Donna Brander and Natalie Waran
‘Issues of companion animal welfare are often too close to home to be seen by members of the general public.’
Professor Bernard Rollin – Animal Ethicist
The human animal bond is considered to be over 12,000 years old and was probably originally based on a mutually beneficial relationship. Dogs and cats exploited the tribal life of human beings as scavengers for the dross of the nomadic wanderers. The dogs would defend this resource from outsiders and, thus became a helpful alarm against the approach men or beasts. Cats were a natural vermin control. Sometimes dogs would be used as a beast of burden for nomadic peoples, and both dogs and cats could ultimately be used as food. But there is evidence that even from the beginning, these animals were sometimes kept solely as companion animals.
Many tribal people (for example, Native Americans and Aboriginal people) believe animals are individuals. They believe that animals are thinking, feeling beings that are worthy of respect as ancestors and relatives. Some tribes of Native Americans call them the ‘animal people’ and consider animals to be part of the circle of life. Interestingly, many of the game laws, closed seasons and limited harvesting of animals that we apply today have roots in tribal thinking.
Various other ways of considering animals have developed through the centuries. Dominionism dictates that animals exist to serve humankind. Stewardship perceives humans as caretakers of other animal life. Evolutionary Perspectivism is problematic for some, as it looks only at the development of life from a human point of view. Critical anthropomorphism recognises the problem of homocentricism and attempts to critically assess behaviour in animals.
Religious beliefs have also played a crucial part in attitudes towards animals. Some religions could almost be considered to be animal liberationist. Buddhism, Jainism, and the yogic branches of Hinduism perceive animals as having rights, and have a basic tenet of kindness towards all animals. The Quakers were the first Christian sect to oppose blood sports and incorporate kindness to animals as an article of faith.
Attitudes towards animals have changed throughout history. Early Christian attitudes considered man to have dominion over all animals. In the middle ages, animals were used for work, food and skins, but by the late middle Ages the line between humans and animals became more blurred, to the extent that animals were often tried for crimes just as if they were human beings.
In the 18th century, reason and intellect set humans apart from animals. The Cartesian view of animals as machines led indirectly to the belief that animals could feel no pain and, therefore, there was no such thing as cruelty to animals. Cruelty to animals infused eighteenth century Britain, and the ill-treatment of animals was a part of social fabric. However, by the 19th century, humans began to define themselves as creatures of feeling and passion, rather than intellect and they therefore became more empathetic towards animals. It becomes clear that what we think about animals largely depends on how we define ourselves.
In the 19th century attitudes towards animals began to change dramatically with the theories of Darwin. Once again, there was a joining of humans to animals. With these philosophies came what is known as the Generosity Paradigm, which suggests that the vulnerable, unprotected, undefended and morally innocent have a moral priority over other competing claims. Along with this thinking came the concept of protection of cruelty towards animals, and organisations such as the American Society for the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals (1866) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1824) were formed.
There are various definitions of animal welfare but, in general, an animal’s welfare relates to its ability to adjust to, or cope successfully with, the prevailing conditions in which it finds itself. As a concept, welfare can be described in terms of the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s ‘Five Freedoms’. These state that the basic requirements for any animal are food, water, good ventilation and protection from risk of injury or disease. In addition animals should be able to perform their natural behaviour and be free from suffering.
Most pet owners equate welfare with the quality of an animal’s life. The problem is that quality of life can be difficult to accurately determine, since there is no one simple indicator that is universally accepted as a measure of welfare. There are a number of measures that can be used, ranging from measures of the animal’s biological functioning, for example its health and reproductive ability, to more subjective assessments of its emotional state, including how free it is to perform natural behaviour. In general most owners tend to presume that their dog is experiencing positive emotional states, such as happiness, when it behaves in a certain way towards them, for example wagging the tail, and showing play behaviour. In this way owners often describe their dog or cat’s welfare in anthropomorphic terms. Interestingly, people rarely see themselves as restricting the freedom of their companion animals, for example by placing them in an unnatural setting or restricting their interactions with conspecifics. There is also no attempt of objective assessment of whether these animals are free from unpleasant emotional states.
