Type of the Paper (Article Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 http://clujveterinaryjournal.ro Article Welfare assessment of the sheltered dogs using behavioral in- dicators Anamaria Blaga Petrean1,*, Liviu Bogdan1, Ioana-Diana Câmpean, 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 aim of this work was to evaluate the welfare of sheltered dogs using behavioral indicators that indicate negative and positive emotional states (provoked and unprovoked behavior). The behavior of the selected animals was evaluated by direct observation of the indicators. The data collected was used for computing a life quality score (LQ). Forty-three behavioral indicators (23 negative indicators and 20 positive indicators) were identified and analyzed in 20 dogs housed for more than two years in the shelter. Six negative indicators (tail chasing, circling, escape attempt, chewing bars, coprophagy and lifting a front leg) were not identified in any of the 20 evaluated dogs. An average LQ score of 0.115 was obtained, with values between -0.35 and 0.4. The results showed that 55% of the assessed dogs had higher LQ scores than the mean value. Canine behavior can be assessed within a reasonable amount of time by recording the presence or absence of certain behavioral indicators. These recordings can then be processed to obtain a quality of life score for each animal. Keywords: behavioral indicators, dog, life quality score, shelter. 1. Introduction Dogs are beloved companion animals throughout the world, but millions of them end up in the care of an animal shelter or rescue organization each year [1]. Divers re- search have identified that the environment offered by the shelter can have negative ef- fects on the health and well-being of dogs, especially on those who have to live for a long period of time [2 - 6]. In many animal welfare programs, the focus is usually on stress and negative emotional states [3, 7]. However, we must take into account that a complete evaluation must also capture positive emotional states [3, 8]. Several studies have presented certain stressful elements for dogs in shelters: lack of social interaction, little exercise, minimal control over their environment, unpredictable noise levels, and caretaking routines can make living in a shelter stressful to dogs [9, 10, 11]. In a stressful situation, the individual fails to cope and adapt, endangering the well-being of the animal [12]. Welfare assessment in shelter dogs is a very current topic and highly debated both in the mass media and in the veterinary medical world. This is due to the difficulty of defining certain indicators, but also to the complexity of the systems involved and the adaptation skills of individual dogs [13]. Received: 21.09.2023 Accepted: 30.09.2023 Published:20.10.2023 DOI: 10.52331/cvj.v28i2.52 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses /by/4.0/). Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 2 of 7 Welfare assessment of dogs is based on the use of the ethogram. Most ethograms were created for a specific environment or research area. Thus, based on the ethogram, a series of tools have been validated, which can be generally used in a variety of populations [5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. An ethogram is a list or catalogue of species-specific behaviors. The behaviors are defined and then organized into general categories such as locomotion, resting, playing, change in posture, and stereotypy or repetitive behaviors, of which circling, pacing, whirling, and wall-bouncing are just a few examples. In gen- eral, each behavior is recorded along with its frequency and duration in a specific period of time. Once the observation period has ended, the behavior scores are calculated and an assessment is completed [1]. The aim of this work was to evaluate the welfare of sheltered dogs using behavioral indicators that indicate negative and positive emotional states (provoked and unprovoked behavior). 