84 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 A B S T R A C T The present study has tested the Shelter-Quality Protocol (SQ) and its applicability in nine long-term dog shelters in the Curitiba metropolitan area, State of Paraná, southern Brazil. Welfare indicators were scored on three different levels including shelter, pen and dogs. Data were qualitatively analyzed, presenting an average of 66.67 (±27.63) allocated dogs per shelter, receiving only dry food, with meal frequencies varying from once (44.4%), twice a day (33.3%), and ad libitum (22.2%). Water was available ad libitum in 98.5% of pens and was clean in (89.5%) of shelters. Most of the shelters grouped the dogs by size. Animals were kept indoors (41.0%) or entirely outdoors with only close movable shelters (41.3%), from which 78.5% had materials that could hurt the animals. None of the dogs were panting, crowding, or had any stereotypy behavior. No cough, swelling, and ectoparasites were observed. Animals were in satisfactory body-score condition and clean; no lameness was observed. In the human-animal relationship test, 15.3% of animals showed fearful and aggressive reactions. Hence, the level of shelter-quality was feasible and provided relevant information about the Brazilian dog shelter welfare. However, it is important in future studies to include and adopt additional indicators to gather other relevant aspects of dogs’ welfare, such as health management, environmental enrichment, dogs’ socialization, people involved in the chain, rate of adoption, and turnover of dogs. Keywords: shelter medicine; population control; ethology; abandonment; relinquishment. R E S U M O O presente estudo testou o Protocolo Shelter-Quality (SQ) e sua aplicabilidade em nove abrigos de cães de longa permanência na região metropolitana de Curitiba, estado do Paraná, Sul do Brasil. Os indicadores de bem-estar foram pontuados em três níveis diferentes, incluindo abrigo, recinto e cães. Os dados foram analisados qualitativamente, apresentando média de 66,67 (±27,63) cães alocados por abrigo, que recebem apenas ração seca, com frequência de alimentação variando entre uma (44,4%), duas vezes ao dia (33,3%) e ad libitum (22,2%). A água estava disponível ad libitum em 98,5% dos currais e era limpa em 89,5% dos abrigos. A maioria destes agrupou os cães por tamanho. Os animais eram mantidos em ambientes fechados (41,0%) ou inteiramente ao ar livre, apenas com abrigos móveis próximos (41,3%), dos quais 78,5% possuíam materiais que pudessem machucar os animais. Nenhum dos cães estava ofegante, aglomerado ou com comportamento estereotipado. Não foram observados tosse, inchaço e ectoparasitas. Os animais estavam em condição corporal satisfatória e limpos; nenhuma claudicação foi observada. No teste de relação humano-animal, 15,3% dos animais apresentaram reações de medo e agressão. Assim, o nível de qualidade do abrigo foi viável e forneceu informações relevantes sobre o bem-estar do abrigo de cães brasileiros. No entanto, é importante em estudos futuros incluir e adotar indicadores adicionais para reunir outros aspectos relevantes do bem-estar dos cães, como gestão da saúde, enriquecimento ambiental, socialização dos animais, pessoas envolvidas na cadeia, taxa de adoção e rotatividade de cães. Palavras-chave: medicina veterinária do coletivo; controle populacional; etologia; abandono; desistência. Animal welfare assessment in nine dog shelters of southern Brazil Avaliação de bem-estar animal em nove abrigos de cães do Sul do Brasil Luciana do Amaral Gurgel Galeb1 , Tâmara Duarte Borges1 , Camila Jardim dos Santos1 , Cecília Pedernera2 , Antonio Velarde2 , Amanda Anater1 , Alexander Welker Biondo3 , Cláudia Turra Pimpão1 1Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná – Curitiba (PR), Brazil. 2Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology – Monells, Girona, Spain. 3Universidade Federal do Paraná – Curitiba (PR), Brazil. Correspondence address: Luciana do Amaral Gurgel Galeb – Rua Imaculada da Conceição, 1,155 – Prado Velho – Zip Code: 80215-901 – Curitiba (PR), Brazil. E-mail: lucianagaleb@hotmail.com Conflicts of interest: the authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR). Received on: 08/06/2021. Accepted on: 01/12/2021 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z217694781197 Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences ISSN 2176-9478 Volume 56, Number 1, March 2021 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5873-7027 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4076-4147 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6461-121X https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3572-3308 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2634-3138 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2594-0050 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4182-5821 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3955-9074 mailto:lucianagaleb@hotmail.com https://doi.org/10.5327/Z217694781197 http://www.rbciamb.com.br http://abes-dn.org.br/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Animal welfare assessment in nine dog shelters of southern Brazil 85 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 Introduction The worldwide population of domestic dogs has been estimated at around 700 million, with around 75% identified as “free-roaming” (Smith et  al., 2019). Out of this total, an estimated 52.2 million dogs (7,5%) live in Brazil, representing 1.8 dogs per household. In the south- ern region of Brazil, 58.6% of households have at least one dog, the highest proportion in Brazil (Arruda et al., 