Sadly it is often the case that the care of pet animals can be misguided, although well intentioned. It is still all too common to consider the care and welfare of animals as being based on a ‘common sense’ approach. This approach can often lead to pets experiencing levels of care and management that fall short of their basic requirements.
Welfare problems arise when environmental conditions are so extreme that the animal can no longer cope successfully. In dogs and cats such an inability to cope may manifest itself in destructive behaviour, aggression, increased sensitivity to noise, attention seeking behaviour or stereotypical responses. These problem behaviours must be considered as indicators of a welfare problem. What is therefore required is a method of assessment of animal needs that is not homocentric.
In the UK, animals were traditionally viewed as property, and as such were protected because they belonged to the owner. In 1809 in the UK, Martin Erskine presented the first Bill to Parliament that was concerned with the protection of animals against cruel acts. Although this failed to become law, it did encourage others to consider the matter worthy of further debate. It was, however, 1822 before Martin’s Act finally became law, making it an offence for any person to beat, abuse or ill-treat any horse, or other beast of burden, and a further four years before dogs became protected under the Act. By 1840, the principle of animal welfare legislation had become accepted, and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act became law in England in 1849. In 1911, the existing anti-cruelty legislation was consolidated and extended by the passing of the Protection of Animals Act. Since then there have been nine amendments to the Act. In essence the Act makes it an offence to cause any ‘unnecessary suffering’ to any domestic or captive animal.
The problem with this Act is that, as with most legislation, it is concerned with extremes. The statutes tend to focus on animal cruelty, and as such they do not seek to promote higher standards of welfare. Interestingly, in the case of companion animals, UK law is less advanced than the Council of Europe’s Convention on pets. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet animals is based on a ‘duty of care’ philosophy such as is described in the welfare codes for farmed animals. The proposed new UK Animal Welfare legislation based on the European convention has yet to successfully make its way through Parliament.
There are various other pieces of UK legislation that are more specific and aim to control the use, housing and breeding conditions for companion animals. For example the control of dog breeding is covered by The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, 1991 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. Under this legislation, anyone who is in the business of breeding and selling dogs requires a license. This is granted only if the animals in the breeding establishment are suitably accommodated, fed, exercised and protected from disease and fire. It is for local authorities, which have extensive powers, to check on the standards of health, welfare and accommodation of the animals, to enforce the requirements of the Act. In addition the 1999 Act provides that bitches may not be mated until they are at least one year old and that they give birth to no more than six litters in a lifetime, and no more than one litter per year.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example of legislation that has welfare implications for pet dogs; however in this case the issues lie with the drafting of the legislation. After a series of well-publicised attacks by dogs on humans, the UK Government hastily responded with an Act that, amongst other things, aimed to control the breeding and movements of certain breeds of dogs. The confusion lay in the interpretation of the wording of the Act, which led to long delays in proving whether a dog was of a certain type, and, as such, whether the owners were subject to prosecution for having custody of it, off-lead or un-muzzled, in a public place. The consequences of this were that many dogs were confiscated from their owners and placed in kennels, with the average length of detention being almost two and half years. At one point the Metropolitan police were holding some 448 dogs under this Act.
Of course animal welfare law is constantly being revisited and revised and new proposed legislation is constantly being put before Parliament. For example a recent controversial Bill relates to the sale or use of collars for animals, which administer electric shocks.
Typically companion animals are required to fit their owner’s lifestyle. Human misunderstanding and high expectation is usually the reason for the development of problem behaviours. Of course companion animal behaviour problems usually impact on the animal’s human companions and the behaviour is either addressed or the relationship abandoned. Dog and cat rescue homes provide temporary care and a re-homing service for thousands of pets each year, and one of the reasons for animals being placed in such homes has been shown to be behaviour problems.
Dogs may have problems of separation from their human ‘pack’ unless accustomed to the situation. The ‘urban dog’ is an example of the social pack animal that is left alone without its group members. This causes the animal distress and it may respond by barking, howling or whining in an attempt to deal with the situation. The dog may attempt to escape the confinement or, in extreme distress, urinate, defecate or engage in destruction. Preventing such problem behaviour is the most effective way of avoiding the stress that this imposes upon the dog. During early development it is suggested that the dog be habituated to deal with such unnatural situations in order to be comfortable with human lifestyle requirements.
