Editorial: Pets without a Human Family - Brill
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Applied Animal
Ethics Research 1 (2019) 171–176
brill.com/jaae
Editorial: Pets without a Human Family
The second issue of the Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research in 2019 is the
first properly thematic issue of the journal and concerns companion animals,
in particular those who happen to be living outside the context of a (hopefully
loving) human family. The most iconic situation in this regard is that of strays
or pets in rescue shelters, but other situations qualify, such as pedigree dogs
and cats in commercial breeding facilities and pets who become separated
from their families in non-epidemic emergencies (e.g., earthquakes).
It is important to note that the pets counted as strays usually include dif-
ferent types (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2014; Swarbrick & Rand, 2018, for cats). The
most obvious type is that of pets who had a human family and lost it, due to
owner surrender or other causes. Another is that of owned pets who are free
to roam, but there are also animals who belong to a domestic companion ani-
mal species, who have never been part of a human family, as in the case of feral
cats and dogs.
Each of these different types of animals pose different challenges depend-
ing on their number and the geographical, cultural, social, and economical
contexts in which they happen to live. Therefore, the possible strategies to
manage unwanted animals and the related ethical concerns can vary as well.
The first ethical question posed by unwanted pets is whether these animals
should be allowed to exist, and what then are the consequences of their exis-
tence. On the one hand, where the existence of (at least some categories of)
“pets without human families” is deemed unacceptable, the elective strategy
tends to be eradication of the individuals found straying via culling—either
directly on site or by trapping them and then destroying them in different ways
depending on the context. However, this practice has its monetary, psychologi-
cal, and ethical costs, and its efficacy is disputed (Swarbrick & Rand, 2018). On
the other hand, if the existence of (at least some categories of) unwanted pets
is deemed acceptable, what is the best way to manage these animals? A possi-
ble strategy is impoundment in shelters, in which the animals can either be de-
stroyed after a certain amount of time if not claimed, even if they are healthy
or not dangerous (i.e., in “kill” shelters), or be kept there until adoption or
death (i.e., in “no-kill” shelters). As is the case of any other strategy, impound-
ment can have negative implications. The costs of culling healthy animals in
“kill” shelters are similar to those already cited for eradication, but there are
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/25889567-12340018
Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2021 11:58:04AM
via free access172 Normando and Mollo
other, more specific costs: the monetary costs of providing for the animals (e.g.,
food, medical care) and the risk of unacceptable welfare levels for them, in
case of poor shelter management and/or overcrowding (Menchetti et al., 2015).
Another possible risk of “no-kill” shelters is that owners could feel less guilty in
surrendering their pets if they know that they are not destroyed and thus have
fewer scruples in doing so. Yet another strategy is that of trapping the animals,
neutering them, and then releasing them in the same place they were trapped
or in another, more suitable, location (Trap-Neuter-Release, TNR) (Swarbrick
& Rand, 2018). TNR programs imply costs and organization, and their efficacy
has not always been as expected (Castillo et al., 2003). Of course, combinations
of these strategies can be used.
In any of the abovementioned scenarios, one very important ethical ques-
tion is which level of welfare should we grant these animals? For this question
it is impossible to have a one-size-fits-all answer, but it will depend on context.
Obviously, cruelty is downright unacceptable in any context, but it is unrealis-
tic to think that all of the animals in the abovementioned categories could be
granted exactly the same welfare as a family pet.
It is difficult to have a clear idea of the scope of the problem worldwide. A
survey addressed to the state veterinary services of all 172 OIE countries re-
ceived answers from 81 (47%). The partial data obtained clearly show that not
all countries adopt dog control programs, that more than half of the countries
resort to a killing policy, regardless of their level of development, and that hu-
mane killing is considered less important in “low human development” coun-
tries (Dalla Villa et al., 2010). In the United States, a country for which data
have been published, it is estimated that 3.3 million dogs and 2–3 million cats
enter animal shelters each year, most of which are unwanted animals (ASPCA,
year not specified; Levy et al., 2014). Many of them are ultimately euthanized in
the shelters because they are neither reclaimed nor adopted (ASPCA, year not
specified; Levy et al., 2014).
We do not have the ambition to be able to cover all of the ethical issues
related to “pets without a human family”, even if the topic, due to its com-
plexity, will span both issue 1.2 and issue 2.1 (which will be published in 2020).
However, the aim of the two issues is to provide insight regarding the overall
“pets without a human family” problem, by focusing on the ethical concerns
posed by context-specific pet population control strategies and situations con-
cerning pets without human families, thus adding to the existing body of lit-
erature on such a complex and controversial topic.
