Is a One Welfare Approach the Key to Addressing Unintended Harms and Maximising Benefits Associated with Animal Shelters?
←
→
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) 177–208
brill.com/jaae
Is a One Welfare Approach the Key to Addressing
Unintended Harms and Maximising Benefits
Associated with Animal Shelters?
Anne Fawcett
School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Australia
anne.fawcett@sydney.edu.au
Abstract
Animal shelters, pounds and rescue organisations have evolved over time. Today they
serve three purposes: to reduce animal welfare harms, to reduce harms to the com-
munity associated with free-roaming, stray or unwanted companion animals, and
to reduce their associated environmental harms. This discussion explores the evolu-
tion of animal shelters, and argues that they are justified on utilitarian grounds. It
explores unintended harms of shelters on animal welfare, including humane killing
for the purposes of population control and shelter population management, as well
as risks associated with confinement including behavioural deterioration and infec-
tious diseases. It also explores harms to non-human animals, including moral distress
and compassion fatigue. Finally, it explores potential environmental harms of shelters.
The One Welfare concept, utilised in the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE)
Global Animal Welfare Strategy, acknowledges the interplay between animal welfare,
human well-being and environmental sustainability. It is argued that the One Welfare
framework is critical in minimising harms and maximising benefits associated with
animal shelters.
Keywords
One Welfare – animal shelter – euthanasia – death as a harm – compassion fatigue –
moral distress – companion animal overpopulation
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/25889567-12340010
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access178 Fawcett
…
There is no simple solution to the complex problem of animal overpopu-
lation and shelters remain an interim solution for the foreseeable future.
Turner et al., 2012
∵
1 Introduction
Shelters, pounds and animal rescue organisations house lost, stray, and
unwanted companion animals, as well as those seized from cruelty cases
such as hoarding situations and puppy farms. By housing animals that
may otherwise free-roam they reduce the animal welfare, public health and
safety and environmental problems caused by free-roaming animals (Turner
et al., 2012).
However, as discussed in this paper, sheltering animals incurs harms (or
‘costs’)—to animal welfare, human well-being, and the environment.
In May 2017, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) released its
global animal welfare strategy, based on the “One Welfare” concept in which
members are encouraged to work towards animal welfare, human well-being
(including social and economic development) and environmental sustainabil-
ity concurrently (OIE, 2017a). There are currently no reports of the application
of the One Welfare concept to animal shelters.
This paper will briefly discuss the evolution of animal shelters to date,
followed by a discussion of the ethical justification for animal shelters. After
that, I will explore the unintended harms of shelters in relation to animals,
humans and the environment, and finally, I will discuss why a One Welfare
approach is critical in reducing unintended harms, and maximising benefits,
of animal shelters.
2 A Word on Terminology
In the veterinary context, the term “euthanasia” is often used to refer to a
death brought about humanely, regardless of the reasons for effecting that
humane death. However, it is important, for reasons outlined by this author
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 179
in a previous discussion (Fawcett, 2013), to distinguish euthanasia (killing an
animal in its own interests) from killing an animal which is not in its interests
(for example, a young healthy animal killed to reduce crowding). In 2004 the
Asilomar Accords were developed to standardise definitions used by shelters,
for example what is meant by “healthy”, “treatable”, “manageable”, “unhealthy”,
“untreatable” (Asilomar Accords, 2004). What constitutes “treatable” varies be-
tween shelters and may be determined by many non-biological factors includ-
ing funding, access to resources, and staff.
For the purposes of this discussion, the term euthanasia will be used to refer
to the humane killing of an unhealthy, untreatable animal with a view to end
suffering (“a life not worth living”), while “killing” will be used to refer to deaths
(humane or otherwise) of healthy, treatable animals brought about for other
reasons, such as population control. Such killing may be morally justifiable, but
in the author’s view does not meet the criteria for use of the term “euthanasia”.
3 The Evolution of Animal Shelters
While the evolution of animal shelters is highly context specific, there has
been a general trend from a model of animal control to one of care. The aim of
pounds was once to reduce the unwanted animal population through killing
excess animals, whereas the aim of modern day shelters is to ensure that as
many animals as possible are placed in, or returned to, their homes.
This evolution is discussed by Miller & Zawistowski (2012), who describe
the development of US animal shelters from livestock pounds in towns and
villages (Miller & Zawistowski, 2012). The poundmaster would round up “stray”
animals—normally farm or work animals like pigs, chickens, goats, cattle or
horses—then impound them. Owners of impounded animals were required to
pay a fee to have the animal released. The poundmaster could keep the remain-
ing animals for his personal use, or sell them. The poundmaster’s income was
derived from impoundment fees, livestock sales, and produce which may be
sold or used to feed his own family. Stray dogs were more problematic as these
were less likely to be sold, and would not be used for food. The poundmaster
could impound dogs, but the unclaimed majority were eventually killed.
As people moved from villages to towns and cities, fewer owned livestock,
but stray dogs flourished on scraps and rubbish concentrated in urban environ-
ments. The impound became known as the dog pound. Because their salaries
relied heavily on impounding fees, dog catchers commonly kidnapped owned
dogs and demanded fees from the owners, while unowned dogs continued to
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access180 Fawcett
stray and reproduce. Some impounded dogs were sold for research, having
perhaps been deliberately procured by the pound for this purpose (National
Research Council [US], 2009).
One of the big issues faced by pounds was how to dispose of unwanted dogs.
In the 1870s, the pound in New York City resorted to drowning dogs by lowering
them into the East River in a large iron cage as the public watched (Miller &
Zawistowski, 2012; Pierce, 2016a).