Pet dogs can also exhibit problems with anxiety that can lead to aggression or fearful behaviour. It can be caused by a lack of understanding of the importance of exposing puppies to commonly encountered stimuli.
Problems of territory are often the cat’s main welfare problem. It has been stated that the single most stressful situation for a cat is another cat. This can lead to problems when a household or neighbourhood has many cats. Even one cat, chosen to keep the resident cat ‘company’, may cause stress leading to behavioural problems, such as aggression between the cats, aggression towards people and marking in the house by one or both cats. Cats are social and many enjoy having others of their species around. They prefer to choose their own companions and they may not necessarily accept one that has been arbitrarily brought into their life by well-meaning people. Most cats require many options to live within a territory in peace. A cat’s life can be very complex in regard to time spent in various areas. Availability and location of resting areas, movement from one area to another, how food and water is dispensed and where it is dispensed all have to be considered from the perspective of their natural behaviour. For example cats like to snack rather than being fed on a schedule.
An interesting debate that often arises is whether cats require access to outdoors. In the UK, there appears to be a belief that cats need to be able to get outdoors, and, even in urban areas, cats may be shut out of the house during certain periods of the day. Often these time periods relate to the owners lifestyle and not to the cats, and this can lead to welfare problems where the cat is unable to avoid unwanted interactions or close encounters with neighbourhood cats. A cat’s lifestyle can have a significant effect on its chances of being killed. A study carried out in Cambridge found that in a sample of 128 cats involved in road traffic accidents, younger male cats that spent more time outdoors during darkness were predisposed to such accidents. Neutered females, pedigree cats, and cats kept inside at night were less likely to be killed.
Cats often have specific litter tray requirements such as placement of trays, number of trays, type of trays, and type of litter. Many of the needs of cats are simply not part of the human sensibility and a ‘common sense’ approach to keeping cats will, at best, only be adequate, and may not address the animals’ behavioural and environmental welfare. It is interesting to note that in the not so distant past, it was thought that cats did not feel pain to the same degree as other animals. This judgement was based on the cats’ response (or lack of response) to stress and pain. As a prey animal, part of the cat’s survival repertoire is to remain still and hidden when stressed or in pain.
Cats commonly hide when they are distressed, and some cats spend a lot of time hiding in the household rather than interacting with family life. Some of these animals may be in extreme distress, or even pain, but may be neglected because this behaviour is perceived as normal for the cat. While it may be normal for cats to be more discreet in their responses than a dog, any cat that spends a lot of time hiding or running away should be considered as behaviourally distressed, or in pain, rather than behaving normally. Lack of knowledge of a species causes inappropriate expectations. People either think cats are just like dogs, and treat them accordingly, or they have a misconception of true cat behaviour. Either way, the welfare of the cat is marginalized.
It is interesting to note that the general public does not consider overfeeding animals, whether cats or dogs, a welfare issue. Most veterinarians have had alarmingly fat animals brought into their clinics at one time or another but they are not brought in because the client is concerned about their weight. Often the client simply does not recognise the obese condition as being detrimental to the animal, and will often be very reluctant to decrease the food intake. Fat animals are often seen as being cute and much loved. Thin, gaunt animals will provoke an immediate concern for the animal, even though statistics show many more animals suffer from complications of obesity than die from being too lean. Again, a lack of knowledge as to the needs of an animal, or even how an animal should look when fit, could be the problem.
More and more households are keeping rabbits as ‘house rabbits’. Rabbits are very social animals and keeping them in the house can be a good experience if the needs of the rabbit are considered. Traditionally, rabbits are kept in a small cage in the garden. They are sometimes kept as a single rabbit and sometimes housed together in pairs. Studies done by Dr. Shirley Seaman at the University of Edinburgh suggest that social contact is so important to rabbits that they will work hard in order to achieve even relatively short periods of visual and minimal tactile contact with another rabbit. Management of this contact is crucial.
