Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T22:44:01.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prioritisation of companion dog welfare issues using expert consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EL Buckland ,
SA Corr ,
SM Abeyesinghe  and
CM Wathes
EL Buckland*
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
SA Corr
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leics LE12 5RD, UK
SM Abeyesinghe
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
CM Wathes
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: elbuckland@rvc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resources for tackling animal welfare issues are often limited. Obtaining a consensus of expert opinion on the most pressing issues to address is a valuable approach to try to ensure that resources are wisely spent. In this study, seven independent experts in a range of disciplines (including veterinary medicine, animal behaviour and welfare science and ethics) were consulted on the relative prioritisation of welfare issues impacting companion dogs in Great Britain. Experts first anonymously ranked the priority of 37 welfare issues, pre-defined from a literature review and an earlier published survey. In a subsequent two-day panel workshop, experts refined these issues into 25 composite groups and used specific criteria to agree their relative priorities as a Welfare Problem (WP; incorporating numbers of dogs affected, severity, duration and counter-balancing benefits) and a Strategic Priority (SP; a combination of WP and tractability). Other criteria — anthropogenicity, ethical significance and confidence in the issue-relevant evidence — were also discussed by the panel. Issues that scored highly for both WP and SP were: inappropriate husbandry, lack of owner knowledge, undesirable behaviours, inherited disease, inappropriate socialisation and habituation and conformation-related disorders. Other welfare issues, such as obese and overweight dogs, were judged as being important for welfare (WP) but not strategic priorities (SP), due to the expert-perceived difficulties in their management and resolution. This information can inform decisions on where future resources can most cost-effectively be targeted, to bring about the greatest improvement in companion dog welfare in Great Britain.

Keywords

animal welfarecompanion animaldogexpertprioritystakeholder
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asher, L, Buckland, EL, Phylactopoulos, IC, Whiting, M, Abeyesinghe, S and Wathes, CM 2011 Estimation of the number and demographics of companion dogs in the UK. BMC Veterinary Research 7: 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-7-74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asher, L, Diesel, G, Summers, JF, McGreevy, PD and Collins, LM 2009 Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182: 402–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, P 2010 Independent inquiry into dog breeding. www.dogb-reedinginquiry.comGoogle Scholar
BBC News 2009 RSPCA urges dog fight law change. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8288182.stmGoogle Scholar
Bennett, PC and Perini, E 2003 Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues. Australian Veterinary Journal 81: 208–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb11473.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bland, IM, Guthrie-Jones, A, Taylor, RD and Hill, J 2009 Dog obesity: owner attitudes and behaviour. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92: 333–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 1998 Welfare, stress, and the evolution of feelings. Stress and Behavior 27: 371–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60369-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckland, EL, Whiting, MC, Abeyesinghe, SM, Asher, L, Corr, S and Wathes, CM 2013 A survey of stakeholders’ opinions on the priority issues affecting the welfare of companion dogs in Great Britain. Animal Welfare 22: 239–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, SB and Forkman, B 2007 Assessment of animal welfare in a veterinary context: a call for ethologists. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 203–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, J 1995 Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In: Serpell, JA (ed) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People pp 7–20. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Collins, LM, Asher, L, Summers, JF, Diesel, G and McGreevy, PD 2010 Welfare epidemiology as a tool to assess the welfare impact of inherited defects on the pedigree dog population. Animal Welfare 19: 67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2006 Report on Welfare Labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htmGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, CM 1987 The delphi technique: a critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing 12: 729–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossellin, J, Wren, JA and Sunderland, SJ 2007 Canine obesity: an overview. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 30: 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00863.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, B, Jones, M, Hughes, D and Williams, A 1999 Applying the delphi technique in a study of GP's information requirements. Health & Social Care in the Community 7: 198–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00176.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hens, K 2009 Ethical responsibilities towards dogs: an inquiry into the dog-human relationship. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 22: 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9120-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houpt, KA, Goodwin, D, Uchida, Y, Baranyiova, E, Fatjo, J and Kakuma, Y 2007 Proceedings of a workshop to identify dog welfare issues in the US, Japan, Czech Republic, Spain and the UK. Applied Animal Behavior Science 106: 221–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khodyakov, D, Hempel, S, Rubenstein, L, Shekelle, P, Foy, R, Salem-Schatz, S, O’Neill, S, Danz, M and Dalal, S 2011 Conducting online expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study. BMC Medical Research Methodology 11: 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-174CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, T, Marston, LC and Bennett, PC 2009 Describing the idea Australian companion dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120: 84–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, JK, Sainsbury, AW and Bennett, PM 1994 The welfare of free-living wild animals: methods of assessment. Animal Welfare 3: 257–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, GA and Douglas, JW 2013 Organizational structure and the optimal design of policymaking panels: evidence from consensus group commissions’ revenue forecasts in the American States. American Journal of Political Science 57: 135–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00614.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, MC, Thornton, PD and Main, DCJ 2008 Identification of appropriate measures for the assessment of laboratory mouse welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughlin, KG and Moore, LF 1979 Using delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a pediatrics department. Journal of Medical Education 54: 101–106Google Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGreevy, PD and Bennett, PC 2010 Challenges and paradoxes in the companion-animal niche. Animal Welfare 19: 11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, HP 1994 The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 19: 1221–1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01207.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
More, SJ, McKenzie, K, O’Flaherty, J, Doherty, ML, Cromie, AR and Magan, MJ 2010 Setting priorities for non-regulatory animal health in Ireland: results from an expert policy delphi study and a farmer priority identification survey. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 95: 198–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, C, Corr, S and SandØe, P 2012 Inconvenient desires: should we routinely neuter companion animals? Anthrozöos 25: S153–S172. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13353430377255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, VI, Bennett, PC, Touksati, S and Coleman, G 2010 Why do even committed dog owners fail to comply with some responsible ownership practices? Anthrozoös 23: 143–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12682332909972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, N, Sargan, D, Pead, M, Westgarth, C, Creighton, E and Branson, N 2009 Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern? Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham: UK. http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/companionanimals/reportsandresources/details/-/article/CAD_ReportsAndResourcesPetsGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S 2003 Separation anxiety syndrome in dogs and cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 222: 1526–1532. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1526CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, EM, Fitzpatrick, JL, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Wiseman, ML 2003 Evaluation of welfare state based on interpretation of multiple indices. Animal Welfare 12: 457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmins, RP, Cliff, KD, Day, CT, Hart, BL, Hart, LA, Hubrecht, RC, Hurley, KF, Phillips, CJC, Rand, JS, Rochlitz, I, Serpell, JA and Zawistowski, SL 2007 Enhancing quality of life for dogs and cats in confined situations. Animal Welfare 16: 83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, JW and Main, DCJ 2011 Veterinary surgeons’ opinions on dog welfare issues. Journal of Small Animal Practice 52: 464–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01095.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Buckland et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 194.9 KB