Until this time, facilities that we now know as animal shelters were im-
poundment facilities designed exclusively to benefit humans—the wider com-
munity, the poundmaster or dogcatcher, the municipal council—without any
consideration for animal welfare.
Over time the concept of humane animal shelters developed. The noun
shelter is defined as “a place giving temporary protection from bad weath-
er or danger” while the verb means “to protect or shield from something
harmful, especially bad weather” (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2017).
Shelter is one of the Five Freedoms and Provisions for Animal Welfare,
which requires provision of an appropriate environment and comfortable
resting area. According to David Mellor, a shelter should not just protect
animals from negative welfare states, but promote positive welfare states
(Mellor, 2016).
Humane animal shelters were conceived as places where dogs (and later
cats) could receive food, water, shelter, veterinary care, and perhaps be adopt-
ed into a new home. Animals without homes would be “better off” in shelters.
Those that could not be rehomed were “humanely” killed.
Over the 20th Century, the way humans interacted with companion animals
changed dramatically. Companion animals, once permitted to stray, were in-
creasingly confined to the owner’s property, which soon became a legislated
requirement. They began to be treated as family members (Serpell, 1996; Amiot
et al., 2016).
In the 1980s, shelters came under increasing criticism for relying on killing
as a means of addressing animal overpopulation. In what was to become a
highly influential essay, Edward Duvin claimed that the prevailing shelter value
system was “a convoluted system that places a higher operational priority on
‘painless’ execution than preventative education” (Duvin, 1989). He added that
“shelters will continue to be nothing more than processing plants until they
begin the transition from sanitation dumps for the public’s unwanted ‘baggage’
to vital community education centres”.
Duvin argued that shelters had failed in their moral obligation to ensure
decisions around life and death were based on validated outcome measures,
that busy shelter staff were too “mired in daily operational and fundraising
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 181
activities” to tackle companion animal overpopulation at the source, uncriti-
cally accepting that killing is “an acceptable and merciful act” (Duvin, 1989).
Shelters, he argued, were not the safe havens people the public believed
they should be, and in many cases caused harm. As such, animals were better
off left to their own devices than housed in the worst shelters.
“Whether picked up on the street or surrendered at the shelter, the vast
majority of these animals experience the kind of psychological trauma and
terror that we find so abhorrent for caged laboratory animals but tolerate in
our own facilities. Some are exposed to various forms of physical mishandling
and abuse, and all suffer from the anguishing ordeal of being processed and
warehoused in a foreign and frightening environment. Euthanasia might be a
relatively painless end to this journey of terror, but each death represents an
abject failure—not an act of mercy” (Duvin, 1989). A true shelter, according to
Duvin, should be “a place where life is affirmed, both in teaching and practice,
not a building permeated with the odour of death”.
Duvin’s paper was published 30 years ago. Shelters, pounds and rescue or-
ganisations have continued to evolve since then. Significantly, the “no-kill”
movement, of which Duvin is sometimes referred to as the father (Miller &
Zawistowski, 2012), has been influential in changing policies around killing
and, to some extent, euthanasia, in animal welfare organisations.
Our relationships with companion animals evolved further still, with legisla-
tion reflecting this. For example, the UK Animal Welfare Act 2006, enshrines the
duty of persons responsible for an animal to ensure an animal’s welfare. Thus
“a person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable
in all circumstances to ensure that the needs of the animal for which he is
responsible are met to the extent required by good practice” (UK Animal Welfare
Act 2006 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/9/2007-03-23).
In some contexts, microchipping and visual identification (collar and tag) are
mandated, which not only increases return of lost animals to owners (Dingman
et al., 2014), but also ensures that an owner who is accountable for an animal’s
welfare can be traced, and may aid in enforcement of legislation (Companion
Animals Act [NSW], 2017).
In many contexts, shelters have evolved into adoption centres, with an
emphasis on placing the right animal in the right home to reduce the risk of
re-surrender. Many shelters now collect data to analyse outcomes, including
post-adoption interviews. More shelters provide enriched housing, promote
positive interactions between staff, volunteers and animals, and aim to meet
the welfare needs of animals housed. More staff are equipped with at least
basic principles of animal behaviour to ensure that welfare needs of animals
are better met in shelters, and many shelters formally evaluate the behaviour
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access182 Fawcett
Table 1 Providers of low or no-cost educational resources for shelters and animal welfare
organisations
Organisation Website/resource
Humane Society of the United States https://www.animalsheltering.org/
(HSUS)
American Society for the Prevention of https://www.aspcapro.org/
Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Maddie’s Fund http://www.maddiesfund.org/index.htm
University of Florida (in association with http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/
Maddie’s Fund)
The Royal Society for the Prevention of https://www.rspca.org.au/
Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Australia
Getting 2 Zero http://www.g2z.org.au/
Association of Shelter Veterinarians http://www.sheltervet.org/
International Association of Animal https://iaabc.org/shelter
Behaviour Consultants (IAABC) Shelter
Division
International Cat Care https://icatcare.org/
Cat Protection Society of NSW http://catcare.org.au/vet-professional
-education-package/
of animals so they can be placed in suitable homes (Miller & Zawistowski,
2012). There are a huge number of low-cost or no-cost educational resources
available to shelters through organisations outlined in Table 1.
However, Duvin’s criticisms remain relevant as they highlight an inherent
conflict between the stated purpose of shelters—to address animal overpopu-
lation humanely—with the operational consequences: in the worst cases, un-
wittingly perpetuating the problem and causing suffering, by hoarding animals
in shelters, exposing them to overpopulation, poor hygiene and poor welfare.