Whether they are housed in a cage in the garden with other rabbits or kept in the household, rabbits prefer a living situation in which they have some control over the contact they have with other rabbits. Cages should be fitted with a bolthole that they can use if startled, or to avoid visual contact with other rabbits. Rabbits kept in adjacent cages could have some of the shared wall as a wire mesh in order to facilitate eye contact. In the house, rabbits should have a small cat carrier or box opening to the front in order to ‘bolt’ if frightened or wishing to avoid contact with other animals. Options in social contact make a rabbit feel secure.
Some people enjoy competing with animals and most people would suggest that competing with dogs is mutually beneficial to the dog and the people who do the training. This assumes that the trainer uses training techniques based on a thorough knowledge of the way that dogs learn, and has a clear understanding of the dog’s behaviour. Even with the correct use of positive reinforcement there can be problems, such as with the timing of the reward, the clarity of the signals and other factors that can cause problems for the dog in making the correct associations. Breakdowns in training can lead to inappropriate use of aversive techniques and even the use of inhumane methods to force the animal to perform the behaviour. The pressure on trainers can be intensified by the need to produce a dog for competition.
All forms of manipulation should be continually reassessed in a training programme. The use of electric shock collars should always be considered unethical but even standard choke collars can be cruel and dangerous. These collars are still in common use but should be considered unnecessary if more appropriate training methods are applied. There is plenty of evidence of the serious injuries that can be inflicted by these collars, not to mention the increased risk of promoting behavioural problems. Their use as a training ‘aid’ is certainly frowned upon by anyone who wishes to encourage welfare in the handling of dogs.
The use of any of these inhumane training devices or techniques by trainers is mainly based on the fact that they can successfully achieve the desired behaviour. However, we would argue that this is not a valid reason for their use. The effectiveness of training and behavioural therapy should never be based solely on the success of the results. It should always be based on results achieved through the humane, ethical treatment of the animal.
Genetic manipulation of dogs and cats for the entertainment and enjoyment of human beings is another area for serious welfare concern. Dogs in particular have been selectively bred to enhance certain qualities required for hunting or fighting purposes. Some were selectively bred for a small stature, to be able to go down holes in the ground for prey, or fit more comfortably in a person’s lap. Much of the more recent genetic manipulation that is popular in the dog is cosmetic. People want the dog to look a certain way, no matter how disastrous this is medically for the dogs involved.
Selective breeding for fashionable traits has serious welfare implications with dogs being bred with extreme deformities in order to fit a breed standard set by purebred dog enthusiast. Of the breeds recognised by the Kennel Club, 148 breeds of purebred dogs collectively exhibit more than 300 genetic deformities and many of these breeds are affected by multiple inheritable problems. It could be argued that the breeders of these dogs deliberately select for characteristics that are known to cause medical problems for the animal.
Some of the more common breeds that are detrimentally effected by cosmetic breeding include the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Chow-Chow, the Basset Hound, the Dachshund, the Boxer, the Shar Pei, the Pug, the English Bull Terrier, the St. Bernard and, perhaps the most damaged of all, the English Bulldog. Many of these deformities cause the animal great distress and/or pain throughout a sometimes-shortened life span. Since there is no other purpose for the selective breeding of these animals, this can only be attributed to human vanity.
A short list of the genetic disorders that are a direct result of cosmetic breeding include: dental problems, injury prone ears, breathing disorders, eye problems, shortened tear ducts, cataracts, inwardly turned eyelids, bone and joint failures, heart problems such as leaky valves and heart murmurs, cataracts, slipped kneecaps, spinal problems, hip dysplasia, skin diseases from skin folds, thyroid dysfunction, skull and brain deformities, and the list goes on and on. Professor David Morton, bio-ethicist and veterinarian at the University of Birmingham considers the issue to be one of ‘integrity’. An animal has integrity if it is biologically fit in its natural state and capable of surviving in a range of environments.
