







































 

  

 

 
Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 http://clujveterinaryjournal.ro 

Article 

Welfare assessment of a dog shelter using the Shelter Quality 

Protocol 
Anamaria Blaga Petrean1,*, Andrei-Sebastian Csiplo1, Silvana Popescu1 

1 University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj Napoca, Faculty of Veterinary Med-
icine, 3-5 Calea Mănăștur, 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Romania 

* Correspondence: anamaria.petrean@usamvcluj.ro 
 

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to practically apply this protocol in a private shelter in Cluj county, Romania. The welfare 
of the sheltered dogs was carried out on three levels: the management of the shelter, measures at pen level and the individual eval-
uation of the dogs. The main problems identified in the studied shelter were: the lack of indoor enclosures to protect the dogs in cold 
or hot periods; permanently deficient bedding; the diet rich in carbohydrates and low in fats and proteins; showing fear towards the 
evaluator; lack of a socialization program; the absence of a coherent adoption strategy; unqualified staff in animal behavior and 
welfare. Applying the shelter quality protocol is useful because it identifies the shelter's critical control points regarding the welfare 
of the housed dogs. Their prompt remediation will lead to an adequate animal welfare. 

Keywords: dog; shelter; protocol; score 
 

 

1. Introduction 
Stray dogs are a huge animal welfare issue in the European Union, and Romania, has 

one of the largest stray animal populations on the continent, up to 500,000 dogs. This cat-
egory of animals represents a social and economic problem closely related to the costs of 
population control programs, as well as zoonotic risks. The major causes of the huge num-
ber of stray dogs are: the total or partial lack of sterilization programs for dogs with or 
without owners, the abandonment of adult dogs (mainly represented by geriatric dogs or 
those prone to genetic or incurable diseases) and the abandonment of puppies. Of course, 
we cannot exclude one of the most important factors, the cultural one, often dogs are 
killed with unprecedented cruelty or simply tied up in the forest and subjected to starva-
tion and water deprivation [1]. Annually in Romania, thousands of medical interventions 
take place that lead to the euthanasia of stray animals that have been captured and kept 
for more than 6 months in private or state shelters [1]. According to the World Organiza-
tion for Animal Health (International Office of Epizootics - OIE), prevention is the most 
effective method applied to stray dogs, euthanasia, on the other hand, has been proven 
by studies to be ineffective and unethical [2]. 

The dog shelter is a space that receives and cares for a certain number of animals, 
most of them collected from the streets. That's why meeting the needs of the sheltered 
animals is a rather difficult task that involves exact planning of all activities and special 
involvement of the staff. In addition to these tasks, physical and behavioral evaluations 
of the sheltered animals should also be mentioned [3].   

The management of a shelter requires many other aspects worth taking into account, 
such as: obtaining an authorization letter, meeting the minimum conditions stipulated by 

Received: 26.10.2023 

Accepted: 02.11.2023 

Published: 30.12.2023 

DOI: 10.52331/cvj.v28i3.54 

 

 

 

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. 

Submitted for possible open access 

publication under the terms and con-

ditions of the Creative Commons At-

tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea-

tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 3 of 30 
 

law, as well as staff training programs. One thing worth considering is that the shelter is not always the best 
solution to improve the well-being of the housed animals. 

In many countries such as Italy, the euthanasia of stray dogs from shelters is prohibited by law. How-
ever, despite many positive ethical aspects, the "no-kill policy" has only prolonged the stay of dogs in state 
or private shelters, their number growing rapidly along with the public costs regarding the maintenance of 
these facilities [4]. In Romania, the euthanasia of dogs that have spent more than 14 days in the shelter is 
allowed according to law 155/2001, being among the few countries in Europe that allows this aspect [5]. 