2020). Thus, the “unowned” or stray dog population’s growth is a sig- nificant problem in urban centers, especially in developing countries (Smith et al., 2019). The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE, 2018) estimates that there are approximately 200 million stray dogs globally and 30 million only in Brazil. As a result of systematic and multi-causal abandonment, stray dogs present a social and economic problem related to the costs of population control strategies and zoo- notic risks, especially in Latin America (Mota-Rojas et al., 2021). Stray dog reallocation to shelters has been a Brazilian govern- mental strategy for free-roaming dog populations, besides responsi- ble guard education, castration, and community dog programs (Kwok et al., 2016; Mota-Rojas et al., 2021). Within this context, dog shelters are getting increasingly overpopulated, which can directly compromise animal welfare, particularly in long-term shelters where dogs present lower adoption rates (Raudies et al., 2021). A dog shelter is a place that receives and takes care of a consider- able number of these animals, most of which were collected from the streets. Its main activities are being a safe haven for animals, acting as a place of passage, seeking permanent homes, and being a reference cen- ter in terms of animal care, control, and welfare programs, facilitating the safe release back into society. Meeting the needs of animals in the shelter environment is not an easy task and requires a lot of planning and commitment, including physical and behavioral assessments (Clay et al., 2020). Building and maintaining a shelter requires many other consider- ations, such as obtaining a license, meeting regulatory requirements, planning activities, and staff training. The shelter is not always the best strategy to solve animal welfare problems. These places do little to solve the problem of stray animals, and provide no solution to animals on the street. Inadequate planning, lack of experience, and insufficient re- sources can seriously compromise the welfare of shelter animals, and, if the dog stays too long, adoption becomes more difficult due to social isolation, one of the major stressors for dogs living in animal shelters (Gunter et al., 2019). Shelters should be one of the strategies that make up a humane management program, which aims to collect, rehabilitate, and rein- troduce animals into society through adoptions (Arruda et  al., 2019; Arruda et al., 2020). In addition, shelters can be governmental, private, non-governmental organizations, or government-controlled private entities. In Paraná, in southern Brazil, government-run shelters include Municipal Kennels, Zoonosis Control Centers, Zoonosis Surveillance Units (Brasil, 2016), Animal Screening Centers and Reference Centers for Animals at Risk (Prefeitura de Curitiba, 2016). In Paraná, all mu- nicipal shelters work as animal adoption sites (Arruda et al., 2020). Regardless of the shelter type, size, or ownership, dogs are often subjected to specific stressors just by being in a shelter environment (Arruda et al., 2019), and unfortunately they might spend a long peri- od of their life without any important behavior stimuli (Gunter et al., 2019). This proliferation of long-term dog sheltering, combined with low adoption rates and absence of facilities or basic management stan- dards, has become a vital concern for kenneled dogs and their wel- fare assessment (Miller and Zawistowski, 2014; Polgár et  al., 2019). Furthermore, although there is a growing interest in improving dog welfare in Brazilian shelters, acceptable management practices are of- ten limited due to staffing, time, and budgetary constraints ( Mota- Rojas et al., 2021). So far, there have been no studies that assess shelter dogs’ welfare at housing and animal level in Brazil, even though it is a well-known problem. Measuring dog welfare in shelters is not an easy task because many indicators must be applied involving shelter management, hous- ing, environmental conditions, dog health, sociability status, food quality restriction, lack of veterinary care, and even genetic changes (Clay et al., 2020; Raudies et al., 2021). Therefore, it is essential to have a tool that directly evaluates the real welfare state of dogs housed in shelters by simultaneously observing all these indicators. The Shelter Quality protocol was developed to provide a valid, reli- able, and practical tool for assessing shelter dog welfare (Berteselli et al., 2019). This protocol was built and based on Welfare Quality® protocols for livestock (Welfare Quality, 2009), and respected the four welfare principles — good feeding, adequate housing, good health, appropriate behavior, having the twelve specific shelter dog outcome criteria. There is a historic scientific recognition about animal captivity (Cambridge Declaration, 2012). Consequently, its degree of well-being is defined as the mental and physical state of the animal based on its attempts to adapt to its environment. Therefore, knowing the holding environment of shelter animals and their management is critical for diagnosing and implementing improvements (Berteselli et al., 2019). Accordingly, to estimate the actual welfare state of the Brazilian dog shelters, this protocol was applied, and further indicators were proposed to bring the protocol closer to the Brazilian reality. Materials and Methods This study was approved by Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), by the Animal Research Ethics Committee (CEUA), under protocol number 01129, and by the Ethics Committee for Re- search on Human Beings (CEP), under number 