http://www.journalvetbehavior.

com/article/S1558-7878(12)00040-8/fulltext

Grouping protocol in shelters

by Oswaldo Santos, Gina Polo, Rita Garcia, Eduardo Oliveira, Adriana Vieira, Nstor Caldern, Rudy De Meester

Abstract
Dog population dynamics in shelters often requires the grouping of individuals, and changes to the composition of those groups. We developed a protocol to maximize the positive effects and reduce the negative effects associated with grouping dogs. Twenty-three neutered dogs that had to be grouped participated in the study. Fifteen were adult females, 7 were adult males, and 1 was a juvenile female. The protocol was divided into phases that allowed the use of environmental enrichment (occupational, social, nutritional, and sensorial) and behavioral modification (systematic desensitization and counter-conditioning). There were no fights involving bites during the formation of groups. In 5 (18.5%) of formed pairs, we observed unidirectional manifestations of aggression that did not involve physical contact. Three pairs (10%) could not be formed because we saw bidirectional aggression manifestation involving physical contact but no bites. The proposed protocol is a viable alternative to improve grouping of dogs in the context of shelters. The protocol also has the potential to promote wellness, enhance production of desirable behaviors, and decrease the presence of behavioral problems.

Introduction In some Brazilian states, euthanasia of healthy companion animals in public and private animal shelters is prohibited (So Paulo, 2008; Rio Grande do Sul, 2009; Pernambuco, 2010). As a consequence, dogs must be housed until they are rehomed, die, or are euthanized for medical reasons. Constant transit of dogs in shelters, changes in their health status, and behavioral problems (e.g., aggression) often necessitate grouping new dogs or rearranging established groups (Newbury et al., 2010). According to recent directives, housed animals should be maintained in stable groups of compatible individuals (Anonymous, 2010). In cases where single housing is needed, the duration should be limited to the minimum period necessary, and visual, auditory, olfactory, and/or tactile contact should be maintained (Anonymous, 2010). Group housing of dogs, mainly in pairs, has positive effects on humananimal relationships, behavioral health, adoption rate, and adoption success (Mertens and Unshelm, 1996). Moreover, group housing may reduce the frequency of vocalizations (Hetts et al., 1992), could act as a social buffer compensating for the lack of space (De Palma et al., 2005), and might contribute to a positive social experience, which allow faster integration of dogs to new situations (Sonderegger and Turner, 1996). Nevertheless, group housing is also associated with negative consequences, such as fighting, physical risks of infectious disease exposure, and also fear, stress, and anxiety in some members of the group (Newbury et al., 2010). Dog fighting has negative implications for the welfare of animals and also can result in bite injuries suffered by personnel who try to separate dogs. In addition, some injuries may require complex treatments, increasing the costs associated with their care through use of additional supplies, staff commitment, and extra days of care for dogs that cannot be offered for adoption because of the severity of injuries. Some experiences can cause or exacerbate the presentation of aggressive behaviors (Mertens, 2002; Bradshaw et al., 2009; Haug, 2008), and fighting could be one of such experiences. This is relevant considering that behavioral problems, including aggressiveness, have been identified as an important reason for relinquishment, and often those dogs were sourced from shelters originally (Salman et al., 2000; Corridan, 2010). Using environmental enrichment, it is possible to increase behavioral diversity, reduce the frequency of behavioral problems, increase the number of normal behavioral patterns, and increase the ability to cope with challenges (Caldern, 2010; Ellis, 2009). Behavioral modification techniques, such as systematic desensitization and counter-conditioning, have been shown to be effective in the management of interdog aggression in shelters (Orihel and Fraser, 2008). Both approaches may improve the behavior and welfare of dogs, and this means that adoption programs can offer animals more appropriate for establishing healthy humandog bond. In this context, an ethological approach is needed to (1) evaluate the animals behavior, (2) offer rehabilitation opportunities to animals with behavioral problems, (3) determine in which conditions the adoption of an animal is safe and convenient, and (4) implement a postadoption monitoring program (Newbury et al., 2010).

In the past, the staff of the Zoonoses Control Center (ZCC) of Guarulhos subjectively decided which dogs were suitable to group, and the formation of groups was made in a closed environment, with dogs being off leash. Although no detailed data were available, fighting during grouping of dogs was considered by the staff of the ZCC of Guarulhos as one of the major problems. Owing to ethical considerations, we decided not to make a control group. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of a new protocol that uses environmental enrichment and behavioral modification techniques to form or rearrange groups of dogs. Material and methods This study was conducted in a public shelter from Guarulhos, Brazil, between May and June 2010. There was a mean of 120 sheltered dogs distributed in groups of 3 and 4 maintained in kennels with a length of 4.9 m and a width of 3.80 m. Two intact adult male dogs were selected because they had completed the quarantine period, and incoming dogs were required to be placed in the quarantine kennels. Twenty-one neutered dogs (15 adult females, 5 adult males, and one 5-month female) were selected because the dogs with which they had been grouped fought, got ill, or were adopted, thereby leaving free space available for other dogs. In formation of groups, we tried to mix dogs of different sex with similar size. Before grouping, the dogs were trained to sit and to walk without pulling, using procedures described by Luescher and Medlock (2009); however, instead of using the Gentle Leader (Premier Pet Products, LLC, Midlothian, VA), we used a rope to make a head collar with functionality similar to that of the commercial product (Figure 1).