4 The Ethical Basis of Shelters
Animals may be admitted to shelters because it is believed that they are “better
off”, that is, suffering less, in a shelter than elsewhere—whether elsewhere is
straying, in an incompatible home, or being the victims of neglect or cruelty.
They may also be admitted to shelters because humans—as members of the
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 183
general community or as pet owners—may be “better off” without the animal.
For example, one may argue that a family with an incompatible pet, or one
which they find themselves no longer in the circumstances to keep, may be suf-
fering. This suffering can be relieved by surrendering the animal to the shelter.
As a second example, consider an emaciated, parasite-ridden stray dog that
follows people, defecates in the street and tips garbage over. The dog may be
“better off” in a shelter where it is not exposed to the elements, and where
food and water (and potentially parasite control and veterinary care) are reli-
ably available. Furthermore, the wider canine community may be “better off”
as contained dogs are unable to spread diseases like parvovirus, distemper or
rabies. The human community and environment may be “better off” avoiding
unsanitary conditions caused by the dog, without being annoyed or frightened
by the dog, without the threat of zoonoses like rabies being transmitted via
bites from such dogs, and without the distress of being confronted with the
sight of this creature.
When compared with life on the street or in an unsuitable, the shelter is
intended to be—at least—the lesser of two evils. Ideally, a shelter is a place
where animals experience not only a minimum of negative welfare states, but
positive welfare states (Mellor, 2012).
This aligns with a utilitarian approach of minimizing pain or suffering, while
maximizing wellbeing. Crudely, a utilitarian approach seeks the best outcome
(benefits) for as many stakeholders as possible, while reducing poor outcomes
(harms) for as many stakeholders as possible, or, as Jeremy Bentham said: “the
greatest amount of good for the greatest number” (Driver, 2014). John Stuart
Mill, also a utilitarian, added an important caveat, known as “the harm prin-
ciple”, according to which in seeking the greatest good for the greatest number,
one must do so without causing avoidable harm to others. According to Mill,
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any mem-
ber of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”
(Mill, 1865).
Bentham’s utilitarian ethos is reflected in the way shelter outcomes are
evaluated. The measure of shelter success is live release rate (LRR), which
expresses as a percentage of intake the number of animals leaving a shelter
alive, due to reclaim by owners, re-homing or transfer to another agency that
guarantees animal adoption (Weiss et al., 2013). Theoretically, the higher the
LRR, the better the outcome. The killing of animals in shelters is justified as a
means of reducing the “unwanted” animal population, and/or as a means of
ending current or future suffering (terminating a life not worth living). While
kill rates reduce LRR, such killing is justified as minimizing current or future
suffering.
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access184 Fawcett
A utilitarian framework balances benefits (LRR) against harms (number
of animals killed). One common criticism of utilitarian or consequentialist
ethical frameworks is that they rely on accurate prediction of outcomes—yet,
as will be discussed later, there can be unintended, unpredictable negative
outcomes.
Another ethical justification for animal shelters is relational. Writing specif-
ically about dogs, Kristien Hens argues that dogs have evolved to exist within
the human cultural context, and as such they occupy a special position from
which obligations flow. Our relationship with dogs—and by extension other
companion animals—obliges us to provide for their care, even when we can-
not provide such care directly ourselves: “There is a bond of mutual trust be-
tween dog and human that should not be breached” (Hens, 2009).
This requires the establishment of “proper shelters”, as well as education of
the public about what it means to own a dog, promotion of adoption of shelter
dogs, and employment of dog behaviourists to match the “right dog” with the
“right person” (Hens, 2009). Shelters that do not provide optimal welfare then
fail in their mission to provide “proper care” for dogs, and presumably cats, that
Hens argues we are obliged to.
Shelters must be managed carefully to ensure they are not complicit in poor
welfare. Bioethicist Jessica Pierce argues that, in some ways, shelters are part
of the problem they seek to address. According to Pierce, the “shelter industry”
seeks to grow or remain sustainable in the long-term.
Pierce is highlighting a potential conflict of interest. Just like the dog catcher
relied on impoundment fees, so too modern shelters rely on a large throughput
of animals, but chasing their own redundancy is not financially viable.
“Shelters rely on having a high census and adopting out as many animals as
possible to maintain a flow of funding, which not only keeps animals fed but
pays the meagre salaries of employees” (Pierce, 2016b).
Pierce goes a step further and argues that shelters are complicit in ani-
mal overpopulation, by looking after the surplus generated by one source of
that overpopulation—the pet industry—thus maintaining a market for new
“product”. She asks, if adopting an animal from a shelter compounds or rein-
forces some welfare issues, whether we should opt out of the pet industry al-
together. Pierce, a companion animal owner herself, stops short of concluding
that we should not adopt companion animals from shelters. Rather, she is try-
ing to draw our attention to welfare problems perpetuated by the companion
animal industry.
However, she raises the important prospect that shelters may be, at least in
some ways, detrimental to animals in ways they aren’t intended to be. If this is
the case, and if—in a utilitarian account—shelters do more harm than good,
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 185
it would be hard to defend them ethically. To address this concern, the shel-
ters should aim to minimize harms or costs and maximise benefits to as many
stakeholders as possible.
The Three Rs of humane experimental technique (Russell & Burch, 1959),
also a utilitarian framework, was designed to be applied to animal use in labo-
ratory and teaching contexts, but could equally apply in a shelter setting. The
Three Rs oblige us to replace the use of animals with non-animal models, re-
duce the number of animals used and refine husbandry and experimental pro-
cedures. In a shelter context, we may consider replacing killing as a form of
population control, reducing the number of animals killed through practices
that promote adoption and refinement of husbandry to promote adoption and
prevent behavioural deterioration, as well as refinement of humane killing
methods where these are used.