2.401.931. Nine dog shelters were visited in Curitiba’s metropolitan region (Figure 1). Only those shelters that voluntarily accepted to partici- pate in the study were considered. The Shelter Quality (SQ) protocol was applied to assess the dogs’ welfare using well-defined parameters, divided into four principles and twelve evaluation criteria (Table 1). Galeb L.A.G. et al. 86 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 Table 1 – Animal welfare indicators based on Shelter Quality® protocol. Principles Criteria Measures Good feeding Absence of prolonged hunger - Body condition - Feeding Absence of prolonged thirst - Water supply Good housing Comfort regarding resting - Bedding - Sharp edges - Cleanliness Thermal comfort - Shivering - Huddling - Panting Ease of movement - Space allowance Good health Absence of injuries - Skin condition - Limping Absence of disease - Evidence of pain - Diarrhea - Coughing - Mortality - Morbidity Absence of pain induced by management procedures - Surgeries - Pain relief Appropriate behavior Expression of social behaviors - Social housing Expression of other behaviors - Abnormal behavior barking - Stereotypy - Exercise Good human-animal relationship - Reaction to humans Positive emotional state - Emotional state – QBA Figure 1 – Nine shelter locations evaluated in Curitiba-PR in the metropolitan areas, Brazil. Animal welfare assessment in nine dog shelters of southern Brazil 87 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 For each criterion, there were specific indicators based on the shelter’s records (management data), based on environmental resources (facili- ties), and the animals (behavior and health). The protocol was applied by a single evaluator who was trained by one of the SQ authors. The study was divided into two steps: the first one was the Shelter dog welfare evaluation by SQ protocol, and, finally, the adaptation of the protocol indicators and suggestion of new measurements based on the Brazilian reality. Management-based indicators involved a questionnaire that was answered by the shelter manager or another competent person, and referred to the total shelter dog population and its condition on the day of the visit, including the following variables: • number of dogs in the shelter; • number of hospitalized dogs; • operating procedures for post-surgical monitoring; • analgesia protocol; • whether dogs were walked on leash by shelter personnel or by vol- unteers; • number of hospital pens; • number of single pens (pens containing only one isolated animal), pens in pairs, pens in groups of less than 5 dogs, and pens with more than 5 dogs; • total number of shelter pens; • outdoor area and size; • number of euthanized animal for health and behavioral reasons; • number of deaths other than euthanasia; • animal behavioral assessment by a visual analog scale, called QBA (Qualitative Behavior Assessment); • the type of diet (dry pellet, cooked, wet/canned); • whether there was any specific diet for puppies, geriatrics or hos- pitalized animals; • feeding regime (once a day, twice a day, or ad libitum); • annual shelter clinical treatment expenses. Resource-based indicators assessed animal pens, their living envi- ronment, and all animals confined to them (regardless of the number of dogs), thus, assessing: • the number of animals over and under 20 kg; • pen area dimensions; • whether there was any indoor space (for sun protection) and out- side area; • beds and their type; • sharp edges in the animals’ living environment; • type and function of water supply; • water cleanness; • the number of animals panting, shivering, huddling; • the number of animals barking insistently in the evaluator’s presence; • the number of stereotyped animals (active repetitive/other com- pulsive behavior); • the number of animals in pain; • diarrhea on the pen floor. Animal-based indicators included: • animal age class; • body condition; • animal cleanness; • number of animals hurt; • hair loss; • swelling; • ectoparasites; • limping; • cough; • human-animal relationship tests. For these evaluations, a dog subsample was individually evaluated according to the sample proposed by the protocol (Table 2), using the minimum sample required for reliable data. Since it is a descriptive study with a methodological approach, all welfare indicators of the nine evaluated shelters were compiled into a database and were synthesized, analyzed, and presented in a predomi- nantly qualitative manner to summarize and describe the most import- ant aspects of the Brazilian shelter dog welfare. Results Indicators based on shelter management On average, the shelters housed 66.67 (±27.63) dogs, ranging from 112 to 21, according to the largest and smallest shelters assessed. Dogs were mostly housed in pens with less than 5 animals, represent- ing 32.30% (n=42), formed by groups of mainly four dogs. However, a high rate of single housing was also observed in 26.15% (n=34), ex- cluding 9% (n=11) of dogs that were in isolation for health reasons. Most of the animals (91%, n=23) were isolated due to behavioral prob- lems, with aggressiveness being the main cause. Five (55.5%) out of nine shelters visited left the dogs in an out- door fenced area every day, while three (33.3 %) had no outdoor access. Just  in one shelter (11.1%) dogs were walked on a leash by volunteers once a week. All shelters provided dry pellets to the ani- Total number of dogs in the shelter Total number of dogs to be evaluated Up to 59 30 60-89 40 90-139 50 More than 140 60 Table 2 – Sample suggested by the Shelter Quality® protocol for individual assessment based on shelter