Some of the abovementioned issues, such as how should unwanted pets be
managed (by sheltering, by killing, by trapping/neutering/releasing, etc.) or
the consequences of adopting a kill (versus a no-kill) strategy for reasonably
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 171–176
Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2021 11:58:04AM
via free accessEditorial: Pets without a Human Family 173
healthy, non-dangerous animals in shelters have a broader scope and have
received more coverage in the academic literature (e.g., Rowan, 1992; Arkow,
1994; Fournier & Geller, 2004; Frank, 2004; Frank & Carlisle-Frank, 2007;
Robertson, 2008; Budke & Slater, 2009; Coate & Knight, 2010; Loyd & DeVore,
2010; White et al., 2010; Levy et al., 2014; Spehar & Wolf, 2017; Tan et al., 2017 for
the former and DiGiacomo et al., 1998; Frommer & Arluke, 1999; Baran et al.,
2009; Rogelberg et al., 2007 for the latter). In this issue, Fawcett (2019) discusses
the role of shelters in animal population management in the framework of the
“One Welfare” concept, and explains why addressing the problem of unwanted
animals by sheltering them is justified on utilitarian grounds. Salgirli Demirbas
et al. (2019) illustrate Turkey’s control strategy for its free-ranging dog popula-
tion, based on a Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate, Return method, discussing its ef-
fectiveness and other factors affecting free-ranging dog control. Natoli et al.
(2019) explore the ethical aspects of the already-existing options to control
free-roaming dog populations, with a particular focus on the Italian strategy
(i.e., a nationwide no-kill sheltering policy for healthy, non-dangerous dogs).
Other dogs/cats who do not live in the context of a human family are dams
and sires living in commercial breeding facilities. The high public concern re-
garding the welfare of such dogs notwithstanding, up to now, few studies have
investigated the problems linked to this breeding system. McMillan et al. (2013)
and Pirrone et al. (2016) focused on the behavioral differences between pup-
pies originating from commercial breeding facilities and puppies originating
elsewhere, and found more behavioral problems in the former. Thus, why are
puppies originating from commercial breeding facilities still in high demand
in the pet market? Croney (2019) explores the ethical issues and the welfare
challenges associated with commercial dog breeding and the ways to address
them and warns of the potentially even worse animal welfare consequences of
abolishing the practice without identifying an ethically preferable alternative
for meeting demands.
The consequences of earthquakes and other natural disasters on animals
and their welfare is a budding topic in scientific literature (e.g., Glassey &
Wilson, 2011; Barrenechea et al., 2012). In this context, Dalla Villa et al. (2019)’s
paper explores the welfare issues concerning pets left without homes in non-
epidemic emergencies, describing the emergency management of veterinary
care activities carried out in response to the earthquakes that occurred in cen-
tral Italy in 2016–2017.
Simona Normando & Antonio Mollo
Università degli Studi di Padova, Padua, Italy
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 171–176
Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2021 11:58:04AM
via free access174 Normando and Mollo
References
Arkow, P. (1994). “A new look at pet ‘overpopulation’ ”. Anthrozoos, 7:3, 202–205.
ASPCA – American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Pet Statistics
[Accessed 15 June 2019]. Available online: http://www.aspca.org/animal-home
lessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-statistics.
Baran, B.E., Allen, J.A., Rogelberg, S.G., Spitzmuller, C., DiGiacomo, N.A., Webb, J.B.,
Carter, N.T., Clark, O.L., Teeter, L.A., & Walker, A.G. (2009). “Euthanasia-related
strain and coping strategies in animal shelter employees”. Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, 235:1, 83–88.
Barrenechea, M., Barron, J., & White, J. (2012). “No place like home: pet-to-family reuni-
fication after disaster”. CHI, 1237–1242. Available online: https://www.researchgate
.net/publication/231498986_No_Place_Like_Home_pet-to-family_reunification_
after_disaster.
Bradshaw, J.W.S., Horsfield, G.F., Allen, J.A., & Robinson, I.H. (1999). “Feral cats: their
role in the population dynamics of Felis catus”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
65, 273–283.
Budke, C.M. & Slater, M.R. (2009). “Utilization of matrix population models to assess
a 3-year single treatment nonsurgical contraception program versus surgical ster-
ilization in feral cat populations”. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12:4,
277–292.
Castillo, D. & Clarke, A.L. (2003). “Trap/neuter/release methods ineffective in control-
ling domestic cat ‘colonies’ on public lands”. Natural Areas Journal, 23, 247–253.
Coate, S. & Knight, B. (2010). “Pet overpopulation: an economic analysis”. B.E. Journal
of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10:1, Article: 106.
Croney, C.C. (2019). “Turning up the volume on man’s best friend: ethical issues associ-
ated with commercial dog breeding”. Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research, 1:2,
230‒252. doi:10.1163/25889567-12340011.
Dalla Villa, P., Kahn, S., Stuardo, L., Iannetti, L., Di Nardo, A., & Serpell, J.A. (2010).
“Free-roaming dog control among OIE-member countries”. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine, 97:1, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.001.
Dalla Villa, P., Migliaccio, P., Innocenti, I., Nardoia, M., & Lafiandra, D.C. (2019).
“Companion animals welfare in non-epidemic emergencies: the case of central
Italy, post-earthquake 2016/2017”. Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research, 1:2,
253‒279. doi:10.1163/25889567-12340012.
DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. (1998). “Surrendering pets to shelters: The
relinquisher’s perspective”. Anthrozoos, 11:1, 41–51.
