Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Development of a robust canine welfare assessment for dogs in trap-neuter-return programmes
Heather J. Bacon BSc (Hons) BVSc CertZooMed MRCVS
H Walters, V. Vancia and N. Waran.
Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare EducationUniversity of Edinburgh
THE PROBLEM
• Trap- neuter- return (TNR) is recognised by animal welfare charities, academics and the OIE as an essential tool in the control of dog populations, zoonoses and human-dog conflicts.
• The ubiquitous nature of TNR, it’s application by leading animal welfarists, and the poor welfare implications of alternative dog population control measures, all contribute to the perception of TNR as a positive welfare intervention.
• Individual dog welfare may be poor due to the variety of techniques used in TNR projects and the combined with the focus on population control
What is Animal welfare?• Welfare is a spectrum
and may range from good to poor
• An animal’s welfare depend’s on it’s ability to cope
• Welfare is impacted by the choices we make, but is not what we ‘think’
Welfare and Ethics
Ethics – Is about what WE think about the animal’s situation
based on our own Morals/Viewpoints
Welfare –Is about the subjective experience of the AnimalWhat is its quality of life?
Welfare is about the experience of the individual
Are good intentions enough?Can we do better?
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/Wypw5aASows
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/14csR46DjQc
PROJECT OVERVIEW
• This pilot project aims to produce a reliable, robust and practical audit or checklist that can be used to measure individual dog welfare in a range of TNR programmes.
• This will improve dog welfare because if we can measure problems occurring, we can take steps to prevent those problems.
What we can measure, we can manage
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/gWgFc21e3rA
Aims:
• In this project we identified potential hazards to animal welfare and critical control points where those hazards could be mitigated.
• Dogs Trust canine welfare grant research project– Robust approach– Practical application– Result in a user-friendly ‘Checklist’ that allows dog
welfare to be measured
Step 1:• A literature review revised the current
behavioural and physiological indicators of welfare in dogs and other species, with a particular focus on work done in kennelled dogs and dogs in population management programmes.
• The review focussed on the different stages of TNR
Capture Cage/holding Peri-Operative
Post-Operative Release
Identify potential welfare hazards• Expert stakeholders were consulted to
suggest additional welfare indicators based on their experience.
• All welfare indicators were also assessed by the stakeholders for their perceived practicality, economy, and reliability
• Expert stakeholders were then asked to score each of the indicators (from lit review and stakeholders) as ‘mild’ moderate’ or ‘severe’ in terms of welfare challenge– Mild = short-term or minor physical or mental welfare
compromise with which the dog can cope and adapt – Moderate = A welfare compromise which is likely to cause
behavioural or mental distress or physical pain or injury, but which does not result in longterm effects
– Severe = A level of welfare compromise which is likely to cause longterm physical discomfort/impairment or ongoing mental/behavioural distress, or affect the dog’s survivability
Field test 1
• TNR Project 1– In the 5 day trial, 12 dogs were followed
throughout the entire process of a well established TNR programme, with an additional 14 dogs observed for parts of the TNR process.
– Each indicator in the list was applied to the dogs in the TNR process where practically and financially possible
Animal-based Vs Resource-based indicators
Animal-based Resource-basedPain behaviour Provision of analgesiaInjury due to capture/handling WaterVocalisation under anaesthesia Bedding materialAggression to handler Use of capture equipment
• Animals based indicators are usually more accurate and representative of the animal’s welfare state but may require training of assessors
• Resource based indicators are easier to evaluate but often less accurate at representing the animal’s welfare state
Are behavioural indicators practical in the field?
Animal-based indicators: Pain• Can we reliably identify pain?Animal-based indicators: behavioural change• Can we reliably identify different dog
behaviours and or welfare states?• Some confusion noted especially re: pain
assessment
Experiment: Can we reliably evaluate dog behaviour?
Fleiss’ kappa Interpretation
< 0 Poor agreement
0.01 – 0.20Slight agreement
0.21 – 0.40Fair agreement
0.41 – 0.60Moderate agreement
0.61 – 0.80Substantial agreement
0.81 – 1.00Almost perfect agreement
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/JJnsAOC0y3U
Experiment: Can we reliably evaluate dog behaviour?
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/FI0ftdkcP9w
Trial of behaviour recognition
1. UK vets and shelter staff
Characteristic
Kappa value
against standard P Value Agreement
Capture 0.348 0.00 Fair
Handling 0.455 0.00 ModerateDemeanour
(positive/ negative)
0.727 0.00 Substantial
Pain 0.444 0.00 Moderate
2. Staff experienced in TNR
Characteristic
Kappa value against standard
P
Agreement
Capture and handling 0.676 0.00 Substantial
Demeanour (positive or negative) 0.568 0.00 Moderate
Pain 0.008 0.47 Slight
• Selected behavioural indicators including pain were maintained in the checklist, but the need for training in this area was identified
• Training in recognising specific behaviours is important, even if the observer is experienced
• Checklist refined
Checklist Verification - Second Field test
• the checklist was verified at a second TNR project, with a different capture technique, veterinary capacity and return approach, to ensure its flexibility across different programmatic structures.
• To verify the checklist 53 dogs were followed from capture through to release and 88 additional dogs were evaluated during different sections of the TNR programme.
• Three observers followed dogs for five days, observing all stages of the TNR programme and a range of different methods employed for catching
RESULTS
Checklist example
Critical control points: Issues identified
• Both TNR projects generally had great approaches to dog capture and handling and focussed staff training here
• Analgesia was provided and qualified vets used but still problems occurred:– Aseptic technique (up to 100% breaches in sterility observed)– Pain recognition and management, despite provision of analgesia
(up to 60% of dogs observed in moderate-severe pain post-op)– Anaesthetic control (up to 22% of dogs observed showed signs of
conciousness during surgery)– Resource provision – post-operative water ( 48%)– Lack of individual dog assessment prior to release (less than 20%
of dogs observed were assessed)
SOLUTIONSNEXT STEPS…….
Training and education
• Big difference in skills and techniques between vets of different countries
• Further training of qualified vets may be necessary– Anaesthesia and analgesia are often overlooked
• Training in pain recognition and management• Aim for population control AND good welfare
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/laC7BAv56dI
Welfare is individual
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/IHXyFLW4S24
Summary
Please click the following link to view the video https://youtu.be/8hKtVv4jMS0