population size. Galeb L.A.G. et al. 88 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 mals with a noncooked or wet/canned diet. Furthermore, all shelter managers continuously offer a mix of dry pellet ingredients and raw materials based on donation availability. However, most of the shel- ters (n=9) had a standard procedure to provide a special diet for pup- pies (88.8%, n=8), as well as mature (77.7%, n=7), and hospitalized (88.8%, n=8) animals. Meals varied in shelters, where 44.4% (n=4) provided animals with food once a day, 33.3% (n=3) twice and 22.2% (n=2) ad libitum. Regarding surgical procedures, 77.7% (n=7) of the managers said that the shelters had postoperative monitoring, and 66.6% (n=6) af- firmed to have some analgesia protocol, especially for castration sur- geries. Nevertheless, just a few shelters had specific pens for keeping the hospitalized animals; on the day of the visit, only one shelter (11.1%) demonstrated this resource. Shelters recorded 4.5% (n=27) of natural deaths without human intervention, adding to the rate of 2.5% (n=15) of dogs euthanized for health reasons, and 0.16% (n=1) euthanized for behavioral problems. Pen evaluation In total, 130 pens were evaluated; 37 % (n=48) of them housed animals weighing more than 20 kg (large dogs), 42% (n=55) housed  animals weighing less than 20 kg (medium dogs), and 16 % (n=21)  had  mixed large and medium-sized animals in the same pen. Exclusive small dog (less than 10 kg) pens were also present in Brazil- ian shelters with a 5% (n=6) prevalence. The pens with only an indoor area and no outdoor access repre- sented 41% (n=53) of the cases; in contrast, 41% (n=53) of the shelters only had an outdoor area with a small, roofed area within a movable shelter made of plastic or wood material, which allows the animal to hide from mild adverse weather conditions. Finally, 18% (n=24) of the pens had both indoor and outdoor areas. The pens had on average 65.65 m² (±10.12), ranging from 100 m² for the largest one, and 4 m² for the smallest. Regarding bedding (considered by the protocol as any structure that allows dogs not to have direct contact with the floor, that is easy to clean and disinfect, and made of good material, ensuring the safe- ty of the dog — i.e., without harmful edges or ingestible parts) 78% (n=101) of the pens had appropriate bedding requirements. Howev- er, 9% (n=12) of the pens had less than one bed per dog, dangerous conditions (9%, n=12), or the material provided was wet or with feces (4%, n=5). The most common type of bed found was the movable shelter (79%, n=102), followed by the basket bed (11%, n=14), and a bed with a pallet material (6%, n=8). Most of the pens (79%, n=103) had visible edges in the environment that could hurt the animals, the most com- mon being wires and wood pieces. Drinking water was supplied in bowls or buckets, which were man- ually filled by shelter staff in 99% (n=128) of the pens, and the remain- der pens (1%, n=2) provided water in cement troughs. No automatic drinker was found in any shelter. Of all pens evaluated, 9% (n=12) of them had little or no water available for the dogs. Regarding drinker safety, only 4% (n=5) were not considered safe because they contained sharp edges or rust. The water was clean in 90% (n=117) of the evaluat- ed pens, with the other 10% (n=13) with feces and sludge inside. During the behavioral evaluation at the visit, no animals were found under thermal stress conditions since no animal was shivering or panting. In the behavioral assessment, it was observed that 28% (n=37) of the pens had insistently barking dogs (defined by the proto- col as a short and repetitive continued vocalization), 0.18% (n=2) had animals with behavioral characteristics of pain, and 0.56% (n=7) with diarrhea on the ground. No dogs were observed performing stereo- typed movements or any other compulsion. Individual animal evaluations A total of 131 dogs were evaluated individually, 97% (n=127) of them were adults (between 1 and 6 years old) and 3% (n=4) were el- derly (over 6 years). Young animals (under one year old) are not eval- uated by the protocol. Thus, most of the dogs (99.3%, n=130) had an adequate body score condition, and only one animal (0.7%) had an overweight score (obese). All animals were clean, no coughing, no big injuries, and no ectoparasites. There were a few skin wounds (6.16%, n=8) and alopecia conditions (9.24%, n=12) in the animals. However, it is noteworthy that, only in one shelter, out of the 19 dogs evaluated, 7 had hair loss (representing 36.8% of the total for this shelter). It can be inferred that such alopecia is associated when the type of material used to cover the ground around the animal pen is wood straw, which, when in constant contact with the animals’ coats, may cause irritation and extensive hair loss at this specific shelter. Regarding limping, only 2 dogs from different shelters presented moderate limping score (1.5%). During the fear test, 84.6% (n=110) of the animals showed no signs of fear or aggressiveness in the presence of the evaluator. However, in two shelters (22.2%), out of 39 animals evaluated, 19 showed signs of fear, dodging, or hiding in human pres- ence (48.7%). Welfare indicators added in SQ protocol Shelter management The protocol adaptation consisted of identifying, during SQ ap- plication, critical points of Brazilian shelter dog welfare that were not included in the protocol or did not have any indicator to assess. During the management questionnaire, eight questions were added to better characterize the shelters: • vaccination protocols, endo and ectoparasites control; • environmental