Fawcett, A. (2019). “Is a One Welfare approach the key to addressing unintended harms
and maximising benefits associated with animal shelters?” Journal of Applied
Animal Ethics Research, 1:2, 117‒208. doi:10.1163/25889567-12340010.
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 171–176
Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2021 11:58:04AM
via free accessEditorial: Pets without a Human Family 175
Fournier, A.K. & Geller, E.S. (2004). “Behavior analysis of companion-animal over-
population: a conceptualisation of the problem and suggestions for intervention”.
Behaviour and Social Issues, 13, 51–68.
Frank, J. (2004). “An interactive model of human and companion animal dynamics: the
ecology and economics of dog overpopulation and the human costs of addressing
the problem”. Human Ecology, 32:1, 107–130.
Frank, J.M. & Carlisle-Frank, P.L. (2007). “Analysis of programs to reduce overpopula-
tion of companion animals: do adoption and low-cost spay/neuter programs mere-
ly cause substitution of sources?” Ecological Economics, 62:3–4, 740–746.
Frommer, S.S. & Arluke, A. (1999). “Loving them to death: blame-displacing strategies
of animal shelter workers and surrenderers”. Society & Animals, 7:1, 1–16.
Glassey, S. & Wilson, T. (2011). “Animal welfare impact following the 4 September 2010
Canterbury (Darfield) earthquake”. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma
Studies, 2, 49–59.
Levy, J.K., Isaza, N.M., & Scott, K.C. (2014). “Effect of high-impact targeted trap-neuter-
return and adoption of community cats on cat intake to a shelter”. The Veterinary
Journal, 201, 269–274.
Loyd, K.A.T. & DeVore, J.L. (2010). “An evaluation of feral cat management options
using a decision analysis network”. Ecology and Society, 15:4, Article: 10.
McMillan, F.D., Serpell, J.A., Duffy, D.L., Masaoud, E., & Dohoo, I.R. (2013). “Differences
in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and
those obtained from noncommercial breeders”. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, 242:10, 1359–1363.
Menchetti, L., Mancini, S., Catalani, M.C., Boccini, B., & Diverio, S. (2015). “Rand
AgiamoTM, a pilot project increasing adoptability of shelter dogs in the Umbria
region (Italy)”. Animals, 5, 774–792. doi:10.3390/ani5030383.
Natoli, E., Carriola, G., Dell’Oglio, G., & Valsecchi, P. (2019). “Considerations of ethi-
cal aspects of control strategies of unowned free-roaming dog populations and
the No-Kill policy in Italy”. Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research, 1:2, 216‒229.
doi:10.1163/25889567-12340014.
Pirrone, F., Pierantoni, L., Quintavalle Pastorino, G., & Albertini, M. (2016). “Owner-
reported aggressive behavior towards familiar people may be a more prominent oc-
currence in pet shop-traded dogs”. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 11, 13–17.
Robertson, S.A. (2008). “A review of feral cat control”. Journal of Feline Medicine and
Surgery, 10, 366–375. doi:10.1016/j.jfms.2007.08.003.
Rogelberg, S.G., DiGiacomo, N., Reeve, C.L., Spitzmuller, C., Clark, O.L., Teeter, L.,
Walker, A.G., Carter, N.T., & Starling, P.G. (2007). “What shelters can do about eutha-
nasia-related stress: an examination of recommendations from those on the front
line”. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 10:4, 331–347.
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 171–176
Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2021 11:58:04AM
via free access176 Normando and Mollo
Rohlf, V. & Bennet, P. (2005). “Perpetration-induced traumatic stress in persons who
euthanize nonhuman animals in surgeries, animal shelters, and laboratories”.
Society & Animals, 13:3, 201–219.
Rowan, A.N. (1992). “Shelters and pet overpopulation: a statistical black hole”.
Anthrozoos, 5:3, 140–143.
Salgirli Demirbas, Y., Saral, B., Etkin Safak, C., & Graça Da Pereira, G. (2019). “Population
control of free-ranging dogs in Turkey: never kill strategy”. Journal of Applied Animal
Ethics Research, 1:2, 209‒215. doi:10.1163/25889567-12340016.
Spehar, D.D. & Wolf, P.J. (2017). “An examination of an iconic Trap-Neuter-Return
program: the Newburyport, Massachusetts case study”. Animals, 7, 81. doi:10.3390/
ani7110081.
Swarbrick, H. & Rand, J. (2018). “Application of a protocol based on Trap-Neuter-Return
(TNR) to manage unowned urban cats on an Australian University Campus”.
Animals, 8, 77. doi:10.3390/ani8050077.
Tan, K., Rand, J., & Morton, J. (2017). “Trap-Neuter-Return activities in urban stray cat
colonies in Australia”. Animals, 7, 46. doi:10.3390/ani7060046.
White, S.C., Jefferson, E., & Levy, J.K. (2010). “Impact of publicly sponsored neutering
programs on animal population dynamics at animal shelters: the New Hampshire
and Austin experiences”. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 13:3, 191–212.
Winograd, N.J. (2010). “Shelters, No-Kill”. In: M. Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Animal
Rights and Animal Welfare. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 512–519.
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 171–176
Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2021 11:58:04AM
via free accessYou can also read
