A note on the influence of visual conspecific contact on the behaviour of sheltered dogs

Transcription

1 Ž. Applied Animal Behaviour Science Short communication A note on the influence of visual conspecific contact on the behaviour of sheltered dogs Deborah L. Wells ), Peter G. Hepper Canine BehaÕiour Centre, School of Psychology, The Queen s UniÕersity of Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, N. Ireland, UK Accepted 5 March 1998 Abstract Many institutions which house dogs cage their animals separately in an attempt to reduce the transmission of disease andror injury. Under such conditions, dogs are usually able to receive auditory and olfactory stimulation from other animals. However, many kennels are designed in such a way to prevent visual contact with conspecifics. To date, the influence of visual conspecific contact on the behaviour of sheltered dogs has not been specifically addressed. This research examined the effects of visual contact with other dogs on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter. Four hundred and seven dogs were studied: 212 dogs were housed in cages that allowed for visual contact with dogs in opposite pens; 195 dogs were deprived of visual contact with other dogs by being housed in cages opposite empty pens. The dogs position in the cage Žfront, middle, back., activity Ž moving, standing, sitting, resting, sleeping., and vocalisation Žbarking, quiet, other. were recorded over a 4 h period. Dogs which were allowed visual conspecific contact spent significantly more of their time at the front of the pen Ž in a position to see other dogs. than animals denied such contact Ž 87.7% vs. 24.6%, respectively.. Visual canine contact had no effect on dog activity or vocalisation, and it is suggested that tactile contact is necessary before these behaviours are altered. Overall, results indicate that where dogs have the opportunity to observe others dogs, they take it. Where dogs are housed singly, the provision of visual intraspecific contact may help to reduce the under-stimulation commonly associated with single housing. Housing dogs in conditions which encourage the animals to the front of the cage, e.g., constructing pens which face opposite each other, may also help to improve a dog s chances of finding a new home by positively promoting visitors perceptions of dog desirability. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dog; Housing; Intraspecific behaviour; Captivity; Rescue shelters; Welfare ) Corresponding author. Tel.: q ; fax: q ; [email protected] r98r$ - see front matter q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Ž. PII: S

2 84 ( ) D.L. Wells, P.G. HepperrApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science Introduction A large number of dogs are held in captivity across Western Society, e.g., rescue shelters, laboratories. The welfare of a captive dog is largely dependent upon its housing conditions; if this is poor then the welfare of the animal may be compromised ŽBroom, 1989; Fox, 1965; Luescher et al., Unfortunately, many institutions which house dogs are forced to cage their animals separately in an attempt to reduce the transmission of disease andror injury. Such kennelling often deprives dogs of visual conspecific contact. As yet, there has been little specific research on the effects of visual communication with other dogs on canine behaviour. Visual canine contact, however, may provide an important source of stimulation for captive dogs. This paper compares the behaviour of shelter-housed dogs caged singly in conditions which either allow or do not allow, for visual contact with other dogs. Dogs are extremely social animals and housing them alone is generally considered to be detrimental for canine welfare Že.g., Hetts et al., 1992; Hubrecht, 1995; Hubrecht et al., 1992; Hughes et al., 1989; Mertens and Unshelm, Caging dogs alone can result in animal boredom, under-stimulation, the development of behaviour problems Ž e.g., Fox, 1965; Hetts et al., 1992; Hubrecht et al., 1992., and encourage dogs to exhibit publicly unacceptable behaviours Ž Wells, For example, dogs in a rescue shelter which were housed singly, spent most of their time at the back of the cage, a position which potential buyers found undesirable Ž Wells, The chances of such dogs finding a new home, and consequently their ultimate welfare, was therefore reduced. The benefits of providing captive dogs with canine contacts have been well studied Že.g., Fox, 1965; Hetts et al., 1992; Hubrecht et al., 1992; Hughes et al., 1989; Mertens and Unshelm, Housing dogs in pairs or groups is generally considered preferable to caging dogs alone, since it allows the animals to engage in tactile communication, as well as increasing the novelty of an otherwise barren environment Že.g., Hubrecht, Unfortunately, pair or group housing is not always practical, especially in rescue shelters. Caging dogs together can increase the risk of disease transmission, andror injury as a result of aggression Ž e.g., Hubrecht, For this reason, many institutions which house dogs, cage their animals separately. Many kennels are designed in such a way, however, that allow dogs to receive auditory and olfactory stimulation from conspecifics, but do not allow them to see other dogs. The effect of being able to see other conspecifics on a dog s behaviour has not, as yet, been specifically addressed. The following work examined the effects of visual contact with other dogs on the behaviour of rescue sheltered dogs and the advantages this conferred to the animals welfare. The main organisation dealing with the welfare of dogs in Northern Ireland is the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ž USPCA., and one of their main shelters was employed as a study site. Dogs were examined in identical cage conditions with the single exception that dogs were either allowed or denied the opportunity to see dogs in the opposite enclosure. Dog behaviour was employed as a measure of animal welfare, since it is widely recognised as a useful indicator of canine well-being Že.g., Hubrecht, 1995; Hubrecht et al., 1992; Wells, 1996; Wells and Hepper, 1992., as well as playing an important role in affecting potential purchasers perceptions of dog desirability Ž Wells, 1996; Wells and Hepper,

