International differences in practices and attitudes regarding pet cats' interactions with wildlife were assessed by surveying citizens from at least two cities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the USA, China and Japan. Predictions tested were: (i) cat owners would agree less than non-cat owners that cats might threaten wildlife, (ii) cat owners value wildlife less than non-cat owners, (iii) cat owners are less accepting of cat legislation/restrictions than non-owners, and (iv) respondents from regions with high endemic biodiversity (Australia, New Zealand, China and the USA state of Hawaii) would be most concerned about pet cats threatening wildlife. Everywhere non-owners were more likely than owners to agree that pet cats killing wildlife were a problem in cities, towns and rural areas. Agreement amongst non-owners was highest in Australia (95%) and New Zealand (78%) and lowest in the UK (38%). Irrespective of ownership, over 85% of respondents from all countries except China (65%) valued wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas. Non-owners advocated cat legislation more strongly than owners except in Japan. Australian non-owners were the most supportive (88%), followed by Chinese non-owners (80%) and Japanese owners (79.5%). The UK was least supportive (non-owners 43%, owners 25%). Many Australian (62%), New Zealand (51%) and Chinese owners (42%) agreed that pet cats killing wildlife in cities, towns and rural areas was a problem, while Hawaiian owners were similar to the mainland USA (20%). Thus high endemic biodiversity might contribute to attitudes in some, but not all, countries. Husbandry practices varied internationally, with predation highest where fewer cats were confined. Although the risk of wildlife population declines caused by pet cats justifies precautionary action, campaigns based on wildlife protection are unlikely to succeed outside Australia or New Zealand. Restrictions on roaming protect wildlife and benefit cat welfare, so welfare is a better rationale.

No abstract

The veterinary profession recently acknowledged its responsibility to provide behaviour support, following criticism for focussing on the physiological aspects of welfare and overlooking the psychological. To further understand the practising of behavioural medicine, a 'fly-on-the-wall' approach was used to investigate welfare discussions during dog booster vaccinations. Seventeen consultations involving six veterinarians in two UK small-animal practices were videoed. Qualitative methods were used to analyse themes discussed and questionnaires completed to obtain participant information and perceptions. Five main topics of discussion were identified: navigation, medical, husbandry, behaviour and cost. Veterinarians led the discussion of all topics except behaviour which was instigated approximately equally by veterinarian and client. All clients reported one or more behaviours that were a concern to them, totalling 58 across the sample. Disconcertingly, only 10 were discussed during consultations and none fully explored nor managed beyond the consultation. Behaviour discussion varies between veterinarians; this may reflect their experience, confidence or clients' requests. Owners access welfare information from a variety of sources, not always from veterinarians. Where sources are not knowledgeable, both human and animal welfare can be seriously compromised. Veterinarians need to ensure that clients are enabled to discuss behaviour issues and are provided with appropriate support, be that in-house or via referral.

Veterinarians are professionals considered to be at the forefront of animal welfare, including behaviour medicine. However, concerns raised, both within the profession and without, highlight that the support offered is not optimal, due to deficiencies in veterinary training, which focuses on physical aspects and overlooks psychological aspects. This preliminary study explored the experiences and perceptions of six veterinarians (three male, three female, age range: 23–55 years) in two UK small-animal practices. Seventeen annual booster consultations were videoed and conversations thematically analysed for welfare topics discussed. Both veterinarians and clients completed questionnaires to gather demographic information and perspectives. All veterinarians recognised behaviour as a component of their caseload, and acknowledged that clients expected them to provide behaviour support. Veterinarians varied in their experiences of and confidence in providing behaviour support. Five felt unable to meet client expectations; four did not feel their training had prepared them sufficiently. Only one provided dedicated behaviour consultations, the others referred cases. All provided suggestions for behaviour skills needed for new veterinary graduates. The study has afforded an insight into the experiences of a small opportunistic sample of veterinarians. The data indicated important limitations regarding time available in general consultations to discuss behaviour concerns, and practitioner knowledge and skill in detection, anamnesis, assessment and provision of appropriate behaviour information. Suggestions for veterinary training in behaviour are provided.

No abstract