The European regulatory framework does not have a standardized measure of minimum requirements 
for the facilities of dog shelters, so this makes the welfare standards of dogs in these facilities a challenge. 
However, there are several indicators of welfare that must be appreciated: the management of the shelter, 
the type of accommodation, the environmental conditions and the possibility of enriching it, the health of 
the animals, the human-animal relationship, veterinary care [3, 6]. In conclusion, it is vital to have a tool that 
evaluates the real condition of the dogs in the shelter.The Shelter Quality (SQ) protocol was developed to 
provide a valid, reliable, and practical tool for assessing shelter dog welfare [7]. The aim of this study was 
to test the Shelter Quality protocol in a private shelter in Cluj county, Romania. 

 
2. Materials and Methods 

The research was carried out in a private dog shelter in Cluj county, Romania. In order to complete this 
survey, 40 dogs were selected, their number being in accordance with the protocol recommendations. As 
reported to the shelter's register the animals did not appear with health problems at the beginning of the 
study. 

The Shelter Quality (SQ) protocol [8] is based on the four welfare principles that include twelve criteria 
defined within the Welfare Quality® protocols of livestock species [9].  

In order to make the assessment of animal welfare more efficient, this protocol was divided into two 
parts: the first part referred to the dogs welfare assessment in the shelter by SQ protocol, and the second part 
was oriented towards the adaptation of the protocol indicators and the addition of new findings/measure-
ments suitable for the field conditions in Romania. 

The information regarding the shelter management was included in the form of a questionnaire and 
referred to the total population of dogs at the time of the visit, housing conditions, their condition, mortality, 
morbidity as well as other aspects mentioned in table 1. 

The resource-based indicators were evaluated at the level of each individual pen and basically looked 
at the housing conditions of the dogs: the space for each animal; the presence or absence of indoor and 
outdoor spaces; the bedding used and its type; the presence of sharp edges in the pen; type and functionality 
of the watering system; water cleannes; number of animals shivering or huddling; the number of animals 
barking in the presence of the evaluator; the number of dogs presenting one or more stereotypes (repetitive 
or compulsive behaviour); the number of animals showing pain; the presence of fecal samples with diar-
rhea in the pens [10].  

Animal-based indicators were represented by: the dog's condition; the number of animals with wounds, 
swellings; presence of ectoparasites; the presence of lameness and cough (kennel); behavioral indicators [10].  

 

3. Results and discussion 

In total 19 pens were evaluated and a total of 40 dogs were individually assessed using the SQ protocol. 
Table 1 presents the management (administrative) questionnaire. Within the shelter, the dogs are kept in 

boxes with outside space that facilitates their movement. No surgical interventions are performed in the shel-
ter, and all therapy protocols are performed in the USAMV Cluj-Napoca Emergency Hospital. 

 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 4 of 30 
 

 

Table 1. Management questionnaire (administrative) 

General information about the shelter 

Number of dogs in the shelter the day of the visit 75 
Number of hospitalised dogs the day of the visit 0 
Temperature (°C) and humidity (%) the day of 
the visit 

10oC 
77% 

Housing   

No. single pens:  5 No. pens housing a pair:               17 

No. pens housing a group of animals (≤ 5):  11 No. pens housing a group of animals (> 5): 0 

Total no. of pens:  34 

Exercise   

Dogs are left in a fenced outdoor area: 

daily (30 minutes or more)              x 

weekly 

no/not regular 

Dogs are walked on leash by shelter staff or vol-
unteers: 

daily 

weekly 

no/not regular                                   
x 

Surgeries / pain control 

Presence of hospital pens: yes/no  

Presence of operating procedures for post-surgi-
cal monitoring: 

yes/no 

Presence of protocol of analgesia: yes/no 

Mortality  

No. euthanasia due to health problems:  3 No. of deaths (other than euthanasia):0 

No. euthanasia due to behavioral problems: 0 Population of dogs in the shelter (average number 
of animals):75 

Morbidity  

Costs for clinical treatments (12 months): Very high costs with variable amount 

Feeding 

Type of diet: 
• dry pellets 
• cooked 
• wet/canned 

Feeding regime: 
• once/day 
• twice/day 
• ad libitum 

Special diets for puppies:      yes/no Special diets for hospitalised:    yes/no 

Special diets for geriatrics:     yes/no  

Notes: One empty pen. Feeding takes place every day around 14:00 - 16:00 

The assessment started at:  11:30 The assessment ended at: 13:30 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 5 of 30 
 