2. Materials and Methods The study was carried out in a private dog shelter owned by an animal protection association (non- governmental organization) from Cluj county. Animals selected for evaluation had been in the shelter for more than 2 years and at the time of the study had no documented health problems, no ocular discharge, lameness or wounds. The behavior of the selected animals was evaluated by direct observation based on behavioral indicators indicating negative and positive emotional states (Table 1, Table 2). The behavioral characteristics were recorded using a binary system 1/0, where 1 has meant the occurrence of a given behavior and 0 has meant its absence, in a given time period, during the assessment that was done [14, 20]. The ethogram used, originally proposed by [14] was adapted to the conditions present in our study. Those characteristics that could not be observed, either due to the design of the shelter or for other objective reasons, were excluded. The first evaluation method involved videotaping the experiment so that the interaction with the animals could be reviewed later. The purpose of this approach was to increase the precision with which the elements in the ethogram were recorded and to correct any elements possibly omitted by the assessor. This method helped to record the part of unprovoked behavior and the initial interaction between the assessor and the animals. The written evaluation was based on the ethogram. Printed copies were used in the form of a table, which contained the behavioral manifestations to be followed and the names of the dogs to be evaluated. The results were then processed in Microsoft Excel. The second evaluation was carried out as follows: (1) evaluation of unprovoked behavior and (2) evaluation of provoked behavior. In the first stage, the evaluator positioned himself 2-2.5 m away from the corner of the box, without trying to interact with the animals in any way. The animals were observed for 3 minutes. Eye contact with the dogs, sudden movements or direct addressing of the animal with commands was avoided during this stage. Unprovoked behavior was recorded by going through the elements of the ethogram and marking with 1 the presence of a certain behavior manifestation and with 0 its absence. For the evaluation of the provoked behavior the evaluator went to the box and brought the hand close to the fence to allow the dog to know the evaluator. The evaluator then entered the pen and assumed a non- threatening position, crouching next to the fence, allowing the dog to approach. This stage also lasted for 3 minutes. Shy dogs were not called and no attempt was performed to approach them. The results of the ethogram were used to calculate a Life Quality score (LQ score) according to the method proposed by Kiddie and Collins [14, 15]. Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 3 of 7 Table 1. Description and prevalence of negative behavioral indicators Indicators of negative emotional state, unprovoked behavior No. dogs % dogs Repeatedly pacing in the pen Dog repeatedly (>3 times) paces around kennel in a fixed route 9 45 Repeatedly jumping on the kennel wall Dog repeatedly (>3 times) jumps up kennel wall from one side to another 1 5 Tail chasing Dog chases its tail repeatedly (>3 times) 0 0 Circling Dog repeatedly walks around in small circle (>3 times) 0 0 Repeatedly display playing position Dog repeatedly displays the play bow posture (>3 times) 1 5 Excessive drinking Dog drinks large volumes of water, in excess of what is normal 0 0 Panting Dog pants for reasons unrelated to physical exertion or warm ambient temperature (only record if temperature < 25 0C) 9 45 Apathy The dog is withdrawn and does not respond to commands 1 5 Escape attempt Dog attempts to escape kennel in a forceful manner whenever the kennel door is opened 0 0 Hiding Dog is obscured from view of kennel staff, behind its bed or other kennel furniture for prolonged periods when not asleep (>2mins) 2 10 Chewing bars Dog repeatedly chews and bites at the bars of the kennel (>20 secs) 0 0 Low posture Tail is lowered, ears are back and legs are bent 4 20 Coprophagy Did the dog eat its own or another dog’s faeces? 