SummaryThe changing role of companion animals, accompanied by changes in human lifestyle and demands, places them at risk of poor welfare. They are increasingly subjected to stressors that prevent the adequate expression of normal behaviour. Fear and anxiety often go unrecognised, leading to behavioural disorders that are accompanied by negative affective states and poor welfare. Irresponsible breeding practices result in increased incidences of inherited defects in pets, which adversely affect physical and mental aspects of welfare, either directly, through the anomaly itself, or indirectly, due to secondary effects. Increased urbanisation has resulted in smaller living spaces, higher population densities and longer working hours, all factors that affect the well-being of pets. A better understanding of animal behaviour by both pet owners and professionals, to more effectively meet the needs of dogs and cats and recognise their problems, should inform the formulation of objective welfare assessments to ensure a better quality of life for the animals. Responsible breeding practices that increase genetic diversity and select for traits that help dogs and cats fill their niche in a changing world should be based on evidence to minimise welfare risk.

No abstract

Positive animal welfare (PAW) is a rising topic in animal welfare science, although its construct, definition, and operational approach remain debated. Despite this scientific uncertainty, there is societal interest to include more indicators of positive welfare in legislation, animal welfare assessment and accreditation schemes. Changes in some farming practices seem to be in line with promoting PAW (e.g., free-range housing), providing animals more opportunities for positive experiences such as rewarding natural behaviour, greater autonomy, or choice. Interestingly, some of the ideas underlying PAW are present in extensive production systems or low-input animal management practices that are common in low-income countries, for example free-roaming livestock or village dogs. Nevertheless, welfare challenges such as neglect, diseases, poor nutrition, animal abuse and other forms of suffering remain ubiquitous, especially where resources like veterinary support are limited. Living conditions for animals in low-income countries provide examples of the delicate balance between positive welfare and welfare risks relating to health and survival, with inextricable ethical dilemmas. In our view, the growing focus on PAW could stimulate a more balanced approach to animal welfare worldwide, promoting PAW while simultaneously limiting various forms of welfare challenges. However, this requires accounting for human factors such as societal and cultural location-specific aspects to find flexible solutions that also benefit and respect people whose livelihood may be at stake. Those human factors also modulate the consideration and importance of providing animals with positive welfare states and the role of underlying ethical concepts like happiness and “a good life.”

No abstract