To this end, shelters around the world employ different strategies to replace
euthanasia as a means of population control—either by reducing shelter ad-
missions or increasing animals adopted or reclaimed. Strategies include popu-
lation control via surgical neutering of animals, permanent identification of
animals via microchips so that lost animals can be reunited with owners faster,
reducing re-surrenders by matching animals to households and vice versa, and
reducing shelter-related harms to animals, including behavioural deterioration
which may make them less adoptable.
According to former RSPCA New South Wales Chief Veterinary Officer,
Dr Magdoline Awad, “There are many shelters working towards reducing in-
take and assisting pet owners as a means of reducing euthanasia and operating
costs. Identifying the reasons for surrender and then designing programs that
assist in keeping the pet at home are now the focus” (Awad, Small Animal Be-
havioural Medicine Conference, Centre for Veterinary Education, 2017).
But animals are not the only stakeholders. As discussed later in this paper,
shelters have impacts on humans as well as the environment. A utilitarian ap-
proach requires that we address the interests of all of these stakeholders to the
greatest extent possible.
5 Animal Death as a Harm
As discussed, historically, animals were killed inhumanely in shelters, for ex-
ample by mass-drowning, electrocution, decompression chambers or carbon
monoxide gas (Humane Society of the United States, 2013). In some parts of
the world, other methods considered to be inhumane (OIE, 2017b) are still em-
ployed including poisons such as strychnine and cyanide, drowning, hanging
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access186 Fawcett
and use of curare-like drugs (World Society for the Protection of Animals, 2008;
Tasker, 2009; Ortega-Pacheco & Jiménez-Coello, 2011). Gas chamber use for
euthanasia was confirmed or suspected in four US states as late as July 2016
(Humane Society of the United States, 2016).
Increasingly in shelters, animals are killed by lethal injection, with or with-
out sedation, which is considered humane (World Society for the Protection of
Animals, 2008; Newbury et al., 2010; Humane Society of the United States, 2013;
Leary et al., 2013), yet this does require training and may not be accessible or
legal in all countries. A discussion of the relative harm of methods of euthana-
sia is beyond the scope of this paper, however it is uncontroversial that killing
animals inhumanely is a harm best avoided.
In addition to the potential to harm animals by the way that death is caused,
the question remains whether bringing about the state of being dead is a
harm. John Webster argued that being dead is “no problem at all” to an animal
(Webster, 1994) because dead animals are not capable of experiencing negative
(or positive) welfare states.
Yet, as James Yeates argues, many people who work in shelters would consid-
er the killing of a healthy animal to be, “at least in some cases, morally undesir-
able” (Yeates, 2010). Furthermore, the argument that death is not a welfare issue
could be used to argue that, since every life is likely to contain negative welfare
states worth avoiding, every animal ought to be humanely killed, unless we
could guarantee that that animal would not experience negative welfare states
(Yeates, 2010). He argues that death is an ethical issue at least in part because
it is a welfare issue, in that it excludes the possibility of experiencing positive
welfare states. As he argues, “just as euthanasia excludes negative states; pre-
venting a good life excludes positive states” (Yeates, 2010). Indeed, the benefit
of shelters is in giving animals an opportunity to experience a life worth living.
If we accept this argument, it follows that shelters that humanely kill healthy
animals are still harming them by depriving those animals of future positive
welfare states—lives worth living (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 2009).
The numbers of animals involved are enormous (see Table 2). The Ameri-
can Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) estimated that
3.3 million dogs and 3.2 million cats are admitted to US animal shelters nation-
ally every year, of which 1.5 million are euthanised or killed (670,000 dogs and
860,000 cats), 3.2 million are adopted (1.6 million each for dogs and cats) and
710,000 are reclaimed (620,000 dogs and 90,000 cats) (American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2017).
In the UK, it was estimated that 131,070 cats and 129,743 dogs were admitted
to animal welfare organisations during 2009 (Clark et al., 2012). Of these, 5,064
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 187
Table 2 Outcomes of animals admitted to shelters, animal welfare organisations and/or
municipal pounds in the US, UK and Australia
Country Admitted Adopted Reclaimed Killed
US animal shelters 3.3 million dogs 1.6 million dogs 620,000 dogs 670,000 dogs
(American Society 3.2 million cats 1.6 million cats 90,000 cats 860,000 cats
for the Prevention
of Cruelty to
Animals, 2017)
UK animal welfare 129,743 dogs N/A 12.5% dogs 7,142 dogs
organisations 131,070 cats N/A 2.7% cats 5,064 cats
(Clark et al., 2012)
UK animal welfare 89,571 dogs 75% dogs N/A 10.4% dogs
organisations 156,826 cats 77.1% cats N/A 13.2% cats
(Stavisky et al.,
2012)
Australia shelters 211,655 dogs 66,443 dogs 101,037 dogs 43,900 dogs
and municipal
pounds (Chua
et al., 2017)
cats and 7142 dogs were reported to be euthanised, while 12.5% of dogs and
2.7% of cats were reclaimed. Another UK study estimated that 89,571 dogs and
156,826 cats were admitted to animal welfare organisations, with 75% of dogs
and 77.1% of cats rehomed. It was estimated that 10.4% of dogs and 13.2% of
cats were euthanised (Stavisky et al., 2012).
A recent study utilizing data from Australian shelters and municipal pounds
found that there were 211,655 dog admissions between 2012 and 2013. Of these,
101,037 (47.7%) were reclaimed, 66,443 (31.4%) were rehomed and 43,900
(20.7%) were euthanised or killed (Chua et al., 2017).
