Читать книгу Animal Behavior for Shelter Veterinarians and Staff - Группа авторов - Страница 204

1 American Pet Products Association. (2017). 2017–2018 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. Stamford, CT: American Pet Products Association. https://www.americanpetproducts.org/pubs_survey.asp (accessed 19 December 2019).

2 American Veterinary Medical Association. (n.d.). US Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook. Schaumburg, Illinois: American Veterinary Medical Association. https://www.avma.org/resources/pet‐owners/petcare/spaying‐and‐neutering (accessed 19 December 2019).

3 Ascione, F.R., Weber, C.V., Thompson, T.M. et al. (2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women 13 (4): 354–373.

4 Bazan, E.B. (2005, September). Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: Legal requirements for federal and state roles in declarations of an emergency or a major disaster. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

5 Blackwell, E.J., Twells, C., Seawright, A. et al. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 3 (5): 207–217.

6 Carlisle‐Frank, P., Frank, J. M., and Nielsen, L. (2005). Companion animal renters and pet‐friendly housing in the US. Anthrozoös 18 (1): 59–77.

7 Collins, E.A., Cody, A.M., McDonald, S.E., et al. (2018). A template analysis of intimate partner violence survivors’ experiences of animal maltreatment: Implications for safety planning and intervention. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217697266.

8 Decker Sparks, J.L., Camacho, B., Tedeschi, P. et al. (2018). Race and ethnicity are not primary determinants in utilizing veterinary services in underserved communities in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 21 (2): 120–129.

9 DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A., and Patronek, G. (1998). Surrendering pets to shelters: The relinquisher's perspective. Anthrozoös 11 (1): 41–51.

10 Dolan, E.D., Scotto, J., Slater, M. et al. (2015). Risk factors for dog relinquishment to a Los Angeles municipal animal shelter. Animals 5 (4): 1311–1328.

11 Dolan, E.D., Weiss, E., and Slater, M.R. (2017). Welfare impacts of spay/neuter‐focused outreach on companion animals in New York City public housing. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 20 (3): 257–272.

12 Duxbury, M.M., Jackson, J.A., Line, S.W. et al. (2003). Evaluation of association between retention in the home and attendance at puppy socialization classes. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223 (1): 61–66.

13 Ehnert, K., Lamielle, G., Scott, T. et al. (2015). The Healthy Pets Healthy Families initiative as an example of One Health in action. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 247 (2): 143–147.

14 Frank, J.M. and Carlisle‐Frank, P.L. (2007). Analysis of programs to reduce overpopulation of companion animals: Do adoption and low‐cost spay/neuter programs merely cause substitution of sources? Ecol. Econom. 62 (3–4): 740–746.

15 Gazzano, A., Mariti, C., Alvares, S. et al. (2008). The prevention of undesirable behaviors in dogs: Effectiveness of veterinary behaviorists' advice given to puppy owners. J. Vet. Behav. 3 (3): 125–133.

16 Hennessy, M.B. (2013). Using hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal measures for assessing and reducing the stress of dogs in shelters: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 149 (1–4): 1–12.

17 Huegel, K. and MacMillan, I.B.N. (2014). No place like home. Animal Sheltering, 29–34.

18 Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Pets for Life Community Outreach Toolkit: Community Assessment. https://www.animalsheltering.org/sites/default/files/documents/pfl‐toolkit‐community‐assessment.pdf (accessed 19 December 2019).

19 Kidd, A.H., Kidd, R.M., and George, C.C. (1992). Successful and unsuccessful pet adoptions. Psychol. Rep. 70 (2): 547–561.

20 Kwan, J.Y. and Bain, M.J. (2013). Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment and training techniques of dogs. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 16 (2): 168–183.

21 Lord, L.K., Ingwersen, W., Gray, J.L. et al. (2009). Characterization of animals with microchips entering animal shelters. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 235 (2): 160–167.

22 McCobb, E., Rozanski, E.A., Malcolm, E.L. et al. (2018). A novel model for teaching primary care in a community practice setting: Tufts at Tech Community Veterinary Clinic. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 45 (1): 99–107.

23 McCune, S., Kruger, K.A., Griffin, J.A. et al. (2014). Evolution of research into the mutual benefits of human‐animal interaction. Anim. Front. 4 (3): 49–58.