Many breeds also suffer from behavioural problems that can be a direct consequence of breeding for function. Gundogs were originally bred to be very active dogs capable of, and requiring, a lot of exercise with enhanced retrieving abilities. This can cause problems of possessive aggression, or simply give rise to exercise requirements beyond the means of most people. Terriers were originally bred to be tough and tenacious hunters, not the lap dogs that many are now used as. Border Collies have proved to be exceptional at agility games, as they were originally bred to have high activity levels and heightened vigilance for aiding sheep herding. Now this breed is being bred for enhanced ability in agility competitions, raising questions as to how ethical this practice may be. The natural characteristics of the breed that were so valued in a functional context as sheepdogs, are now being honed through breeding so that they are more compulsive in their desire to chase a flyball.
Cats fare no better. Cosmetic breeding has created cats with no hair (Sphinx) and cats with such long, fine hair that they cannot properly groom themselves (Persian). The Persian also has eye problems inherent with the aesthetically desirable short muzzle and nose. There are cats with foreshortened legs (Munchkin) that cannot jump or climb and very large cats (Maine Coon Cat) that are prone to hip dysplasia. There are also cats with disorders that go along with the genetic deformities such as the tailless cat (Manx) and the potentially fatal gene attached to the Scottish Fold. Most of these animals are truly disabled and they cannot live natural, normal lives.
A new trend is the crossing of wild species of cats with domestic cats, to create an exotic animal for the pet trade. The Bengal cat and the Leopard Spotted Cat have a large percentage of wildcat in their gene pool. They are extremely active animals and they require a lot of attention and enrichment to keep them from being destructive. These cats prefer to be outdoors but, unfortunately, most of these cats are housebound as they are too valuable to allow out of the house. They have been bred mostly for their looks but little regard has been given to the needs of such an animal.
It is also popular to breed rabbits that would most likely not be able to live a natural life on their own. Some have large floppy ears dragging the ground. Others have fur that requires a daily brush from their human companion in order to keep it from matting.
All of these animals have been bred for their looks and little regard has been given to their ability to participate in natural behaviour.
Does anyone care? The proposed new Animal Welfare Bill included the banning of docking of puppies’ tails; tighter controls of pet fairs and the exotic pet trade; a new criminal offence of ‘likely to cause unnecessary suffering’; increased powers for police to investigate cruelty; longer sentences and more time for cases to be brought to court; and prosecution of breeders who produce genetically defective animals. Lobbying campaigns by breed associations and owners clubs fiercely opposed every one of these proposals. These serious welfare issues, affecting millions of animals, are now in the hands of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Parliament.
It could be argued that the deliberate breeding of cats and dogs should be eliminated altogether. Thousands of unwanted cats and dogs are abandoned, neglected or euthanised everyday in this country. Yet the breeding continues. Often the animals breed because their carers did want to take responsibility for neutering them. It is perhaps not so surprising that there is therefore a segment of the population who would like to restrict or even ban people from keeping pets. Their reasoning is that they respect these animals too much to allow the practice of irresponsible pet ownership to continue.
There are certainly welfare problems that arise due to owner ignorance as to the behavioural needs and physical requirements of their pet.
It is difficult to assess how much a dog will do without manipulation because, as a social animal, the dog usually wants to maintain the relationship with his owner. This does not necessarily mean that the dog would want to engage in a particular activity if left on his own.
A good example of misconception of an animals needs, is the walk that most dogs are required to take on a daily basis. It is commonly believed that a dog must be walked at least once a day to stay healthy. This is sometimes done with the purpose of calming the dog down through exercise. Sometimes these walks take the form of accompanying a person who is cycling or jogging. If the dog is mature and fit, these forms of exercise are probably beneficial and enjoyed, although it should always be recognised that dogs like a lot of slow, ‘sniffy’ walks in which to assess the world around them. It should also be pointed out that if the goal is to ‘calm the dog down’ by cycling/jogging, the dog probably just gets fitter. This has been known to make the dog fitter than the person and in doing so makes the dog more difficult to live with in the house!
Sometimes this perceived requirement to walk the dog is fraught with stress and anxiety for both the animal and the walker. The benefits of a walk can easily outweigh the costs in terms of the stress, if the dog exhibits aggression or is overly fearful. It is often considered that dogs must be walked even if there is a big private garden available to the dog. Little thought is given to engaging the dog’s brain by making the private environment more interesting. Perhaps more consideration should be given to games that can be played in the house or garden that provide sufficient exercise as well as mental stimulation. A dog with a behavioural problem involved with being in public, could benefit from a new private regime. It would likely enhance the welfare of the dog, the walker and the general public if ‘permission’ were given to the individual to stop walking the dog in public until the problem is resolved or under better control. Confirming that it is okay to curtail walks and supplement with other games available can often be of benefit to all concerned.