The exact number of animals is impossible to determine, given the num-
ber and variable nature of shelters, pounds and rescue organisations, different
standards of record keeping, and the increasing transfer of animals between
agencies (Simmons & Hoffman, 2016). Even harder is accurate documenta-
tion of changing trends in the long term, as historically shelters have been
poor collectors of data (Duvin, 1989). There are reports of significant reduc-
tions in numbers of animals admitted to shelters. Animal rescue and advocacy
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access188 Fawcett
organization Best Friends estimates that in the US, the number of dogs and
cats killed in shelters has gradually reduced from 17 million in 1984 to 2 million
in 2017 (Best Friends, 2017).
However, the above figures show that many animals continue to be admit-
ted to shelters, pounds and welfare organisations, and millions are killed or
euthanised globally.
6 Shelters and Unintended Harm to Non-Human Animals
There are some patients that we cannot help; there are none whom we
cannot harm.
Arthur L. Bloomfield, 1888–1962
According to David Fraser, human activities impact animals in four broad ways:
1. Keeping animals, for example as companions;
2. Causing intentional harm to animals, for example through slaughter for
food;
3. Causing direct but unintended harm to animals, for example exposure to
infectious disease;
4. Harming animals indirectly by disturbing life-sustaining processes and
balances of nature, for example habitat destruction and anthropogenic
climate change (Fraser, 2012).
He developed a set of mid-level principles or what he refers to as a “practical
ethic” to address ethical concerns around negative impacts of human actions
on animals, and to minimize these. The principles are:
1. To provide good lives for animals in our care;
2. To treat suffering with compassion;
3. To be mindful of unseen harm;
4. To protect the life-sustaining processes and balances of nature (Fraser,
2012).
While all of these principles are applicable to the animal sheltering context,
for the purposes of this discussion I will focus on (3). Fraser explains that,
all things being equal, it seems uncontroversial to argue that activities are of
greater concern if they impact an animal over a larger proportion of its lifes-
pan, and if they have long-lasting or irreversible effects.
Importantly, confinement of animals in shelters gives humans control over
all aspects of their lives, which provides an opportunity to provide benefits
including protection from the elements, protection from risks such as motor
vehicle accidents or attacks by conspecifics, nourishment, companionship,
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 189
veterinary care, and a painless death. According to Fraser, “the goal of provid-
ing good lives for animals in our care should be achievable in principle, even if
it would require major changes in practice” (Fraser, 2012).
Whether or not these benefits are realized depends on the motivation,
knowledge and resources of those working in shelters. Fraser argues that one
important way that his principles differ from other common approaches to an-
imal ethics is that the latter tend to focus on intentions and intentional actions
rather than indirect and unintended consequences of actions (Fraser, 2012).
Yet these indirect and unintended consequences can be significant, and may
outweigh intended benefits. There is a growing body of literature documenting
a variety of stressors for animals entering and being confined in shelters. These
include leaving a familiar environment and people within it; confinement;
new sounds, smells and unfamiliar animals; potential social conflict; and being
handled by unfamiliar persons—usually more than one (Newbury et al., 2010).
Depending on the circumstances, confinement may also entail social depriva-
tion. Initially, unpredictability may lead to fear (Stephen & Ledger, 2005). Over
time, predictability, monotony and confinement may lead to chronic, inescap-
able boredom which is likely aversive to individual animals, and may lead to
abnormal behaviour (Burn, 2017). Prolonged confinement may prevent dogs
from engaging in behaviours that promote well-being, such as exercise or inter-
action with humans and other dogs (Stephen & Ledger, 2005).
Stress increases susceptibility to infectious disease, already a high risk in
the shelter setting. Shelters have been described as “prime examples of an-
thropogenic biological instability”, because they bring together animals with
varying levels of disease, with often unknown health histories and exposure
to different pathogens into confined spaces (Pesavento & Murphy, 2014).
Stressed animals have higher rates of shedding of infectious diseases such
as feline enteric coronavirus (FeCOV), feline herpesvirus, feline calicivirus,
canine enteric coronavirus and other enteropathogens, some of which have
zoonotic potential (Pesavento & Murphy, 2014). Emergence of fatal infectious
diseases including canine influenza, haemorrhagic respiratory Escherichia coli
and virulent systemic calicivirus have emerged in shelter populations, as have
novel potential pathogens including canine circoviruses, bocavirus, kobuvirus
and sapovirus (Pesavento & Murphy, 2014). In some instances, the use of modi-
fied live vaccination in immunosuppressed animals can have adverse con-
sequences (Pesavento & Murphy, 2014). Intensive housing increases risks by
increasing stress, increasing the number and complexity of circulating patho-
gens, as well as the possibility of direct and indirect (e.g., fomite) contact with
pathogens (Pesavento & Murphy, 2014). Fomite transmission may also infect
animals owned by staff members and volunteers (Schorr-Evans et al., 2003;
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access190 Fawcett
Radford et al., 2007), and antimicrobial use in shelters can lead to antimicro-
bial resistance (Pesavento & Murphy, 2014).
Length of stay (LOS) has been identified as a risk factor for illness, including
infectious disease, as well as behavioural deterioration (Newbury et al., 2010).
In one study, increased LOS was associated with increased repetitive pacing
and wall-bouncing (Stephen & Ledger, 2005). Other abnormal behaviours
associated with kennelled dogs include tail chasing, circling, play bouncing,
chewing bedding, self-licking, polydipsia, panting, lack of appetite, excessive
vocalisation, listlessness, escape attempts, hiding and chewing bars (Stephen
& Ledger, 2005). Because potential adopters prefer dogs who interact positively
with them, abnormal behaviour may reduce the chances of adoption, increas-
ing LOS (Stephen & Ledger, 2005).