0 0 Lifting a front leg A forepaw is lifted off the ground and held there 0 0 Standing Positioned with four feet in contact with ground and legs almost or fully extended 13 65 Sniffing a surface/nose on a surface The nose is held close to or touching a surface, and/or sniffing the surface 2 10 Whining High pitched vocalisation 1 5 Aggressiveness toward other dogs Any lip lifting, growling, snapping, or biting 2 10 Startling Legs flex briefly, body and head quickly, briefly move back, usually in response to a sudden noise, or dog quickly moves backwards 6 30 Box walking without exploring environment Travels forward without obviously investigating its environment 2 10 Indicators of negative emotional state, provoked behavior Oral behaviors, abnormal movements Includes tongue out; tip of tongue briefly extended; snout licking; lip licking; swallowing, lip smacking 10 50 Ambivalent posture A crouched body posture +a position that is higher than the breed- specific position; or a high body posture + by a position of the tail that is below normal 9 45 Aggressiveness Any lip lifting, growling, snapping, or biting 1 5 Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 4 of 7 Table 2. Description and prevalence of positive behavioral indicators Indicators of positive emotional state, unprovoked behavior No. dogs % dogs High level of activity Increased levels of any locomotion or movement 6 30 Grooming The dog grooms itself: scratched/washed/stretched 1 5 Alert Generally inactive but with eyes open, and head and ears moving, can be lying down, sitting or standing 16 80 Scanning the environment Eyes continuously move to view the environment 19 95 Exploring environment Walks with nose close to surfaces or sniffing objects 5 25 Adopting playing position Forequarters are lowered to the ground, with rump raised 1 5 Ears up Ears held forward 12 60 High body position Breed specific posture shown by dogs under neutral conditions, but with a higher tail or head elevated and ears forwards, or dog standing extremely erect 10 50 Spending time in the front part of the box Time spent in the half of the kennel closest to the external wall/door 13 65 Grunting Isolated intense expiration (breathing out) 3 15 Laying down Most of body in contact with ground 10 50 Playing with objects Any vigorous or galloping gaited behaviour directed towards a toy or other object, including chewing, biting, shaking it from side to side, batting it with a paw 0 0 Playing with other dogs Leaps onto another dog, with body relaxed, stands on hind legs and paws at other dog, places mouth around muzzle, head, neck, or legs of other dog with little pressure, pats another dog with a forepaw, lifting both front paws off the ground rapidly to bounce up and down, done in front of and orientated towards another dog 6 30 Licking other dogs’ face The dog licks the muzzle of its kennelmate 0 0 Tail wagging Repetitive wagging movements of the tail 12 60 Shaking Dog shakes its whole body briefly as if drying itself 0 0 Indicators of positive emotional state, provoked behavior Tail wagging Repetitive wagging movements of the tail 13 65 Laying down Most of body in contact with ground 0 0 Initiating physical contact Dog starts an interaction with the assessor or kennelmate 13 65 Shaking Dog shakes its whole body briefly as if drying itself 1 5 Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 5 of 7 3. Results and discussion Regarding the 43 indicators analysed (23 negative indicators and 20 positive indicators), six negative indicators (tail chasing, circling, escape attempt, chewing bars, coprophagy and lifting a front leg) were not identified in any of the 20 evaluated dogs (Table1, Table 2.). These indicators were associated in previous studies with high levels of stress or precarious housing conditions [21, 22]. Two of the indicators, namely: tail chasing and circling are considered stereotypic behav- ioral disorders [23]. Their absence in this study may suggest that the animals are housed in conditions that do not cause the appearance of certain behavioral stereotypes. Also, the lack of these manifestations may suggest that the management practices applied within the shelter have a beneficial effect in preventing neg- ative behaviors that are associated with stress. In our study, the housing conditions were adequate and in conformity with the legal regulations in force. In addition, the boxes were not overcrowded. In some situa- tions, the dogs can be housed in precarious conditions, overcrowded boxes and they can have limited contact with humans [24]. In addition, for some dogs it is possible to be exposed to several traumatic situations, abuse and neglect [25]. Based on the results obtained in the evaluation of the dogs' behavior, a LQ score was calcula- ted for