Socio-Economic Factors in Companion Animal Relinquishment on the Sunshine Coast, Australia

140

Pets may be a positive presence for their owners during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, it is pertinent to identify the hardships associated with pet ownership. We conducted a large-scale survey of U.S. pet owners (n = 2254) in spring and summer 2020 to assess the ways that relationships with pets impacted life during COVID-19. We used thematic analysis to analyze 3671 open-ended responses to three prompts. Reported concerns fell into three major categories: (1) pet-focused (meeting needs of pets; procuring supplies; accessing veterinary care; new and emerging behavioral issues; fate of the pet if owner becomes ill; general safety and well-being), (2) human-focused (issues with working from home; well-being and mental health; balancing responsibilities), and (3) household-focused (disease spread; economic issues). Quantitative analyses showed that the owner’s strength of attachment to their pet, economic resources, and relationship status were associated with the types of concerns expressed. Results from this study indicate that pet owners experienced unique hardships related to changes in everyday life from the COVID-19 pandemic. These hardships should be considered alongside the potential benefits found in other studies in order to manage pet owner expectations, prevent pet relinquishment, and more fully understand multifaceted human-companion animal relationships.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Concerns, Difficulties, and Stressors of Caring for Pets during COVID-19: Results from a Large Survey of U.S. Pet Owners

Applebaum

Tomlinson

Matijczak

et al. 2020

140

“…Respondents' lack of acceptance of strategies that cause dog and cat deaths directly due to human intervention may be influenced by the knowledge that human activities are perhaps the greatest threat to wildlife and so want to avoid 'blaming' companion species, and by the concept that humans should at least allow wild dogs and cats to live a 'natural' life given that humans introduced these species to the wildlife habitat. This may be associated with the point that we have entered into the sixth mass extinction caused by humans [73,74], and the need to tailor management actions to the underpinning socio-economic values of places with place-based solutions [58,75].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our results suggest that, given the breadth of perspectives, there are opportunities to strategically design management actions for either reducing or preventing wild dog and cat predation on wildlife and controlling domesticated (owned) dogs and cats tailored to more specific contexts [61]. The fact that the differences between gender and age groups in attitudes towards dog and cat control are determined by dominant societal and cultural values may mean that managers could better focus their attention on designing strategies tailored to specific localities where cultural and place-based factors tend to condition gender, age, and pet-ownership norms and thus attitudes and regulations [75]. Considering the uncertainties of the different environmental variables (e.g., the predominant wildlife species being protected and social and ecological characteristics of the site), practical factors (e.g., social, cultural, and financial factors and constraints), and the receptivity of local communities to various management strategies and options, designing strategies tailored to specific localities could have greater and more sustained success than generic strategies applied across all localities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife

Carter

Paterson²,

Morton³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

Many humans have created close relationships with wildlife and companion species. Notwithstanding that companion species were at some point themselves wild, some wild (i.e., feral) and domesticated (owned) dogs and cats now have significant impacts on wildlife. Many strategies exist to control the impact of dogs and cats on wildlife, but the successful implementation of management initiatives is tied to public opinions and the degree of acceptability of these measures. This paper reports the findings of a survey assessing the beliefs of residents in Queensland, Australia, about dog and cat impacts on wildlife, and their attitudes towards various strategies and options for controlling wild (i.e., feral) and domesticated (owned) dogs and cats. The responses of 590 participants were analysed. Our respondents collectively grouped strategies into those that directly cause wild dog and cat deaths and those that allow wild dogs and cats to live a ‘natural’ life, which is a variation on past research where respondents grouped strategies into lethal and non-lethal methods. Community acceptability of strategies that directly cause wild dog and cat deaths (each assessed using five-category Likert scores) was lower amongst females and respondents aged 34 years or less. Gender expectations in most places and cultures still predominately suggest that women are more ‘caring’, supportive of animal welfare, and perhaps cognizant that wild dogs and cats are also sentient creatures and appreciate the problematic tension between controlling wild and companion species. Age-related differences may reflect the changing social values of communities at different points in time. There was high support for regulations that enforce responsible pet ownership but not for the importance of pet-free suburbs, which the majority of respondents considered unimportant. These important variations in beliefs and attitudes require careful management within each community for the success of any program to control wild dogs or cats.

“…Another inconclusive finding was that the difference in socioeconomic levels between reported cases citing and not citing abandonment was small. Dog ownership is positively correlated to household income [30,42,52]. However, it has been suggested that people with lower household income are less likely to relinquish their dogs, for financial reasons [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among all these risk factors, the role of household socioeconomic level in crimes and animal welfare concerns is not yet well understood [6,20,22]. It has been proposed that socioeconomic status is negatively correlated with the frequency of crimes, domestic violence, and neglecting and abusing animals [6,22,29,30,31]. However, a tautologous relationship has also been postulated, because a dog owner’s socioeconomic status may affect his or her ability to provide for all aspects of good welfare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic Influences on Reports of Canine Welfare Concerns to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Queensland, Australia

Shih

Paterson

Phillips

2019

Simple SummaryThe role of the socioeconomic status of dog owners in canine welfare concerns is not fully understood. We conducted a retrospective study of 107,597 canine welfare complaints attended by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Queensland from 2008 to 2018. We explored the relationship between the owner’s socioeconomic status and reported (rather than confirmed) complaints about welfare of dogs. The socioeconomic status of the owner was estimated from the postcode of where the alleged welfare issue occurred, using government statistics for Socio-Economic Indexes of different regions of Australia. Reported complaints were correlated with socioeconomic scores. There was a lower median socioeconomic score in our study group compared to the entire Queensland state, indicating that alleged canine welfare concerns were more likely to be reported in areas with inhabitants of low socioeconomic status. The status was also low if the complaint was about a crossbred rather than a purebred dog. Among the purebred dogs, complaints involving working dogs, terriers, and utility breeds were associated with the lowest socioeconomic scores. The following complaints were associated with low socioeconomic status: cruelty, insufficient food and/or water, a dog not being exercised, a dog being confined/tethered, failure to provide shelter or treatment, overcrowding, a dog being in poor condition or living in poor conditions. Increased status was observed in alleged cases of a dog being left in a hot car unattended.AbstractHuman–dog relationships are an important contributor to the welfare of dogs, but little is known about the importance of socioeconomic status of the dogs’ owners. We conducted a retrospective study of canine welfare complaints, using Australian government statistics on the socioeconomic status of the inhabitants at the location of the alleged welfare issue. The socioeconomic score of inhabitants at the relevant postcode was assumed to be that of the plaintiff. Our dataset included 107,597 complaints that had been received by RSPCA Queensland between July 2008 and June 2018, each with the following information: the number of dogs involved, dog(s) age, breed(s), suburb, postcode, date received, and complaint code(s) (describing the type of complaint). The median index score for relative social advantage of the locations where the alleged welfare concern occurred was less than the median score for the population of Queensland, suggesting that welfare concerns in dogs were more commonly reported in areas with inhabitants of low socioeconomic status. It was also less if the dog being reported was not of a recognised breed, compared to dogs of recognised breeds. Dogs reported to be in the gundog breed group were in the most socioeconomically advantaged postcodes, followed by toy, hound, non-sporting, working dog, terrier, and utility breed groups. Reports of alleged cruelty, insufficient food and/or water, a dog being not exercised or being confined/tethered, failure to provide shelte...