Many other factors can contribute to increased LOS, including barriers to
adoption such as adoption fees. The long-held belief that people who pay low
or no adoption fees will value their animals less has been challenged, with
evidence suggesting that people whose adoption fee was waived showed no
significant difference in attachment to their cat than those who paid a fee
(Weiss & Gramann, 2009).
Similarly, rigorous animal adoption application policies may contribute to
the population surplus in shelters by reducing the pool of “acceptable” adopt-
ers as many applicants do not meet the adoption criteria. Policy-based adop-
tions are designed to ensure that animals are adopted into the best possible
homes, and to reduce the likelihood of re-surrender. Yet in this author’s ex-
perience, many “good” owners are driven to pet stores or online pet suppliers
because they did not meet adoption criteria. Indeed, at the 2017 7th National
G2Z Summit on the Gold Coast in Australia, only 2 out of 240 delegates—an
audience consisting predominantly of those working in the animal welfare,
health and management sectors—met the adoption criteria of one animal res-
cue organisation. This is not the first time such an exercise has been run, with
similar results (McFarland, 2014). Strategies to address such barriers have been
explored. One study found that those who adopted their pet through a “conver-
sation-based”, policy-free process provided similar high quality care and were
likely to be just as bonded to their pet as those who adopted through policy
based adoptions (Weiss et al., 2014).
Creating or failing to recognise barriers to adoption that do not improve
animal welfare can increase LOS and reduce the number of animals adopted,
therefore constituting a harm.
Long-distance animal transfer programs are increasingly employed by shel-
ters to take advantage of regional differences in adoption patterns (Simmons
& Hoffman, 2016). For example, a dog may be transferred from a regional
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 191
shelter to a metropolitan shelter to increase its chances of adoption. Potential
unintended harms include stress associated with long distance transport, and
the spread of disease, especially when organisations accepting transferred
animals lack quarantine protocols (Australian Veterinary Association, 2017).
Another potential harm associated with such transfers is the possibility that
local animals compete with transferred animals for adoption (Simmons &
Hoffman, 2016).
Even established practices, such as the routine neutering of animals by shel-
ters, have the potential for harm. It is argued by shelters that routine neutering
of animals is the most effective means of reducing pet overpopulation, and
thus the source of animals admitted to shelters. So ingrained is this belief that
it has been referred to as “an article of faith within the US veterinary profes-
sion: Thou shalt spay or castrate cats and dogs” (Scott Nolen, 2013). However,
there is literature which suggests that there may be some detrimental impacts
on the physical health and behaviour of neutered animals (Palmer et al., 2012),
beyond the immediate potential morbidity and mortality related to anesthet-
ic and surgical complications. Neutering may remain the lesser of two evils
(overpopulation), but further evidence is required to ensure neutering-related
harms are identified and minimized.
As challenging as this may be, Fraser’s approach demands those who are
“mindful of unseen harm” must be observant, able to articulate concerns about
potential harms and give them thoughtful consideration, and willing to chal-
lenge current practices. They understand that, despite their best efforts, un-
seen harms will continue to exist.
A current example involves dog behaviour assessments performed in shel-
ters. For decades, many shelters employed animal behaviour staff with vari-
ous qualifications to test dog behaviour, under the assumption that in-shelter
behaviour predicts at-home behaviour. Thus, if an animal failed a behavioural
evaluation for resource-guarding, it was assumed that this behaviour would be
displayed post-adoption and may be a reason for future relinquishment. This
could be used as justification for humane killing.
But a review found that the predictive value of such evaluations was “no bet-
ter than flipping a coin” (Patronek & Bradley, 2016). Displays of aggression in
shelters may be context specific. The authors argue that shelters would be bet-
ter off directing their resources to maximizing opportunities for staff and vol-
unteers to interact with dogs “in normal and enjoyable ways that mirror what
they are expected to do once adopted (e.g., walking, socializing with people,
playgroups with other dogs, games, training)” (Patronek & Bradley, 2016).
They argue that this, and a thorough history at admission (forming a “big-
ger picture” assessment of an animal’s behaviour), would effectively enable
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access192 Fawcett
shelters to vet out problem dogs, while reducing the risk of false positive re-
sults for aggression in those dogs who may show aggression only in the shelter
or only in the test context.
Reaction to the paper has been mixed, in part because many shelters have
invested heavily in developing and refining standardized behaviour assess-
ments and many staff have been involved in life and death decisions made
based on these assessments. The paper did not call for ditching of behavioural
assessment as such, but replacement of structured assessments with multi-
factorial evaluation of animals in more realistic contexts.
Fraser’s framework obliges us to reevaluate current practices in the light of
evidence. If animals are being harmed by being miscategorised in behavioural
assessments, the practice must change.
7 Shelters and Unintended Harm to Humans
I used to feel that my work was helping “save” the world. Not anymore.
Anonymous shelter worker (Reeve et al., 2005)
Persons working with animals are exposed to unique forms of occupational
stress. In particular, the literature about occupational harms in shelter settings
highlights compassion fatigue and moral stress as major concerns.
Compassion fatigue may be defined as “a state of physical or psychologi-
cal distress in caregivers, which occurs as a consequence of an ongoing and
snowballing process in a demanding relationship with needy individuals” (van
Mol et al., 2015). The term was initially used to describe a loss of compassion
secondary to ongoing exposure to suffering in an occupational setting, and
later defined as secondary traumatic stress resulting from deep or intense in-
volvement with a person who directly experienced trauma. Thus compassion
fatigue in the medical literature applies to secondary post-traumatic stress or
vicarious trauma (van Mol et al., 2015).