3 ( ) D.L. Wells, P.G. HepperrApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science Method 2.1. Study site Dogs were studied in the Carrickfergus USPCA Shelter, County Antrim. This shelter consisted of 2 rows of cages facing opposite each other. Each cage was 0.9 m wide=6.1 m long=2.3 m high. The walls between adjacent cages were constructed of concrete Ž 2.2 m high., above which there was wire meshing Ž 10 cm high.. The front of each cage consisted of a wire-meshed door, allowing staff access to the enclosure. Cages faced opposite each other, and were separated by a concrete alley down which members of the public could walk. Thus, dogs in these cages had a view of an alleyway where members of the public could walk, and of the dogs in the cages on the opposite side of the walkway. The cages were all barren but for a water bowl and a plastic bed. Dogs were studied in 1 of 2 conditions. For both conditions, subjects were held individually in 1 row of cages described above. For dogs in the Visual Contact Condition the cage opposite each dog s pen was inhabited by another dog. Thus, dogs could see other conspecifics. For dogs in the Visual Deprivation Condition the cages opposite were left empty, thus dogs in this condition were denied visual contact with other conspecifics. Dogs in both conditions were prevented from viewing conspecifics in adjacent cages, due to the concrete walls of their pens. Thus, the only difference between the 2 conditions was that dogs in the Visual Contact Condition could see other dogs, whilst dogs in the Visual Deprivation Condition could not Subjects A total of 407 dogs of different breeds were observed as subjects. Two hundred and twelve of the dogs took part in the Visual Contact Condition; the remaining 195 dogs took part in the Visual Deprivation Condition. All dogs were aged between 1 and 5 years, and assessed as healthy by USPCA staff Procedure The behaviour of each dog was recorded over a 4 h period, from 1200 to A time sampling technique was used to record the dogs behaviour. At 10 min intervals, the experimenter Ž D.L.W.. approached the front of each subject s cage and recorded the dog s behaviour as soon as she saw the animal. Three separate aspects of behaviour, Žall known to influence public perceptions of dog desirability; Wells, 1996., were recorded at each observation, namely: Ž. 1 Position in the cage Ž front: middle: back.. Wire meshing on top of the concrete walls, and running the length of the dog s cage allowed the experimenter to immediately determine which section of the cage the dog happened to be in at each observation. The front of the cage was defined as the section closest to the experimenter and provided dogs with the best opportunity to see other dogs, whilst the back of the cage was defined as the section furthest away from the experimenter; Ž. 2 ActiÕity Žstanding: dog is supported upright with all four legs; sitting: dog is supported by the two extended front legs, and two flexed back legs; resting: dog is reclining in a ventral or lateral position, eyes open; sleeping: dog is reclining in a ventral or lateral

4 86 ( ) D.L. Wells, P.G. HepperrApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science position, eyes closed; moving: dog is walking, running, or trotting about the cage.; and Ž. 3 Vocalisation Žbarking: self descriptive; quiet: no vocalisation; other: includes whining, growling, whimpering.. Each dog was studied for a period of 4 h, every 10 min, providing 24 observations of the dog s position in the cage, activity, and vocalisation. Each behaviour was treated separately. For each behaviour, the number of times the dog was observed in each category Ži.e., for Position in the cage: front, middle, back; for ActiÕity: standing, sitting, resting, sleeping, moving, and; for Vocalisation: barking, quiet, other. was summed across the 4-h observation period Data analysis The analysis was performed separately on each of the 3 behaviours examined Ži.e., position in cage, activity, vocalisation. and was identical for each behaviour. Three mixed-design ANOVAs Ž e.g., Howell, were conducted for between subjects factor of cage condition Ž visual contact; visual deprivation., and within subjects factor of dog behaviour, e.g., position in the cage Ž front; middle; back.. 3. Results 3.1. Position in the cage The dog s position in the cage was significantly influenced by the degree of visual conspecific contact ŽFw2,810x s , P Dogs which were allowed visual conspecific contact spent more time at the front of the cage Žmean number of observations, "s.e.s 21.04, "0.28. than dogs deprived of visual canine contact Ž5.9, " The back of the cage was preferred by dogs denied visual contact with other dogs Ž 17.0, "0.49. to those dogs which were allowed visual canine contact Ž1.75, " ActiÕity There was no significant effect of the degree of visual canine contact on dog activity Ž w x. F 4,1620 s1.49, P) Vocalisation Dog vocalisation was not significantly influenced by the degree of visual conspecific Ž w x. contact F 2,810 s0.336, P) Discussion This study indicates that being able to see other dogs affects canine behaviour. Dogs in this study acted in ways to maintain visual contact with other dogs. Those dogs which were permitted visual conspecific contact spent more of their time at the front of the cage observing other dogs than those animals which were denied such visual contact.