 

Regarding animal-based idicators at pen level out of 40 evaluated dogs, five (12.5%) exhibited panting 
on remote inspection, and 32.5% (n=13) barked at the sight of the evaluator. As the temperature dropped, a 
percentage of 32.5% of the dogs (n=13) showed signs of diarrhea. Seven dogs (17.5%) showed repetitive be-
havior, which is often associated with pathological conditions, while 12.5% (n=5) of subjects had compulsive 
behavior. 

The assessment of dog welfare was based on measurements of physiological parameters related to stress 
or dog behaviors that were previously associated with stressful situations such as: panting, paw-lifting, re-
peated licking and avoidance behaviors. Even so, identifying poor welfare indicators only partially addresses 
the concept of animal welfare [11].  

A small proportion of dogs may exhibit aggressive/compulsive behavior in response to the stress of the 
shelter environment. Other dogs begin to perform behaviors of a repetitive nature, the frequency of barking 
and vocalizations increases, begin to develop destructive behavior on surrounding materials, and start to uri-
nate or defecate more frequently in the box [12]. 

Diarrhea is a common phenomenon present in kennels and can evolve from occasional pathologies with 
a low level of risk to outbreaks with high mortality. Along with acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea is equally 
common in shelters. Many cases are stress-related, but if the animal is clinically healthy and gaining weight, 
the diarrhea may resolve on its own at the time of adoption. Weight loss is often associated with persistent 
severe diarrhea and the animal's inability to gain weight. The condition can be complicated with other clinical 
signs such as vomiting, and it is therefore recommended to perform additional diagnostic tests [13].  

Intraspecific communication in canids is achieved by barking, growling, howling and whining [14].  
Barking is the most used acoustic method of communication between dogs, and a high-pitched bark indicates 
fear, agitation, as opposed to a low-pitched bark that indicates aggression [15, 16].   

Stereotypy is a problem often reported in animals in captivity and is nothing more than repetitive behav-
ioral sequences without any defined functionality [17]. Another study also included behavioral disorders in 
this category: repeated jumping, self-mutilation, spinning in a circle or insistent licking of a body region [18]. 

Shelters are usually designed in such a way that hygiene can be maintained as well as housing multiple 
dogs in a limited space [19]. In our study, the housing spaces (n=19) mostly corresponded to the animal re-
quirements (table 2). 

Almost half of the pens (n=9, 47.37%) had sharp edges inside which could lead to injury to the animals. 
There must be no sharp point or rough material that could injure the dogs [20]. Drinking water was provided 
manually in bowls or buckets by the shelter staff. Regarding the water quality, only 10.53% were not consid-
ered safe (they had sharp edges). The water was clean in 89.47% of the examined pens, the rest showing traces 
of mud inside. 

At the individual evaluation, most dogs were friendly, playful, curious, relaxed and self-assured, want-
ing attention from the assessor. Barnard et al 2014 included the term "playful" in the emotional state profile of 
dogs as an indicator of a positive emotional state. At the same time, it should be noted that a decrease in the 
negative behavior of people towards dogs does not necessarily lead to a positive state of the dog [21]. Negative 
states can prevent animals from playing, so the willingness to play cannot be considered as a definitive pa-
rameter denoting good animal welfare [22].   

 
 
 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 6 of 30 
 

 
Table 2. Resources-based indicators at pen level 

Indicators  No. of pens 

Housing  
inside yes/no 19 

outside yes/no 0 

Housing type 

kennel yes/no 19 

basket yes/no 0 

wooden pellets yes/no 0 

Bedding 

adequate yes/no 19 

inadequate yes/no 0 

absent yes/no 0 

Sharp edges  - 9 

Type of drinkers 
bowl/bucket yes/no 19 

others yes/no 0 

        Functioning 
 yes 19 

 no 0 

           Safe 
 yes 17 

 no 2 

        Water quality 
dirty  2 

clean  17 

 
The age of the dogs was established through a questionnaire addressed to the shelter staff. Thus, most of 

the dogs were adults aged between 1 and 6 years (85%, n= 34), 10% were geriatric, aged over 6 years and 5% 
were young. In our research, the body condition score revealed that 95% of the subjects had an adequate body 
condition and only two animals showed obesity. 