Compassion fatigue is different to burnout, as burnout is associated with
occupational stress (high workload, low perceived reward, lack of autonomy)
where compassion fatigue is associated with our ability to engage with others
or enter into a caring relationship (with colleagues or patients). It may be ex-
acerbated by work overload, lack of resources, and poor coping strategies, and
may occur concurrently with burnout.
A recent systematic review found that there was a general disparity of nomen-
clature and variation in research methods, making it difficult to determine risk
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 193
factors, characteristics and incidence of compassion fatigue in people working
with animals. However, the review found that “personnel engaged directly with
euthanasia reported significantly higher levels of work stress and lower levels of
job satisfaction, which may have resulted in higher employee turnover, psycho-
logical distress, and other stress-related conditions” (Scotney et al., 2015).
While compassion fatigue is often considered to be a direct result of eutha-
nasia and humane killing, it may be induced by other occupational stressors
such as client financial constraints, client non-compliance, client negligence,
high workload and long-term care of patients with chronic illnesses (Scotney
et al., 2015). Compassion fatigue may also be induced by moral stress.
Moral distress is defined as ‘the experience of psychological distress that
results from engaging in, or failing to prevent, decisions or behaviours that
transgress, or come to transgress, personally held moral or ethical beliefs’
(Crane et al., 2013). It is a distinct type of occupational stress, which is an ad-
verse reaction employees experience in response to pressures of the workplace
(Dawson & Thompson, 2017). It differs from, for example, overwork, troubled
professional relationships or the uncomplicated distress of tending to a suffer-
ing animal, by the presence of conflict, between one’s own values and those of
another (for example a client or employer).
Situations giving rise to moral distress vary. Several studies have found that
killing of healthy animals, euthanasia of sick animals, dealing with clients with
financial limitations and being asked to continue treatment when you believe
euthanasia is indicated are all experienced as stressful situations by veterinar-
ians (Batchelor & McKeegan, 2012; Crane et al., 2015; Hartnack et al., 2016). In
one study, the three ethical scenarios that veterinarians rated as “highly stress-
ful” (convenience euthanasia of a healthy animal, financial limitations of cli-
ents restricting treatment options, and a client pressing to continue treatment
in spite of compromised animal welfare) (Batchelor & McKeegan, 2012), are
common to the shelter context.
This is consistent with Bernard Rollin’s account of moral stress in relation to
shelter work: particularly the euthanasia of healthy or treatable animals.
… [Moral] stress grows out of the radical conflict between one’s rea-
sons for entering the field of animal work, and what one in fact ends up
doing … imagine the psychological impact of constant demands to kill
healthy animals for appalling reasons: ‘the dog is too old to run with me
anymore; we have redecorated, and the dog no longer matches the colour
scheme; it is cheaper to get another dog when I return from vacation than
to pay the fees for a boarding kennel’, and, most perniciously, ‘I do not
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access194 Fawcett
wish to spend the money on the procedure you recommend to treat the
animal’ or ‘it is cheaper to get another dog’.
Rollin, 2011
Scotney concurs, writing “it has been our experience that most people who
work in these fields do so because they love animals and feel an affinity with
them. They are rarely aware of the extent to which they will be required to kill
animals” (Scotney et al., 2015).
Ultimately, persons working in shelters may feel that their intention to help
animals isn’t borne out in their work, and there may be a feeling of complic-
ity in harm. This conflict between the values of oneself and one’s workplace
presents a threat to career identity, which is particularly strong in veterinar-
ians and veterinary nurses (Page-Jones & Abbey, 2015), and may be impossible
to resolve.
The impact of moral distress on veterinarians and shelter staff may be pro-
found. According to Elizabeth Strand, founding director of the Veterinary So-
cial Work program at the University of Tennessee, “handling ethical dilemmas
is the most common cause of poor wellness in veterinary medicine” (Kahler,
2015). Other factors contributing to poor wellness of staff include the frequency
and intensity of euthanasia, interactions with members of the public, animal
cruelty, workplace conflict and “the constant stream of animals” (Kahler, 2015).
The caring-killing paradox, as it has been referred to, not only causes work-
place stress, but increased work-to-family conflict (incompatible demands
between work and family roles that make fulfilling either role difficult), so-
matic complaints (headaches, reduced appetite, pain, fatigue and so forth),
substance abuse and lower levels of job satisfaction (Reeve et al., 2005).
Aside from the frequency of euthanasia and killing, staff may be negatively
impacted by the decision-making process itself, or the manner in which eutha-
nasia and killing are carried out. In one study, shelter employee turnover rate
was positively correlated with euthanasia rate, as well as the practice of mak-
ing decisions to kill animals for other than health or behaviour reasons such as
breed, age or pregnancy (Rogelberg et al., 2007). Shelters that had a designated
room, excluded other live animals from the vicinity during euthanasia or kill-
ing, and removed deceased animals from the room before another animal en-
tered, had a lower staff turnover.
Minimising harms to shelter staff is increasingly a legal requirement. For ex-
ample, under the New South Wales Work Health and Safety Act, an employer
has a primary duty “to manage risks associated with exposure to hazards aris-
ing from work that could result in physical or psychological harm” (Safe Work
Australia, 2014).
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 195
At its worst, an animal shelter may be harmful both to the animals confined
within, as well as the staff and volunteers caring for them. The occurrence of
compassion fatigue and moral stress are symptomatic of a disconnect between
the values of individual staff and their role. Open discussion about the harms
of compassion fatigue and moral stress have been—alongside concerns about
animal welfare—significant drivers of change in shelter management.