each animal. Thus, an average LQ score of 0.115 was obtained, with values between -0.35 and 0.4. The analysis of the results showed that 55% of the assessed dogs had higher LQ scores than the mean value. Nine animals (D2, D4, D6, D7, D10, D12, D15, D16, D17) had negative scores. The maximum score was recorded for D8 (Figure 1). Figure 1.The LQ score obtained by each dog at the evaluation The maximum percentage of positive indicators (65%) observed was recorded by D14, and the maximum percentage of negative indicators (40%) by dogs D15 and D16. The minimum percentage of positive indicators (10%) was observed in animals D7 and D16, and the minimum percentage of negative indicators (0%) was observed in D3. The average percentage of positive indicators was 29.25%, more than half of the dogs (55%) exceeding this value. The average percentage of negative indicators was 19.75%, nine of the animals (45%) evaluated registering a lower percentage (Figure 2). -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D1 0 D1 1 D1 2 D1 3 D1 4 D1 5 D1 6 D1 7 D1 8 D1 9 D2 0 LQ sc or e Number of dogs Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 6 of 7 Figure 2. Proportion of positive and negatives indicators per animal In other studies [14, 15, 20] a percentage of 2% or 30% negative LQ scores were reported compared to 45% obtained in this study.These results suggest a higher number of behavioral disorders in the dogs evaluated in our research. The lower scores obtained in our study could indicate the presence of chronic stress in the dogs or it could be the expression of possible traumas experienced by the animal before entering in the shelter. The dogs in a shelter can be exposed to chronic stress, because several stress factors such as social isolation, changes of the environment, excessive noises, physical restrictions [26, 27]. 4.Conclusions Canine behavior can be assessed within a reasonable time frame by recording the presence or absence of certain behavioral indicators. These recordings can then be processed to obtain a quality of life score for each animal. The quality of life score (QL) is a parameter that can be used to monitor the evolution of the same animal over time, and can also be used to compare the evolution of groups of animals. Additional studies such as the application of socialization programs are needed to gain more knowledge on the behavior of shelter dogs. This aspect is very important especially for animals in shelters that are subjected to a higher level of stress. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B.P., S.P.; methodology, A.B.P., S.P., L.B.; software, S.P.; validation, A.B.P., S.P. and I.D.C.; formal analysis, S.P.; investigation, A.B.P. and I.D.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.P. and S.P.; writing—review and editing, A.B.P., S.P. and I.D.C.; supervision, S.P. and L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D1 0 D1 1 D1 2 D1 3 D1 4 D1 5 D1 6 D1 7 D1 8 D1 9 D2 0 In di ca to rs (% ) Number of dogs positive indicators negative indicators Cluj Vet J 2023, vol 28, issue 2 7 of 7 References 1. Tennille, K.L., Slater, M.R.; Moberly, H.K; Budke, C.M. Welfare and quality of life assessments for shelter dogs: A scoping review, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2021, Volume 244, 105490 2. Wells, D.L. A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris, Applied Animal Behavior Science 2004, 85, 307–317 3. Villa, P.D.; Barnard, S.; Di Fede, E.; Podaliri, M.; Candeloro, L.; Di Nardo, A.; Siracusa, C.; Serpell, J.A. Behavioural and physi- ological responses of shelter dogs to long-term confinement. Veter. Ital. 2013 49, 231–241 4. Hewison, L.F.; Wright, H.F.; Zulch, H.E.; Ellis, S.L.H. Short term consequences of preventing visitor access to kennels on noise and the behaviour and physiology of dogs housed in a rescue shelter, Physiology & Behavior 2014, Volume 133, 1-7 5. Barnard, S.; Pedernera, C.; Candeloro, L.; Ferri, N.; Velarde, A.; Villa, P.D. Development of a new welfare assessment protocol for practical application in long-term dog shelters. Vet Rec. 2016,178, 18 6. Berteselli, G.V.; Arena, L.; Candeloro, L.; Villa, P.D.; De Massis, F. Interobserver agreement and sensitivity to climatic conditions in sheltered dogs' welfare evaluation performed with welfare assessment protocol (Shelter Quality protocol). Journal of Veteri- nary Behavior 2019, Volume 29, 45-52 7. Yeates, J.W.; Main, D.C.J. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. The Veterinary Journal 2008, Volume 175, Issue 3, 293-300 8. Righi, C.; Menchetti, L.; Orlandi, R.; Moscati, L.; Mancini, S.; Diverio, S. Welfare Assessment in Shelter Dogs by Using Physio- logical and Immunological Parameters. Animals (Basel) 2019, 11; 9(6):340 9. Beerda, B.; Schildert, M.B.H.; van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M.; de Vries, H.W.; Moll, J.A. Behavioural and Hormonal Indicators of endur- ing environmental stress in dogs. Anim. Welf. 2000, 9, 49–62 10. Taylor, K.D.; Mills, D.S. The effect of the kennel environment on canine welfare: A critical review of experimental studies. Anim. Welf. 2007,16, 435–447 11. Titulaer, M.; Blackwell, E.J.; Mendl, M.; Casey, R.A. Cross sectional study comparing behavioural, cognitive and physiological indicators of welfare between short and long term kenneled domestic dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 149–158 12. Madden, K.S.; Felten, D.L. Experimental basis for neural-immune interactions. Physiol. Rev. 1995, 75, 77–106 13. Protopopova, A. Effects of sheltering on physiology, immune function, behavior, and the welfare of dogs. Physiol. Behav. 2016, 159, 95–103 14. Kiddie, J.L.; Collins, L.M. Development and validation of a quality of life assessment tool for use in kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2014,158, 457–468 15. Kiddie, J.L.; Collins, L.M. Identifying environmental and management factors that may be associated with the quality of life of kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2015, 167, 43–55 16. Arena, L.; Wemelsfelder, F.; Messori, S.; Ferri, N.; Barnard, S. Application of Free Choice Profiling to assess the emotional state of dogs housed in shelter environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2017, Volume 195, Pages 72-79 17. Arena, L.; Berteselli, G.; Lombardo, F.; Candeloro, L.; Villa, P.; Massis, F. Application of a welfare assessment tool (Shelter Quality Protocol) in 64 Italian long-term dogs’ shelters: Welfare hazard analysis. Animal Welfare 2019, 28(3), 353-363 18. Menchetti, L.; Righi, C.; Guelfi, G.; Enas, C.; Moscati, L.; Mancini, S.; Diverio, S. Multi-Operator Qualitative Behavioural Assess- ment for dogs entering the shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2019, Volume 213, 107-116 19. Walker, J.K.; Dale, A.R.; D’Eath, R.B.; Wemelsfelder, F. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of dogs in the shelter and home environment and relationship with quantitative behaviour assessment and physiological responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2016, Volume 184, 97-108 20. Popescu, S.; Borda, C.; El Mahdy, C.; Lazar, E.A.; Blaga Petrean, A.; Câmpean, I.D.; Spinu, M. The Effect of a Social Enrichment Programme on the Behaviour of Dogs from a Private Shelter, Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine 2018, 75(2), 222-230 21. Beerda, B.; Schilder, M.B.H.; Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M.; Vries, H.W.; Mol, J.A. Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction: behavioral responses. Physiology & Behavior 1999, 66, 233–242 22. Stephen, J.M.; Ledger, R.A. An audit of behavioral indicators of poor welfare in kenneled dogs in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2005, 8, 79–95 23. Hecht, J.; Horowitz, A. Introduction to dog behavior. In: Animal behavior for shelter veterinarians and staff. John Wiley & Sons, Ames, 2015 pp. 5-24 24. Barrera, G.; Jakovcevic, A.; Bentosela, M. Calidad de vida de perros alojados en refugios: intervenciones para mejorar su bie- nestar. Suma Psicológica 2008, 15, 337-354 25. De Palma, C.; Viggiano, E.; Barillari, E.; Palme, R.; Dufour, A.B.; Fantini, C.; Natoli, E. Evaluating the temperament in shelter dogs. Behavior 2005, 142, 1307–1328 26. Hennessy, M.B.; Williams, M.; Mellott, C.; Douglas, C. Plasma cortisol levels of dogs at a county animal shelter, Physiology & Behaviour 1997, 62, 485-490 27. Tuber, D.; Miller, D.; Caris, K.; Halter, R.; Linden, F.; Hennessy, M. Dogs in animal shelters: problems, suggestions and needed expertise. Psychological Science 1999, 10, 379-386 1. Introduction 3. Results and discussion References