Impact of the Timing of Spay-Neuter Related to Transport on Disease Rates in Relocated Dogs

Abstract

Companion animal relocation programs are an important method to address geographic and resource disparities in pet overpopulation through transport from areas with high homeless pet populations to areas with high adopter demand. Despite mitigation by following best practices, a potential risk of animal relocation is increased disease incidence related to infectious disease spread and the effects of stress during transport. Surgical sterilization may compound disease risk due to the impact of surgical stress on disease susceptibility and the potential for disease exposure from other patients. Our study aimed to provide information about disease and surgical complication incidence as relates to the timing of surgical sterilization in relocated dogs. A population of 431 dogs relocated to a shelter in Washington State was monitored for disease while at the destination shelter and immediately post-adoption. No increased disease incidence was identified for dogs altered within two weeks of transport at the destination shelter compared with those altered within two weeks prior to transport at the source shelter. Because of disparities addressed by relocation programs, surgical sterilization of relocated companion animals is typically best performed at the destination shelter. Our study indicates that disease incidence is not increased by spay-neuter at the destination shelter.

The Effect of Transportation on Puppy Welfare from Commercial Breeding Kennels to a Distributor

“…Although studies have explored indicators of puppies’ physical health in relation to transportation [ 12 , 13 ], no studies have examined its effects on comprehensive assessments of puppy welfare. Puppies from commercial breeding kennels (CBKs) provide a unique opportunity to do so, as large numbers are typically transported by road to a distributor at approximately 8 weeks old.…”

Opasnosti za zdravlje - pseći parvovirus i koronavirus u pasa u portugalskim skloništima

“…Our findings contrast with a report identifying enteropathogens in 100 dogs shortly after admission to a Florida animal shelter identified in dogs with and without diarrhoea due to CPV (2% and 2%, respectively; though the possibility of vaccine virus detection in some of these cases could not be ruled out) and CCoV (2% and 18%, respectively) (Tupler et al, 2012). Another study in the USA investigating gastrointestinal diseases in 280 adult dogs and puppies, as reported by adopters after relocation (shelter to shelter), revealed that only one of these dogs was confirmed to have a diagnosis of CPV (Doyle et al, 2020). In another study in the USA based on 4088 puppies relocated for adoption, the incidence of post-transport CPV diagnoses was 2.3% (DiGangi et al, 2021).…”

Incidence and Predictors of Canine Parvovirus Diagnoses in Puppies Relocated for Adoption

“…To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report to characterize the incidence of post-transport CPV diagnoses in puppies relocated long-distance for adoption. A previous report described reports of gastrointestinal disease in 5 of 280 (2%) adult dogs and puppies as reported by adopters post-relocation; one of those dogs was known to have a diagnosis of CPV [ 4 ]. Another report identifying enteropathogens in 100 dogs shortly after admission to a Florida animal shelter identified CPV in 2% of adult and juvenile (<6 months) dogs both with and without diarrhea, though the possibility of detection of vaccine virus in some of these cases could not be ruled out [ 17 ].…”

“…Although practical and experience-based guidelines and best practices for successful animal relocation have drawn increasing recognition [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], little objective evidence exists to guide operational practices and protocols. Two recent reports highlighted low rates of gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and respiratory disease in healthy dogs and cats relocated for adoption [ 4 , 5 ]; disease rates reported up to 30 days post-relocation were comparable to or lower than those in similar shelter populations [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].…”