24 Muldoon, J.C., Williams, J.M., and Lawrence, A. (2016). Exploring children’s perspectives on the welfare needs of pet animals. Anthrozoös 29 (3): 357–375.

25 New, J.C., Jr., Salman, M.D., King, M. et al. (2000). Characteristics of shelter‐relinquished animals and their owners compared with animals and their owners in US pet‐owning households. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 3 (3): 179–201.

26 Patronek, G.J., Glickman, L.T., Beck, A.M. et al. (1996a). Risk factors for relinquishment of cats to an animal shelter. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 209 (3): 582–588.

27 Patronek, G.J., Glickman, L.T., Beck, A.M. et al. (1996b). Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 209 (3): 572–581.

28 Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M. et. al. (2013). Co‐occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite‐related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 243 (12): 1726–1736.

29 Poss, J.E. and Bader, J.O. (2008). Results of a free spay/neuter program in a Hispanic Colonia on the Texas‐Mexico border. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 11 (4): 346–351.

30 Power, E.R. (2017). Renting with pets: A pathway to housing insecurity? Hous. Stud. 32 (3): 336–360.

31 Rauktis, M.E., Rose, L., Chen, Q. et al. (2017). “Their pets are loved members of their family”: Animal ownership, food insecurity, and the value of having pet food available in food banks. Anthrozoös 30 (4): 581–593.

32 Russo, A., Dowling‐Guyer, S., and McCobb, E. (2021) Community programming for companion dog retention: A survey of animal welfare organizations. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2020.1869551

33 Salman, M.D., Hutchison, J., Ruch‐Gallie, R., et al. (2000). Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0302_2.

34 Samuels, W.E., Meers, L.L., and Normando, S. (2016). Improving upper elementary students’ humane attitudes and prosocial behaviors through an in‐class humane education program. Anthrozoös 29 (4): 597–610.

35 Scarlett, J.M., Greenberg, M., and Hoshizaki, T. (2017). Every Nose Counts: Using Metrics in Animal Shelters. Middletown, DE: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

36 Scarlett, J. and Johnston, N. (2012). Impact of a subsidized spay neuter clinic on impoundments and euthanasia in a community shelter and on service and complaint calls to animal control. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 15 (1): 53–69.

37 Schurer, J.M., Phipps, K., Okemow, C. et al. (2015). Stabilizing dog populations and improving animal and public health through a participatory approach in indigenous communities. Zoonoses Public Health 62 (6): 445–455.

38 Shelter Animals Count. (n.d.) Dashboards. https://www.shelteranimalscount.org/data‐dashboards (accessed 2 December 2021).

39 Shore, E.R., Burdsal, C., and Douglas, D.K. (2008). Pet owners' views of pet behavior problems and willingness to consult experts for assistance. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 11 (1): 63–73.

40 Tardif‐Williams, C.Y. and Bosacki, S.L. (2015). Evaluating the impact of a humane education summer‐camp program on school‐aged children's relationships with companion animals. Anthrozoös 28 (4): 587–600.

41 Taylor, N., Riggs, D.W., Donovan, C. et al. (2019). People of diverse genders and/or sexualities caring for and protecting animal companions in the context of domestic violence. Violence Against Women 25 (9): 1096–1115.

42 Weiss, E. (2015). Safety nets and support for pets at risk of entering the sheltering system. In: Animal Behavior for Shelter Veterinarians and Staff (eds. E. Weiss, H. Mohan‐Gibbons, and S. Zawistowski), 286–291. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

43 Weiss, E., Gramann, S., Spain, C.V. et al. (2015). Goodbye to a good friend: An exploration of the re‐homing of cats and dogs in the US. Open J. Anim. Sci. 5 (4): 435–456.

44 Weiss, E., Slater, M., Garrison, L. et al. (2014). Large dog relinquishment to two municipal facilities in New York City and Washington, DC: Identifying targets for intervention. Animals 4 (3): 409–433.

45 Weiss, E., Slater, M.R., and Lord, L.K. (2011). Retention of provided identification for dogs and cats seen in veterinary clinics and adopted from shelters in Oklahoma City, OK, USA. Prev. Vet. Med. 101 (3–4): 265–269.

46 Wells, D.L. (2019). The state of research on human–animal relations: Implications for human health. Anthrozoös 32 (2): 169–181.

