, D, Stucke, D, Canali, E and Leach, MC 2014 Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine cas-tration. PLoS ONE 9: e92281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Villa, P, Kahn, S, Stuardo, L, Iannetti, L, Di Nardo, A and Serpell, JA 2010 Free-roaming dog control among OIE-member countries. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97: 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 2003 Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of ani-mal welfare. Zoology 106: 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1078/0944-2006-00122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descovich, KA, Wathan, J, Leach, MC, Buchanan-Smith, HM, Flecknell, P, Farningham, D and Vick, S 2017 Facial expression: An under-utilised tool for the assessment of welfare in mammals. ALTEX 34(3): 409–429. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1607161Google ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P and Rosenberg, EL 1997 What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Oxford University Press: USAGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L 1962 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93Google Scholar
Greenaway, S and Reece, J 2013 Investigating pain after ovariohysterecto-my (OHE) surgery in street dogs. British Veterinary Association: London, UK. https://www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Membership_and_bene-fits/Students/bva-travel-grant-report-sam-greenaway-india-2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Grunau, RE, Oberlander, T, Holsti, L and Whitfield, MF 1998 Bedside application of the Neonatal Facial Coding System in pain assessment of premature infants. Pain 76: 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00046-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, CJ, Hiby, EF and Bradshaw, JWS 2007 Assessing quality of life in companion and kennelled dogs: a critical review. Animal Welfare 16: 89–9510.1017/S0962728600031778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiby, E, Atema, KN, Brimley, R, Hammond-Seaman, A, Jones, M, Rowan, A, Fogelberg, E, Kennedy, M, Balaram, D, Nel, L, Cleaveland, S, Hampson, K, Townsend, S, Lembo, T, Rooney, N, Whay, HR, Pritchard, J, Murray, J, van Dijk, L, Waran, N, Bacon, H, Knobel, D, Tasker, L, Baker, C and Hiby, L 2017 Scoping review of indicators and methods of meas-urement used to evaluate the impact of dog population manage-ment interventions. BMC Veterinary Research 13: 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, E, Calvo, G, Collins, M, Bell, A, Reid, J, Scott, EM and Nolan, AM 2014 Evaluation of facial expression in acute pain in cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice 55: 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM) 2007 Humane dog population management guidance. https://www.icam-coalition.org/download/humane-dog-population-management-guidance/Google Scholar
ICAM 2015 A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Dog Population Management Interventions. https://www.icam-coalition.org/down-load/are-we-making-a-difference/Google Scholar
Kahn, S, Stuardo, L and Rahman, S 2007 OIE guidelines on dog population control. Developments in Biologicals 131: 511–516Google Scholar
Keating, SCJ, Thomas, AA, Flecknell, PA and Leach, MC 2012 Evaluation of EMLA cream for preventing pain during tattooing of rabbits: changes in physiological, behavioural and facial expression responses. PLoS ONE 7: e44437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkwood, JK 2003 Welfare, husbandry and veterinary care of wild animals in captivity: changes in attitudes, progress in knowl-edge and techniques. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2003.tb02072.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, MC, Klaus, K, Miller, AL, Scotto di Perrotolo, M, Sotocinal, SG and Flecknell, PA 2012 The assessment of post-vasectomy pain in mice using behaviour and the mouse grimace scale. PLoS ONE 7: e35656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0035656CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lush, J and Ijichi, C 2018 A preliminary investigation into per-sonality and pain in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 24: 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, JW 2012 Best practices in data cleaning: A complete guide to everything you need to do before and after collecting your data. Sage: Broadgate, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452269948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tod, E, Brander, D and Waran, N 2005 Efficacy of dog appeasing pheromone in reducing stress and fear related behaviour in shelter dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J, Dale, A, Waran, N, Clarke, N, Farnworth, M and Wemelsfelder, F 2010 The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a Free Choice Profiling methodology. Animal Welfare 19: 75–8410.1017/S0962728600001196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C, Capdeville, J, Gebresenbet, G, Hörning, B, Roiha, U, Tosi, M and Waiblinger, S 2003 Selection of param-eters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buf-falo. Animal Welfare 12: 619–62410.1017/S0962728600026270CrossRefGoogle Scholar