A further problem is of old and infirm dogs who are required to continue the daily walk, even though it may no longer be enjoyable to them. A dog may continue to attempt this activity because it wishes to be with the human companion, or it may be a lifelong habit. Assumptions about the need and enjoyment of the activity should be assessed, and compromises made to benefit and accommodate the changing needs of the animal.
A potentially serious misconception is that animals have knowledge of wrongdoing which is a welfare issue. Owners often state this because they feel that it is proven by the ‘guilty’ posture the animal appears to exhibit when confronted. While there is no scientific evidence that animals do not feel guilt, it is most likely the posturing is done because the animal realises the person is behaving in a strange way, even possibly aggressively.
Commonly misunderstood dog behaviour that can lead to an inappropriate owner interpretation includes the submissive grin that is often perceived to be a snarl and the play bow that some have interpreted as aggression. Clearly if we are going to have these animals in our lives, it is imperative that we educate ourselves on their social systems and behaviour.
Dogs or cats may be placed in a kennel or cattery for short periods whilst the owner is on holiday, or in extreme cases, for longer periods if the animal is in quarantine. Alternatively a pet animal might find itself placed in a re-homing centre for various reasons. In all cases the animal is confined in an unfamiliar environment and exposed to fear provoking stimuli such as strangers, noise or isolation. In the UK almost half a million cats are received in shelters each year, and in the US this number has been shown to be as high as 8 million. Changes in diet, social and physical environment all impose a challenge to the animal’s physiology and psychology, and there are well documented cases of health problems that result from the animal being unable to meet the environmental challenge.
Cats may display behavioural inhibition, including failure to groom, feed or urinate; they may sleep for longer, hide more or show stereotypic licking or pacing. A more predictable environment where the animal can feel in control is often the best way to improve the welfare of these animals. Understanding the effect of the shelter environment on dogs can help to ensure that facilities for housing and management are improved. This is turn will lead to the development of fewer problem behaviours whilst the dog is awaiting re-homing. Currently 17.5% of the overall shelter dog population are returned after re-homing. This in turn leads to further welfare problems where the dog is separated from a new ‘pack’ leading to increased anxiety.
So is the keeping of animals as companions mutually beneficial or is it exploitation?
This question can lead to great confusion when discussing how we live with these animals. People keep dogs, cats and rabbits for various reasons. Most people keep these animals as ‘members of the family’, but this can be problematic for both animals and people, as pointed out above. Animals are often treated in a disrespectful manner, for example as surrogate children, or as ‘live toys’ to be used by the family children. Both of these attitudes can lead to misinterpretation and anthropomorphisation of the animal’s behaviour.
It is apparent that animals are often treated as objects rather than subjects. Sometimes described as the ‘Disneyfication’ of animals, this can lead to problems where animals have human characteristics projected onto them. An extreme form of anthropomorphism, the animal is depicted as speaking human language, and its body is drawn in such a way as to resemble a humans. Of course most people recognise the difference between a cartoon figure and the real animal, but studies and experience have shown that this material can lead to a misinterpretation of the behaviour of animals by children and some adults. This can lead to a limited knowledge of an animals’ true behavioural and physical needs, and unrealistic expectations of an animals behavioural responses. When these expectations are not met, people can be disappointed. They may respond with anger or withdrawal from the animal, leading inevitably, to a reduced state of welfare for the animal that may be expected to ‘fit-in’ regardless of its needs, leading to behaviour problems, or it may even be discarded.
Finally we need to address the question of what motivates a person to keep an animal as a ‘pet’. In some cases it has been suggested that the motivation may be the need to dominate and control members of another species. For others it could be that there is a substitution of animal affection for human affection. We need to consider whether we should be able to treat these animals as property to be bought, sold, neutered, fed and confined at our whim. And finally, we need to consider whether keeping animals as pets is a right, or a privilege.