The dogs showed no signs of lameness, ectoparasites or swelling. A number of 16 dogs (40%) were clas-
sified as "dirty", and 5% of them had injuries on their bodies following an altercation with other dogs. The 
presence of cough was reported for 7.5% of the dogs and alopecia conditions were obbserved in a small pro-
portions (10%, n=4). These results are presented in table 3. 

A dirty and wet body surface negatively affects the well-being of dogs. In our study, the condition of 
alopecia was associated with the quality and type of material used to cover the area around the pen. The same 
observation was described in other study [10].  

During the fear test, characterized by the dogs' indifference towards the assessor or by the presence of 
fear towards him, 12.5% of the dogs showed fear or signs of aggression towards the evaluator. In a study by 
Gácsi et al 2001, it was shown that animals housed in shelters for a longer period of time are able to attach to 
new people in a relatively short time [23]. The difference from 12.5% to 100% is represented by the absence of 
any sign of fear or aggression. 

All shelters must provide decent conditions with sufficient space for the animals to walk freely and stand 
up, turn around, lie down and as far as possible avoid harmful stimuli from the environment. Shelters must 
have separate rest  areas, food in sufficient quantity and quality, acceptable water intake, sufficient and reg-
ular exercise for dogs, and space for excretion [24].  

 



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 7 of 30 
 

 

Table 3. Individual assessment of dogs 

Indicators No. animals % 

Age category 

young 2 5 

adult 34 85 

geriatric 4 10 

Body condition 

adequate 38 95 

too thin 0 0 

too heavy 2 5 

Body cleanliness 
clean 24 60 

dirty/wet 16 40 

Skin tissue condition 

wounds 2 5 

alopecia 4 10 

swelling 0 0 

ectoparasites 0 0 

Lameness  
present 0 0 

absent 40 100 

Cough 
yes 3 7.5 

no 37 92.5 

Fear test 
no signs 35 87.5 

fear/aggression 5 12.5 
 
Conclusions. Applying the shelter quality protocol is useful because it identifies the shelter's critical con-

trol points regarding the welfare of the housed dogs. Their prompt remediation will lead to an adequate ani-
mal welfare. For a better understanding of the well-being of shelter dogs, a coherent strategy is needed at the 
national level to promote animal protection policies, but also to finance these programs of major importance. 
 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B.P., S.P.; methodology, A.B.P., S.P., A.S.C.; software, S.P.; validation, A.B.P., 

S.P. and A.S.C.; formal analysis, S.P.; investigation, A.B.P. and A.S.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.P. and S.P.; 

writing—review and editing, A.B.P., S.P. and A.S.C.; supervision, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published 

version of the manuscript. 

Funding: This research received no external funding.  

References 

1. Pencea, R.; Brădățan, T. Situația câinilor fără stăpân din România. Politici, cadru legislativ și soluții, 2015, 1-4. 

2. Organizația Mondială pentru Sănătatea Animalelor https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fani9121020, ultima accesare la 06.05.2023. 

3. Clay, L.; Paterson, M. ; Bennett, P.; Perry, G., Rohlf, V.; Phillips, C.J.C. In defense of canine behavioral assessments in shelters: 

Outlining their positive applications. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2020, 38: 74-81.  

4. Righi, C.; Menchetti, L.; Orlandi, R.; Moscati, L.; Mancini, S.; Diverio, S. Welfare Assessment in Shelter Dogs by Using 

Physiological and Immunological Parameters. Animals, 2019, 9(6), 340. 