enrichment; • dog socialization program; • castration program; • shelter adoption rate and turnover dog rate; Animal welfare assessment in nine dog shelters of southern Brazil 89 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 • the number of stakeholders involved in shelter activities; • main shelter income; • detailed veterinarian care. It was found that all the shelters had a vaccination protocol with an annual calendar, including multipurpose and rabies vaccines. How- ever, deworming was received twice a year just in one shelter (11.1%), and that was because of pharmaceutical donations. For ectoparasite control, two shelters (22.2%) said they performed environmental con- trol, and no shelters administered animal drugs for this purpose. Environment enrichment was present in just one shelter (11.1%) in a single dog’s pen, consisting of a raw bone functioning as a portion of food and bite item. Two shelters (22.2%) affirmed to have a dog socializa- tion program. In one of them, the socialization was developed by a veter- inary student group (n=8) consisting of a one-hour session, three times a week, as part of a Vet course subject. The students performed basic dog training and inter and intraspecies socialization techniques. The  other shelter had volunteers during the weekends who interacted with the dogs in 30-min sessions in each shelter pen, one person at a time. All the shelters evaluated were registered in the Brazilian govern- ment castration program, performing an average of 6.2 (±2.0) castra- tions per month. In general, the adoption rate in Brazilian shelters is low, with an average of four animals being adopted in each marketplace (usually four per month), aside puppies, whose adoption is higher. In all the shelters, the dog turnover had dog behavior as the main prob- lem, non-adaptation to the environment, increasing destructive and aggressive behavior. Few people were involved in daily shelter activities. It was more common to find just three (66.6%) or four (33.3%) fixed workers for each shelter. All the shelter costs (food supply, cleaning and mainte- nance, medical care, employees salary, water, and energy were mainly paid by donations raised through shelter campaigns (88.9%, n=8), with a few having some governmental supply (11.1%, n=1). All shelters except one (which represented 11.1%) did not have their own veterinarian, and different professionals attended dogs at private clinics or veterinary hospitals (88.9%, n=8). Pen evaluation Hygiene assessment was included in the Brazilian protocol, once 88.8% (n=8) of the shelters had the floor clean (scored 0), without urine and feces accumulation during the visit. However, 22.2% (n=2) of the shelters scored 1 — with the floor dirty and wet. We also added a new pen classification according to dogs’ size and weight, once an exclusive pen for small-sized dogs (less than 10 kg) appeared in 5% (n=6) of Brazilian shelters. It was also necessary to in- clude another type of bed (despite those required by the original pro- tocol) with pallet material. This characteristic bed was present in 6% (n=8) of the evaluated shelters. The positive emotional state (QBA assessment) was not applied in this study since the evaluator did not feel confident in applying the methodology, nor performing the measurements. For individual ani- mal evaluations, no other parameters were added. Discussion The uncontrolled stray dog population on the streets is perceived by society as a problem, both because of the zoonoses risk and, more recently, the recognition of animal suffering (Arruda et al., 2020). The Federal Constitution of 1988, in its Art. 225, was the first in the world to consider cruelty to animals. There is also the Environ- mental Crimes Law 9.605/98, Art. 32 (Brasil, 1998), which provides that mistreatment of animals is a crime. This law has been recently amended by Law 14,064, of September 29, 2020, which increased to 5 years the penalties provided for the crime of mistreatment of an- imals when it comes to dogs or cats. Furthermore, in Paraná, State Law 14,037/2003 establishes protective measures for animals, while State Law 17,422/12 prohibits the extermination of dogs and cats for population control purposes. Public shelters in Paraná have a proposal to care for the animals at risk, through Ordinance No. 1138/2014. The Ministry of Health es- tablishes that the Zoonosis Surveillance Units (ZSU) perform public health services focused on the surveillance, prevention, and control of zoonoses (Brasil, 2014). Thus, ZSUs can house street animals suspected of zoonotic diseases, aggressive dogs, and cats with a history of biting people, and victims of mistreatment or abandonment on public areas. Thus, regardless of their mission, all these establishments must follow the precepts of shelter medicine (Arruda et al., 2019). Shelters are facilities that keep a considerable number of animals, usually coming from situations of risk or abandonment. These facilities should rehabilitate, re-socialize, and reintroduce the animals into so- ciety through adoption, that is, they are places of passage; they should be a reference in veterinary care, animal welfare, and educational pro- grams on responsible ownership and for preventing abandonment (Mota-Rojas et al., 2021). The SQ protocol was widely applicable to Brazilian shelters with the inclusion of some additional indicators that complete the welfare diagnosis. So far, no study has been published involving a complete animal welfare assessment in Brazilian shelters. Barnard et  al. (2016), using the same protocol tool, evaluated 29  shelters in different countries — Italy (11), Spain (10), Croatia (3), Romania (3), Serbia (1) and Montenegro (1) —, concluding that systematic data collection across different countries provides rele- vant information that could be included in policy-making processes, or integrated in international organization recommendations as the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) code. The authors also highlight that those refined measures could also provide important re- search advance. Galeb L.A.G. et al. 90 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 Brazilian shelters had the characteristic of being mainly main- tained by donators, with a few government suppliers (Catapan et  al., 2015). This particularity often risks dog welfare due to the constant absence of basic resources. However, no animal welfare diagnosis has been used to point out the Brazilian challenges and qualities. Thus, the present study brings an overview of shelter dog welfare and places Bra- zil in the welfare framework and their world ranking. After the nine-shelter assessment, the mainly Brazilian manage- ment welfare problems are: low rate of single dog housing; a percent- age of indoor facilities lacking outdoor access for dogs; varying diet because of mixing different ingredients based on type of food donated; few shelters with specific pens for hospitalized animals; percentage of natural deaths; deworming and ectoparasite control failure; lack of en- vironment enrichment; low adoption rate and few shelter employees. It is common knowledge that providing dogs with social contact moderates their temperament over time, making it more attractive for adoption and probably increasing their welfare (Arruda et  al., 2020). Isolating an animal causes intense frustration since the dog, an intrin- sically social animal, is unable to make physical contact, compromising animal welfare particularly in long-term shelters (Raudies et al., 2021). Other drastic changes include increased excitement and aggression, which may require a behavior modification program (Clay et al., 2020). In Brazilian shelters, dogs with the worst behaviors are the ones that are put into isolation. This suggests that the cases will become even worse, significantly reducing the adoption chances for these animals, perpet- uating their shelter enclosure. Dogs also commonly sunbathe to stimulate important vitamins pro- duction for their maintenance and because sun exposure releases sero- tonin, responsible for pleasant sensations (Serpell, 2016). Shelters  that did not provide the dogs with outdoor areas are directly impairing an- imal welfare. The shelter environment itself is characterized by a large proliferation of pathogens (Smith et  al., 2019) easily transmitted from dog to dog, causing unhealthiness in dogs. In this study, only one shelter had hospital pens, which may represent a health risk. Together with feed quality, deworming and ectoparasite control failure, this could worsen animal health, reflecting on natural deaths in Brazilian shelters. At the pen level, the main factors that affected the dog welfare were poor environmental conditions, and visibly sharp edges that could hurt the animals. Many of these points were related to facility maintenance, which intrinsically needs financial investment. The problem worsened with the shortage of people involved in daily shelter activities. Regarding the bed, almost all types were considered adequate for dogs; however, none proved to be effective in offering thermal comfort to the animals in low temperature situations. We suggest, as a com- plementary indicator, that shelters have temperature measurement (a  thermometer) in the dogs’ sleeping accommodations in order to identify the risk of thermal stress during the year. Another issue at the pen level evaluation is barking, destructive and repetitive behavior in Brazilian shelters, indicating a high stress level, as previously described in Austrian no-kill shelters (Raudies et  al., 2021). Depending on the noise level, barking could damage a dog’s hearing. Although dogs living in the shelter for a prolonged peri- od may decrease barking over time, panting increases it, which reflects fatigue and acute anxiety (Clay et al., 2020). During the individual evaluation, skin wounds and alopecia at a specific shelter deserved attention, mainly because of the inappropri- ate material used to cover the ground. The wood straw used, when in constant contact with the animals, can cause alopecia and wounds; as a result, an allergic reaction and other skin disorders may occur (Dowgray and Shaw, 2018). The allergic procedure causes intense itching associat- ed with a painful sensation, significantly decreasing the animal’s welfare. All in all, the Brazilian shelter dog welfare depends on several fac- tors related to the animal itself, management procedures, and the envi- ronment, which can be addressed to improve the animals’ coping abil- ities and adaptation (Rowan and Kartal, 2018). SQ protocol addresses various criteria and critical points of dog welfare, proving to be a useful tool in a scientific manner, or as normative standards, and offering a practical tool for shelter managers to identify potential welfare risks to animals under their care. By improving Brazilian shelter manage- ment, we expect to provide a better quality of life for dogs by avoiding suffering situations. Finally, dogs may play an important part in the Brazilian cultural shifting, in which most families now consider their pet dogs as non-human family members, as previously reported in the USA ( Rowan and Kartal, 2018). Conclusions and animal welfare implications The quality