5 ( ) D.L. Wells, P.G. HepperrApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science Providing a dog with the opportunity to view its conspecifics may have a positive effect on its psychological well-being. Dogs are extremely social animals with an inherent desire for social contact. Results from the present study indicate that where dogs have the opportunity to view others dogs, they take it, changing their behaviour in such a way to allow them to spend most of their time observing other dogs. Findings from this study may have practical implications for the kennelling of dogs in rescue shelters. Previous studies suggest that housing dogs in pairs or groups may be preferable to caging them individually Že.g., Hetts et al., 1992; Hubrecht et al., 1992; Mertens and Unshelm, However, pair or group housing is not always practical, particularly in rescue shelters where disease and injury between dogs pose serious problems. The present study indicates that housing dogs singly in conditions which allow for visual intraspecific contact may provide a source of stimulation that dogs seek and help reduce the under-stimulation commonly associated with solitary confinement. The welfare of sheltered dogs may be indirectly improved by housing them in conditions which allow for visual conspecific contact. Potential dog buyers prefer dogs which are at the front as opposed to the rear of the enclosure ŽWells, 1996; Wells and Hepper, Housing dogs in conditions which encourage the animals to the front of the cage, e.g., constructing pens which face opposite each other, may help to improve a dog s chances of finding a new home by positively promoting visitors perceptions of dog desirability. Visual conspecific contact exerted no influence on the dogs activity or vocalisation. Dogs appear to be motivated to observe their conspecifics, i.e., they spent more of their time at the front of the pen from where they can most easily see other dogs. They may, however, need to have tactile contact with other animals before their behaviour patterns are altered in other ways. Overall, results from the present study indicate that captive dogs are motivated to fulfil their inherent desire for social contact. Dogs which were permitted visual conspecific contact took the opportunity to do so, altering their behaviour so that it would allow them to spend most of their time at the front of the cage observing other dogs. It is suggested that housing dogs in conditions that allow for social contacts with other canines, albeit at a limited level of contact such as visual, may positively promote the well-being of dogs housed in rescue shelters. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Prof. K. Brown, School of Psychology, for providing the facilities to enable this research to be undertaken, and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for allowing us to study their animals. D.L.W. acknowledges the financial support of the European Social Fund. References Broom, D.M., Animal Welfare Vet. Ann. 29, Fox, M.W., Environmental factors influencing stereotyped and allelomimetic behaviour in animals. Lab. Anim. Care 15,

6 88 ( ) D.L. Wells, P.G. HepperrApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science Hetts, S., Clark, J.D., Calpin, J.P., Arnold, C.E., Mateo, J.M., Influence of housing conditions on beagle behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34, Howell, D.C., Statistical Methods for Psychology, 3rd edn. Duxbury Press, CA, Hubrecht, R.C., The welfare of dogs in human care. In: Serpell, J. Ž Ed.., The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp Hubrecht, R.C., Serpell, J.A., Poole, T.B., Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34, Hughes, H.C., Campbell, S., Kenney, C., The effects of cage size and pair housing on exercise of Beagle dogs. Lab. Anim. Sci. 39, Luescher, U.A., McKeown, D.B., Halip, J., Stereotypic or obsessive compulsive disorders in dogs and cats. Vet. Clin. North Am.: Sm. Anim. Prac. 21, Mertens, P.A., Unshelm, J., Effects of group and individual housing on the behaviour of kennelled dogs in animal shelters. Anthrozoos 9, Wells, D.L., The welfare of dogs in an animal rescue shelter. PhD Thesis. School of Psychology, The Queen s University of Belfast, UK, Wells, D.L., Hepper, P.G., The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Anim. Welfare 1,