There is scant literature about the harms of shelters to members of the
public. Those who surrender animals because they have no choice may suffer
distress knowing that their animal may be euthanised, or that they will never
know the animal’s fate. They may be judged or feel they are being judged by
shelter staff (Spencer et al., 2017). This is an area that requires further explora-
tion so that harms can be avoided or minimised.
8 Shelters and Unintended Harm to the Environment
While the impact of the shelter environment on dogs and cats has been ex-
plored in the peer reviewed literature, much of the emphasis on shelter design
relates to the immediate welfare of animals within, and control of infectious
disease (Newbury et al., 2010; Kiddie & Collins, 2015).
An animal’s primary enclosure, surfaces and drainage, heating, ventilation,
air quality, light and sound control all impact on the welfare of animals (and
staff and volunteers who share the environment), but the broader environ-
mental impacts of shelters remain relatively unexplored in the peer-reviewed
literature. Yet these are potentially profound.
For example, a poorly planned shelter could have detrimental effects on
the local environment, impacting on local wildlife. Coppola and colleagues
measured sound levels in a newly constructed animal shelter, and found that
peak noise levels regularly exceeded the upper range of the sound level meter
(118.9dBA) (Coppola et al., 2006). The paper explores the physiological and psy-
chological impact of noise on dogs, but does not explore the impact on the
broader environment and animals living within it.
Potential environmental impacts of shelters and other animal housing
facilities include but are not limited to those listed in Table 3.
Addressing environmental impacts, such as noise, may benefit the wider
community in which the shelter is situated, in addition to having positive im-
pacts on the welfare of animals housed in the shelter, and the wellbeing of staff
and volunteers. This is an area which requires more research.
Similarly, euthanasia methods may have an environmental impact (Leary
et al., 2013). For example, sodium pentobarbital may persist in carcases which
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free access196 Fawcett
Table 3 Potential environmental impacts of shelters and possible solutions
Environmental impact Potential solutions
Reliance on fossil fuel derived Use of renewable energy, for example active
energy → CO 2 emissions solar and geothermal heating.
Excessive energy use Use of energy-efficient appliances and lighting;
use of natural light; use of timers; tinted glass to
minimise heat loss in winter and maximise heat
gain in summer.
Water use Use of low-flow water fixtures, landscaping with
drought-resistant plants, reclaiming grey water,
use of artificial turf in dog toileting areas,
collecting rainwater.
Waste Recycling, composting, reducing single-item
packaging through bulk buying. Recycled
building materials may also be used.
Chemical and toxic waste Use of environmentally friendly cleaning
products; use of digital radiography and
thermometers, use of low to no volatile organic
compound paint.
Build-up of noxious gases such as Design buildings to provide optimal ventilation
ammonia
Disruption of natural habitats Building shelters on existing sites; reduce soil
erosion using a sedimentation control plan.
Environmental impact of visitors Provide public transport options, preferred
and staff parking for low-emission vehicles
Compiled from American Veterinary Medical Association (2017), Pittman
(2016) and Islam et al. (2016)
can contaminate the environment or cause secondary toxicity in animals that
feed on carcases which are exposed or become exposed (Kaiser et al., 2010; Col-
lege of Veterinarians of British Columbia, 2014).
From a purely utilitarian perspective, if addressing environmental impacts
can minimise harm and maximise animal welfare (both those within and in
the vicinity of shelters), people (shelter staff and the wider community), and
environmental wellbeing, this should be pursued. This is an area that warrants
extensive further study.
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessOne Welfare Approach 197
9 The One Welfare Approach to Animal Shelters
The previous discussion outlines potential, unintended harms to animals, hu-
mans and the environment associated with animal shelters. The One Welfare
framework first appeared in the veterinary literature in 2013, where it was ar-
gued that “global ethical and policy decisions about human and animal welfare
should be based on the consideration of the wellbeing of animals and humans
within their ecosystem” (Colonius & Earley, 2013).
In 2017 the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) developed its
Global Animal Welfare Strategy, aiming for “a world where the welfare of ani-
mals is respected, promoted and advanced, in ways that complement the pur-
suit of animal health, human well-being, socio-economic development and
environmental sustainability” (OIE, 2017a). The Strategy acknowledges the
close and often inextricable links between animal welfare, animal health, the
health and well-being of people, and the sustainability of socio-economic and
ecological systems (OIE, 2017a).
Consider the example of an overcrowded open-admission shelter with
poor animal welfare, poor staff well-being and practices with a high environ-
mental impact.
One way to reduce shelter-related harms to animals, humans and the en-
vironment is for shelters to determine and operate within their “capacity for
care”. According to the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, “every sheltering
organisation has a maximum capacity for care, and the population in their
care must not exceed that level” (Newbury et al., 2010).
Working within that capacity for care can reduce overpopulation and staff
stress levels, reducing harms to humans and animals. In addition, there are
benefits. One study found that application of a “capacity for care” management
system in the feline section of three shelters improved LRR, decreased death
rates and reduced the number of cats requiring isolation (often associated
with increased LOS) (Karsten et al., 2017). Lowering the total number of ani-
mals housed on a daily basis increased the total number of animals rehomed
while reducing resource requirements (Karsten et al., 2017), which may have a
positive environmental impact.
The reduction of euthanasia rates may reduce compassion fatigue and
moral stress. In addition, the teaching of communication skills, ethical rounds
to discuss ethical aspects of cases and mindfulness are interventions that have
been suggested to combat compassion fatigue and moral stress (van Mol et al.,
2015), yet their success in doing so, and how this impacts animal welfare, has
not been evaluated in a shelter or veterinary context.
Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 1 (2019) 177–208
Downloaded from Brill.com09/14/2021 12:26:39PM
via free accessYou can also read
