The recognition of canine pain behaviours, and potentially hazardous Catch-Neuter-Return practices by animal care professionals

Abstract

The assessment of animal welfare is reliant upon the application of animal- and resource-based indicators. Animal-based indicators (physical, physiological and behavioural) are considered to be more representative of an animal's welfare state but are more difficult for an assessor to interpret. In order to build a robust composite framework for the assessment of welfare of dogs (Canis familiaris) within Catch-Neuter-Return (CNR) programmes, including both resource- and animal-based indicators, it is necessary to first evaluate whether appropriate capture and handling techniques plus behavioural, animal-based indicators can be reliably assessed by staff working in CNR programmes. Results of a video-based survey of experienced dog management staff and CNR practitioners are reported and indicate that staff experienced in canine CNR are reliably able to agree on acceptable and unacceptable handling and capture techniques. However, there is only fair agreement between observers in positively recognising pain. Thus, dog welfare in CNR may be at risk unless staff are effectively trained at recognising behavioural indicators of poor welfare including pain behaviours. This paper suggests that non-invasive, visual indicators of pain, such as facial tension and body posture, may be a reliable and effective approach to recognising post-operative pain in street dogs.

Development of a Robust Canine Welfare Assessment Protocol for Use in Dog (Canis Familiaris) Catch-Neuter-Return (CNR) Programmes

“…Inter- and intra-observer reliability tests were evaluated for levels of agreement using a Fleiss Kappa test. These results are reported in [28].…”

“…The field trials highlighted welfare problems within the programmes consistent with deficiencies in training highlighted in earlier research [28]—namely the recognition and management of pain and other behavioural indicators of negative welfare, as well as highlighting specific welfare hazards, such as a lack of aseptic technique, or the release of dogs prior to food/water consumption, which may be an issue within some programmes but not in others.…”

“…In particular, the behavioural or human–dog-interaction indicators had the potential for subjectivity in assessment, e.g., dog shows signs of ‘post-operative pain’, or ‘acceptable handling technique used’ may be assessed differently by different observers. To ensure inter-observer reliability in the field tests, two researchers with extensive practical experience in dog behaviour, handling and clinical care, performed inter- and intra-observer reliability testing, as described in [28] to ensure that they could consistently recognise and evaluate practices in free-roaming dog capture and handling, and in dog behavioural responses.…”

“…A previous assessment of dog behaviour using video trials [28] had demonstrated that determining very specific welfare states, e.g., ‘calm-alert’ vs. ‘calm-relaxed’ was too difficult to be carried out reliably, and even determining ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ welfare states based on a dog’s demeanour and behaviours generated variation in responses [28]. However, it was decided to retain some behavioural welfare indicators within the draft welfare audit, as animal-based indicators were recognised to be more robust than resource-based indicators [18,19].…”

“…It was important that despite these revisions, the behaviours they represented be consistently recognised by all three observers participating in field trial B. The results of a survey of CNR professionals in assessing dog behaviour had indicated that training in consistently identifying some or all of these behaviours is necessary even amongst experienced professionals working with dogs [28]. Each observer reviewed the behavioural indicators of emotional state as described by Tod et al [32].…”