Heather will illustrate a pilot welfare assessment protocol which has been trialed and refined at two existing TNR programmes. The authors have identified gaps in current understanding and interpretation of dog behaviours, highlighting the need for a solid understanding of canine behavioural communication.

1. Development of a robust canine
welfare assessment for dogs in
trap-neuter-return programmes
Heather J. Bacon BSc (Hons) BVSc CertZooMed MRCVS
H Walters, V. Vancia and N. Waran.
Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education
University of Edinburgh

2. THE PROBLEM

3. • Trap- neuter- return (TNR) is recognised by
animal welfare charities, academics and the OIE
as an essential tool in the control of dog
populations, zoonoses and human-dog conflicts.
• The ubiquitous nature of TNR, it’s application by
leading animal welfarists, and the poor welfare
implications of alternative dog population control
measures, all contribute to the perception of TNR
as a positive welfare intervention.
• Individual dog welfare may be poor due to the
variety of techniques used in TNR projects and
the combined with the focus on population
control

4. What is Animal welfare?
• Welfare is a spectrum and
may range from good to
poor
• An animal’s welfare
depend’s on it’s ability to
cope
• Welfare is impacted by
the choices we make, but
is not what we ‘think’

5. Welfare and Ethics
Ethics – Is about
what WE think about
the animal’s situation
based on our own
Morals/Viewpoints
Welfare –Is about the
subjective experience of
the Animal
What is its quality of life?

6. Welfare is about the experience of the individual

7. Are good intentions enough?
Can we do better?
Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/Wypw5aASows
Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/14csR46DjQc

8. PROJECT OVERVIEW

9. • This pilot project aims to produce a reliable,
robust and practical audit or checklist that can
be used to measure individual dog welfare in a
range of TNR programmes.
• This will improve dog welfare because if we
can measure problems occurring, we can take
steps to prevent those problems.

10. What we can measure, we can manage
Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/gWgFc21e3rA

11. Aims:
• In this project we identified potential hazards
to animal welfare and critical control points
where those hazards could be mitigated.
• Dogs Trust canine welfare grant research
project
– Robust approach
– Practical application
– Result in a user-friendly ‘Checklist’ that allows dog
welfare to be measured

12. Step 1:
• A literature review revised the current
behavioural and physiological indicators of
welfare in dogs and other species, with a
particular focus on work done in kennelled
dogs and dogs in population management
programmes.
• The review focussed on the different stages of
TNR
Capture Cage/holding
Peri-
Operative
Post-
Operative
Release

13. Identify potential welfare hazards
• Expert stakeholders were consulted to
suggest additional welfare indicators based
on their experience.
• All welfare indicators were also assessed by
the stakeholders for their perceived
practicality, economy, and reliability

14. • Expert stakeholders were then asked to score
each of the indicators (from lit review and
stakeholders) as ‘mild’ moderate’ or ‘severe’ in
terms of welfare challenge
– Mild = short-term or minor physical or mental welfare
compromise with which the dog can cope and adapt
– Moderate = A welfare compromise which is likely to
cause behavioural or mental distress or physical pain
or injury, but which does not result in longterm effects
– Severe = A level of welfare compromise which is likely
to cause longterm physical discomfort/impairment or
ongoing mental/behavioural distress, or affect the
dog’s survivability

15. Field test 1
• TNR Project 1
– In the 5 day trial, 12 dogs were followed
throughout the entire process of a well
established TNR programme, with an additional
14 dogs observed for parts of the TNR process.
– Each indicator in the list was applied to the dogs in
the TNR process where practically and financially
possible

16. Animal-based Vs Resource-based
indicators
Animal-based Resource-based
Pain behaviour Provision of analgesia
Injury due to capture/handling Water
Vocalisation under anaesthesia Bedding material
Aggression to handler Use of capture equipment
• Animals based indicators are usually more accurate and
representative of the animal’s welfare state but may
require training of assessors
• Resource based indicators are easier to evaluate but
often less accurate at representing the animal’s welfare
state

17. Are behavioural indicators practical in
the field?
Animal-based indicators: Pain
• Can we reliably identify pain?
Animal-based indicators: behavioural change
• Can we reliably identify different dog
behaviours and or welfare states?
• Some confusion noted especially re: pain
assessment

18. Experiment: Can we reliably evaluate
dog behaviour?
Fleiss’
kappa
Interpretation
< 0 Poor agreement
0.01 – 0.20Slight agreement
0.21 – 0.40Fair agreement
0.41 – 0.60Moderate agreement
0.61 – 0.80Substantial agreement
0.81 – 1.00
Almost perfect
agreement
Please click the following link to view
the video
https://youtu.be/JJnsAOC0y3U

19. Experiment: Can we reliably evaluate
dog behaviour?
Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/FI0ftdkcP9w

20. Trial of behaviour recognition
1. UK vets and shelter staff
Characteristic
Kappa
value
against
standard P Value Agreement
Capture 0.348 0.00 Fair
Handling 0.455 0.00 Moderate
Demeanour
(positive/
negative)
0.727 0.00 Substantial
Pain 0.444 0.00 Moderate
2. Staff experienced in TNR
Characteristic
Kappa
value
against
standard
P
Agreement
Capture and
handling 0.676 0.00 Substantial
Demeanour
(positive or
negative)
0.568 0.00 Moderate
Pain 0.008 0.47 Slight

21. • Selected behavioural indicators including pain were
maintained in the checklist, but the need for training
in this area was identified
• Training in recognising specific behaviours is
important, even if the observer is experienced
• Checklist refined

22. Checklist Verification - Second Field
test
• the checklist was verified at a second TNR project,
with a different capture technique, veterinary
capacity and return approach, to ensure its
flexibility across different programmatic structures.
• To verify the checklist 53 dogs were followed from
capture through to release and 88 additional dogs
were evaluated during different sections of the TNR
programme.
• Three observers followed dogs for five days,
observing all stages of the TNR programme and a
range of different methods employed for catching

23. RESULTS

24. Checklist example

25. Critical control points: Issues identified
• Both TNR projects generally had great approaches to dog
capture and handling and focussed staff training here
• Analgesia was provided and qualified vets used but still
problems occurred:
– Aseptic technique (up to 100% breaches in sterility observed)
– Pain recognition and management, despite provision of
analgesia (up to 60% of dogs observed in moderate-severe pain
post-op)
– Anaesthetic control (up to 22% of dogs observed showed signs
of conciousness during surgery)
– Resource provision – post-operative water ( 48%)
– Lack of individual dog assessment prior to release (less than
20% of dogs observed were assessed)

26. SOLUTIONS
NEXT STEPS…….

27. Training and education
• Big difference in skills and techniques
between vets of different countries
• Further training of qualified vets may be
necessary
– Anaesthesia and analgesia are often overlooked
• Training in pain recognition and management
• Aim for population control AND good welfare

28. Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/laC7BAv56dI

29. Welfare is individual
Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/IHXyFLW4S24

30. Summary
Please click the following link to view the video
https://youtu.be/8hKtVv4jMS0

31. Thanks to all of the organisations who
collaborated on this project
Any questions?
Heather.Bacon@ed.ac.uk