5. Indaco Lege 5 

https://lege5.ro/RedirectGratuit?ContFreemium=1&MesajDepasireAccesari=1&returnUrl=%2FApp%2FDocument%2Fgm4don



Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 3 8 of 30 
 

bzge%2Feutanasierea-cainilor-fara-stapan-si-neutralizarea-cadavrelor-norma-

metodologica&customMessage=HTTP%20request%20quota%20exceeded%21%20maximum%20admitted%205%20per%20Da

y, ultima accesare la 12.03.2023. 

6. Raudies, C.; Waiblinger, S.; Arhant, C. Characteristics and welfare of long-term shelter dogs. Animals, 2021, 11, 194.  

7. Berteselli, G. V.; Arena, L.; Candeloro, L.; Villa, P.D.; De Massis F. Interobserver agreement and sensitivity to climatic conditions 

in sheltered dog’s welfare evaluation performed with welfare assessment protocol (Shelter Quality protocol). Journal of 

Veterinary Behavior, 2019, 29: 45-52.  

8. Barnard, S.; Pedernera, C.; Velarde, A.; Villa, P. D. Welfare Assessment Protocol for Shelter Dogs. Istituto Zooprofilattico 

Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale”, 2014. 

9. Welfare Quality, Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. 

10. Galeb do Amaral Gurgel, L.; Duarte Borges, T.; Jardim dos Santos, C.; Pedernera, C.; Antonio, V.; Anater, A.; Biondo, A.W.; 

Turra Pimpão C. Animal welfare assessment in nine dog shelters of southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 

2022, 57: 84-92. 

11. Miller, S.; Serpell, J.A.; Dalton, K.R.; Waite, K.B.; Morris, D.O.; Redding, L.E.; Dreschel, N.A.; Davis, M.F. The Importance of 

Evaluating Positive Welfare Characteristics and Temperament in Working Therapy Dogs. Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022, 9. 

12. Tufts.edu https://centerforshelterdogs.tufts.edu/dog-welfare/transition-and-stress/, ultima accesare la 15.05.2023 

13. Stavisky, J.; Hanaghan, R. Diarrhoea in the dog in the shelter environment, Quedgeley, Gloucester, 2018, ISBN: 978-1-905319-84-8. 

14. Tembrock, G. Canid vocalizations, Behavioural Processes, 1976, 1, 57-75. 

15. Yin, S.; McCowan, B. Barking in domestic dogs: Context specificity and individual identification. Animal Behaviour, 2004, 68, 

343–355. 

16. Pongrácz, P.; Molnár, C.; Miklósi, Á. Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional information for humans. Applied Animal 

Behaviour Science, 2006, 100, 228–240. 

17. Mason, G.J. Stereotypies: A critical review. Animal Behaviour, 1991, 41, 1015–1037. 

18. Hecht, J.; Horowitz A. Introduction to dog behavior. In: Animal behavior for shelter veterinarians and staff, John Wiley & Sons, Ames, 

2015, 5-24. 

19. Hubrecht, R.C.; Serpell, J.A.; Poole, T.B. Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1992, 34(4), 365-383. 

20. gov.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-activities-licensing-guidance-for-local-authorities/dog-kennel-

boarding-licensing-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities, ultima accesare la 14.05.2023. 

21. Ahloy, D.J.; Espinosa J.; Mason G. Play and optimal welfare: Does play indicate the presence of positive affective states. 

Behavioural Processes, 2017, 156, 3-15. 

22. Polgár, Z.; Blackwell, E.J.; Rooney, N.J. Assessing the welfare of kennelled dogs—A review of animal-based measures. Applied 

Animal Behavior Science, 2019, 213, 1-13. 

23. Gácsi, M.; Topal, J.; Miklosi, A.; Doka, A.; Csanyi, V. Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis familiaris) living at rescue 

centers: Forming new bonds. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2001, 115, 423–431. 

24. Gourkow, N.; Fraser, D. The effect of housing and handling practices on the welfare, behaviour and selection of domestic cats 

(Felis sylvestris catus) by adopters in an animal shelter. Animal welfare, 2006, 15(4). 

 


