There is a critical need to reduce the surrender rates of companion animals by understanding the socioeconomic circumstances of caretakers. This research analyzed questionnaires with 117 relinquishers and 13 interviews. Interviews were conducted with relinquishers and staff at Sunshine Coast Animal Refuge Society and Sunshine Coast Animal Pound. Most companion animals relinquished were from litters and around half were de-sexed and micro-chipped. A caretaker's living situation was a critical reason for relinquishment. Humans need to understand the time and space needs of companion species, how these might change with time, and the relationality between humans and companion animals. Alongside regulated breeding and accessible sterilization, shelter staff and other organizations might offer more tailored solutions, especially temporary care, during times of socioeconomic crisis. Fundamentally, individuals need to critically examine their commitment to caretaking, but solutions are also structural and should be tailored to the underpinning socioeconomic geography of different regions.

Cetacean–human interaction, at sites where free‐ranging dolphins approach humans, is occurring more than ever before. Management policies and strategies, and their underlying research, intended to protect both dolphins and humans during these interactive events, affect the quality and nature of interactivity. The agency of the dolphins, and its representation in management schemes, is analysed using Critical Discourse Analysis of selected texts from the discourse of Dolphin–Human Interaction Management (DHIM). Analysis suggests a prevailing discourse of protectionism but also reveals the possibility for a new kind of management scheme based upon an acceptance of the ‘significant otherness’ of non‐human species. This can be achieved by means of inter‐species etiquette, acknowledging the choices made by non‐humans to interact with humans. An inter‐species etiquette, coupled with multi‐species education (education across species boundaries, designed and delivered so as to enable mutually beneficial interaction), offers those non‐human animals widely referred to as ‘ambassadors’ safe places in which to be encountered. This new form of inter‐species interaction space is named an ‘embassy’.

No abstract