47 White, S.C., Jefferson, E., and Levy, J.K. (2010). Impact of publicly sponsored neutering programs on animal population dynamics at animal shelters: The New Hampshire and Austin experiences. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 13 (3): 191–212.

48 White, S.C., Scarlett, J.M., and Levy, J.K. (2018). Characteristics of clients and animals served by high‐volume, stationary, nonprofit spay‐neuter clinics. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 253 (6): 737–745.

Appendix 5.A Overview of Safety Net Program Types

Category	Program type	Benefits/Impact*	Resources needed
To the pet	To the owner	To the community	To the organization
Basic needs	Food banks	Address basic nutritional needs	Reduce food insecurity	Collaborative programs offer a One Health approach to meeting basic needs	Opportunity for collaboration with key community stakeholders	Minimal investment in time and resources, particularly if donated food is used
Pet‐friendly housing support	Addresses basic sheltering needs	Reduces housing insecurity	Collaborative programs create partnership with attorneys, human social services, and housing organizations	Opportunity for collaboration with key community stakeholders	Minimal resources to develop and maintain a database; more resources needed for advocacy
Rehoming advice and resources	Avoid sheltering	Ideally ease the rehoming process and enhance communication with the new owner	Facilitate community member connections to address the need for rehoming	Place the onus for rehoming on the pet owner when feasible	Minimal
Lost‐and‐found programs	Avoid the negative sequelae of roaming at‐large	Reduce/prevent the emotional impact of losing a pet	Reduce the nuisance or dangerous behaviors related to stray pets	Often required for municipal organizations; touchpoint with the community to provide access to other services	Moderate to significant use of time but often within normal scope of responsibilities
Temporary sheltering	Prevents permanent rehoming	Maintains the human‐animal bond at a time of critical need	Removes a barrier for those in crisis to seek help for themselves	Opportunity for collaboration through programs that are often very well received by the organization’s supporters	Moderate investment in time and resources to manage program and provide care
Humane education	Potential for improved welfare	Increases knowledge regarding pet care and may improve children’s emotional well‐being	May enhance empathy and correlate with other positive behaviors in children	Strengthens ties to the community; provides potential for revenue through classes, parties, and camps	Variable based on the scope of the program
Veterinary care	Spay‐neuter services	Health benefits of sterilization	Avoidance of unwanted litters and problematic pet behaviors associated with a sexually intact status	Reduced pet overpopulation and reduced free‐roaming pets	Potential for outreach and collaboration with the local veterinary community	Significant financial and staffing resources typically necessary
Access to basic veterinary care	Health benefits of preventive health care and other primary veterinary care	Enhances the human‐animal bond by preventing unmanaged medical concerns	Can be partnered with human health initiatives for a One Health community approach	Potential for strategic partnerships with human health agencies and/or private practitioners	Varies based on model but typically requires a moderate to significant resource investment as for spay‐neuter services
Return‐to‐field programs	Health benefits of sterilization and vaccination	If a caretaker is present, help to reduce colony size and improve colony health	Reduce the free‐roaming cat population	Reduce euthanasia of healthy cats and foster collaboration with the community in trapping and caring for these cats	Require the resources to manage the program and provide sterilization services (but may be outweighed by reduced resources for sheltering and euthanasia)
Behavioral care	Behavior resources	Improved behavioral health	Increased knowledge regarding pet care	May reduce nuisance or dangerous pet behaviors	Enhance the knowledge base of clientele	Minimal resources to collate information and review the information with clients
Training classes	Improved behavioral health	Increased training knowledge, an opportunity for socialization of the pet, and an opportunity for a relationship with a trainer and other pet owners	May reduce nuisance or dangerous pet behaviors	Strengthen organizational ties with adopters and potential for collaboration with local training services	Moderate to significant resource investment, particularly if combined with outreach
Behavior hotlines	Improved behavioral health	Increased individualized knowledge regarding pet care	May reduce nuisance or dangerous pet behaviors	Strengthen organizational ties with adopters and the community	Minimal to modest resource investment dependent on program structure and expert support
	Behavior consultations	Improved behavioral health	Increased individualized knowledge and support in addressing pet behavior concerns	May reduce nuisance or dangerous pet behaviors	Strengthen organizational ties with adopters and potential for collaboration with local trainers	Significant resource investment dependent on program structure and scope

^* The desired impact of all safety net programs is to prevent unnecessary companion animal relinquishment. Only benefits more specific to the individual programs are described.