of the shelters interferes with the welfare, behavior, and adoption of these animals. Therefore, it is essential and relevant to eval- uate the animals’ and the shelters’ quality, seeking to identify critical points that may harm the animals and should be corrected. For dogs kept in shelters to have a high degree of well-being, their nutritional, health, environmental, psychological, and behavioral free- doms must be met; this requires adequate facilities, resources within the enclosures, and good facility management. Based on the new reality, shelters have been trying to adapt their facilities, train their employees, invest in education on responsible ownership, and encourage animal adoption. The sterilization of these animals is also fundamental for an effective program of humane man- agement. Therefore, it is essential to establish the animal capacity of each shelter. Shelters should also implement, monitor, and evaluate program efficiency, develop, disseminate, and enforce laws related to animal protection, register, and identify the animals, and offer preven- tive veterinary treatment to protect the animals’ health and welfare, reducing zoonotic risk. The SQ protocol is an internationally valid tool for assessing the welfare of shelter dogs, built on the four principles of well-being, good food, suitable accommodation, good health, appropriate behavior, and Animal welfare assessment in nine dog shelters of southern Brazil 91 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 Contribution of authors: Galeb, L.A.G.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Data acquisition, Data analysis, Writing – first draft; Writing – review and editing. Borges, T.D.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data acquisition, Data analysis; Writing – first draft. Santos, C.J.: Data acquisition. Pedernera, C.: Methodology; Writing – review and editing. Velarde, A.: Methodology; Writing – review and editing. Anater, A.: Data analysis; Writing – first draft; Writing – review and editing. Biondo, A.W.: Data analysis; Writing – first draft; Writing – review and editing. Pimpão, C.T.: Methodology, Data analysis; Writing –– review and editing; Supervision. References Arruda, E.C.; Garcia, R.C.M.; Oliveira, S.T., 2020. Bem-estar dos cães de abrigos municipais no estado do Paraná, Brasil, segundo o protocolo Shelter Quality. Arquivos Brasileiros de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 72, 346- 354. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-11323. Arruda, E.C..; Noronha, J.; Molento, C.F.M.; Garcia, R.C.M.; Oliveira, S.T., 2019. Características relevantes das instalações e da gestão de abrigos públicos de animais no estado do Paraná, Brasil, para o bem-estar animal. Arquivos Brasileiros de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 71, 232-242. https://doi. org/10.1590/1678-4162-10224. Barnard, S.; Pedernera, C.; Candeloro, L.; Ferri, N.; Velarde, A.; Dalla Villa, P., 2016. Development of a new welfare assessment protocol for practical application in long-term dog shelters. Veterinary Record, v. 178, 18. https:// doi.org/10.1136/vr.103336. Berteselli, G.V.; Arena, L.; Candeloro, L.; Villa, P.D.; De Massis, F., 2019. 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, v. 29, 45-52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.09.003. Brasil. 1998. Lei nº 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998. Sanções penais e administrativas derivadas de condutas e atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, Seção 1, p. 29. Brasil. 2020. Lei nº 14.064, de 29 de setembro de 2020. Penas cominadas ao crime de maus-tratos aos animais quando se tratar de cão ou gato. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. 2014. Portaria nº 1.138, de 23 de maio de 2014. Define as ações e os serviços de saúde voltados para vigilância, prevenção e controle de zoonoses e de acidentes causados por animais peçonhentos e venenosos, de relevância para a saúde pública. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, Seção 1, p. 83. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. Coordenação-Geral de Doenças Transmissíveis. 2016. Manual de vigilância, prevenção e controle de zoonoses: normas técnicas e operacionais. Ministério da Saúde, Brasília. Cambridge Declaration. São Leopoldo: IHU, 2012 (Accessed May 9, 2021) at:. http://fcmconference.org/. Catapan, D.C.; Villanova Junior, J.A.; Weber, S.H.; Mangrich, R.M.V.; Szczypkovski, A.D.; Catapan, A.; Pimpão, C.T., 2015. Percepção e atitudes de amostra populacional sobre guarda responsável, zoonoses e cães em vias públicas. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Veterinária, v. 22, 92-98. https://doi. org/10.4322/rbcv.2015.358. Clay, L.; Paterson, M.; Bennett, P.; Perry, G.; Rohlf, V.; Phillips, C.J.C., 2020. In defense of canine behavioral assessments in shelters: Outlining their positive applications. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, v. 38, 74-81. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.03.005. Dowgray, N.; Shaw, S., 2018. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Shelter Medicine. British Small Animal Veterinary Association. Gunter, L.M.; Feuerbacher, E.N.; Gilchrist, R.J.; Wynne, C.D.L., 2019. Evaluating the effects of a temporary fostering program on shelter dog welfare. PeerJ, e6620. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6620. Kwok, Y.K.E.; Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Sprea, G.; Molento, C.F.M., 2016. Human-animal interactions of community dogs in Campo Largo, Brazil: a respecting and involving the five freedoms. In addition, it independent- ly assesses facilities, existing resources, and shelter management. SQ protocol was feasible and practical for Brazilian shelter dog evaluations with significant indicators, highlining the main critical points, and exalting those that had better results. Although it con- templates extra measures, it was necessary to make adjustments to the original protocol to gather more relevant dog welfare aspects. The included elements, such as health management (vaccination, endo and ectoparasite control, castration, veterinary care), avail- ability of environmental enrichment, aspects of dog socialization, adoption, dog turnover dog rate, and several employees involved in the chain and shelter income, enriched welfare indicators. For further validation, this adapted protocol must be applied to many Brazilian shelters in different regions to characterize the dog shel- ters’ current situation. Considering that abandoned animals are protected by the State, it is of great importance to talk about public policies regarding shelters. It is necessary to have specific laws for animal protection to en- sure the safety and welfare of animals, but it is just as important to ensure sound management and proper functioning of shelters since living in this environment influences the animals’ physical and men- tal health. Issues such as population control, animal abandonment, animal abuse, and encouragement of adoptions must be handled together with the shelters. Only a systemic vision can find solutions to solve these issues that are of great importance to society’s growth and evolution. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Pontifícia Universidade Católi- ca do Paraná (PUCPR) for their professional assistance. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-11323 https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-10224 https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-10224 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103336 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103336 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.09.003 http://fcmconference.org/ https://doi.org/10.4322/rbcv.2015.358 https://doi.org/10.4322/rbcv.2015.358 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.03.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.03.005 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6620 Galeb L.A.G. et al. 92 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 84-92 - ISSN 2176-9478 descriptive study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, v. 13, 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2016.03.006. Miller, L.; Zawistowski, S., 2014. Shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff. Wiley-Blackwell, Iowa. Mota-Rojas, D.; Calderón-Maldonado, N.; Lezama-García, K.; Sepiurka, L.; Garcia, R.C.M., 2021. Abandonment of dogs in Latin America: Strategies and ideas. Veterinary World, v. 14, 2371-2379. https://doi. org/10.14202%2Fvetworld.2021.2371-2379. Paraná. 2003. Lei nº 14.037, de 20 de março de 2003. Código estadual de proteção aos animais. Palácio do Governo, Curitiba. Paraná. 2012. Lei nº 17.422, de 18 de dezembro de 2012. Controle ético da população de cães e gatos no estado do Paraná. Palácio do Governo, Curitiba. Polgár, Z.; Blackwell, E.J.; Rooney, N.J., 2019. Assessing the welfare of kennelled dogs: a review of animal-based measures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 213, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.02.013. Prefeitura de Curitiba. Agência de Notícias. 2016. Animais em situação de risco terão centro de referência. Prefeitura de Curitiba, Curitiba (Accessed May 9, 2021) at:. http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/animais-em-situacao- de-risco-terao-centro-de-referencia/40674. Raudies, C.; Waiblinger, S.; Arhant C., 2021. Characteristics and welfare of long-term shelter dogs. Animals, v. 11, 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani11010194. Rowan, A.; Kartal, T., 2018. Dog population & dog sheltering trends in the United States of America. Animals, v. 8, 68. https://doi. org/10.3390%2Fani8050068. Serpell, J., 2016. The domestic dog: its evolution, behavior and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, L.M.; Hartmann, S.; Munteanu, A.M.; Villa, P.D.; Quinnell, R.J.; Collins, L.M., 2019. The effectiveness of dog population management: a systematic review. Animals, v. 9, 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fani9121020. Welfare Quality, 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), 2018. Stray dog population control. OIE (Accessed February 7, 2021) at.: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/ Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_stray_dog.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2016.03.006 https://doi.org/10.14202%2Fvetworld.2021.2371-2379 https://doi.org/10.14202%2Fvetworld.2021.2371-2379 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.02.013 http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/animais-em-situacao-de-risco-terao-centro-de-referencia/40674 http://www.curitiba.pr.gov.br/noticias/animais-em-situacao-de-risco-terao-centro-de-referencia/40674 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010194 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010194 https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fani8050068 https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fani8050068 https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fani9121020 http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_stray_dog.pdf http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_stray_dog.pdf