Once the dogs obeyed the commands without failing after 3 consecutive times, they were considered ready for the grouping procedure. The grouping protocol developed used 4 phases that allowed the application of different kinds of environmental enrichment and behavioral modification techniques. Phase 1 allowed distance recognition between dogs; phases 2 and 3 emphasized on progressive approach to them; and in phase 4, dogs being grouped were placed in a kennel. Dogs wore head collars during the first 2 phases. The grouping protocol began with 2 dogs, each associated with a handler identified as A or B. When there was a need to create groups of 3 or 4 dogs, all possible pairs between those dogs were formed and then, beginning with 1 pair, the group was completed by adding the remaining dogs (one first and then the other in cases of groups of 4 members). Phase 1distance recognition (scheduled time, 5 minutes) In an open place, 3 points were identified, forming an imaginary triangle of 10 10 14 m. Dogs passed each of the 3 points in turn, maintaining the distance between 2 points. Dogs could urinate, defecate, and smell at each point. The handlers positively reinforced calm behaviors with affective words, treats, or/and petting at each point. Between points, the handlers just used positive words as a positive reinforcement of calm behaviors.

Handler B with his dog first began in the front and, having passed the third point, walked out at least 5 m away from the triangle. Then, handler A and his dog completed the pass by the last point, and all this was repeated one more time, with handler A in the front and handler B in the back. The dog from the back had the opportunity to smell the places the dog in the front had passed. Finally, dogs were walked to the place used for the second phase, maintaining a minimal distance of 5 m between them. Phase 2progressive approximation (scheduled time, 11 minutes 30 seconds without considering extra repetition caused by aggressive manifestations) In an open place of 10 10 m2, we designed a circle with points on the ground to guide the handlers. The circle had a 10-m diameter, and in clock positions 12 and 6, there were 2 points identified with letters A and B. Another 2 points were designed in clock positions 3 and 9. Inside the circle, 4 equidistant points were marked with letters and numbers (Figure 2).

This phase consisted of 5 steps, and progression from one step to the next was only made when it was possible to repeat the step 3 times without any aggressive incident from either of the dogs. In this phase, calm behavior was positively reinforced with affective words, treats, and petting. If it was not possible after 3 attempts, the entire grouping process was repeated the following day using a different pair composition. If the second grouping attempt failed, the dogs were appointed to an individual kennel. We used the scale proposed by Netto and Planta (1997) to categorize aggressive behavior. Step 1 (scheduled time, 2:30 minutes): beginning at points A and B (Figure 2), dogs were walked clockwise on the circle to complete 1 spin. Calm behavior was positively reinforced with affective words and petting at the points located on the circle. Step 2 (scheduled time, 1 minute): beginning at points A and B, dogs were walked to the 1A and 1B points, respectively, where calm behavior and sit command were positively reinforced before returning to A and B points. Step 3 (scheduled time, 1 minute): beginning at points A and B, dogs were walked to the 2A and 2B points, respectively, where calm behavior and sit command were positively reinforced before returning to A and B points. On third repetition, the dog A was walked to point A and the dog B was also walked to point A (instead of point B) to continue with the next step. Step 4 (scheduled time: 6 minutes): beginning at point A, dogs were walked clockwise on the circle, with handler A and his dog at the front and handler B with his dog following them closely but not allowing physical contact. At the points located on the circle, the dogs that were at the back had the opportunity to smell the other dog for 1 second, and calm behavior was positively reinforced in both dogs. After 1 spin, the dog at the back passed to the front, and one more spin was made. Step 5 (scheduled time, 1 minute): walking one to the side of the other, dogs were taken to the position of phase 3. Phase 3approach without head collars (scheduled time, 5 minutes) Each dog was held in an enclosed area with a dimension of 12 2 m 2. At the same time, the dogs were released without the head collars, and handlers remained in silence, avoiding abrupt movements. When dogs completed 5 minutes of interactions without aggressive manifestations, the next phase could be

started. When a bigger group had to be formed, all possible pairs between the dogs to be included in the group were formed at this point. When the last pair reached this phase, the dogs previously paired were added to the last pair, one by one, at 5-minute intervals, whenever aggressive manifestations were not observed. Phase 4introduction of a group into the kennel (scheduled time, 5 minutes) Once the group had been completed, it was transported to the kennel and monitored until 5 minutes passed without any aggressive incident. If the dogs continued exhibiting aggression after 10 minutes, the grouping protocol was stopped and attempted again the following day. If the second attempt failed with this group composition, rearrangement of group members was attempted until a successful grouping was achieved. After finishing this phase, monitoring was performed every 30 minutes during the rest of the day. Results We formed 27 pairs of dogs from 30 attempted pairings. Nineteen (70.3%) of them were formed with dogs of opposite sex, and 8 (29.7%) were of females. Some of these pairs were subsequently combined to form 3 groups of 3 dogs and 2 groups of 4. Twenty-two (81.5%) pairs were formed successfully without any aggressive manifestations. Further 5 pairs (18.5%) were formed, but although there were no fights involving bites, other unidirectional aggressive behaviors were observed in phase 3 (Table). The remaining 3 pairs could not be formed because the dogs demonstrated bidirectional aggressive behavior that did not resolve with the repetition of the phase, the same day or the next (Table). However, all dogs were successfully grouped when the composition of pairs was changed.
Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Individual sex 1 F M M M F F M M Aggressive manifestation Showed teeth Snapped Snapped Snapped Snapped Snapped Snapped Growled Phase 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2-3 Individual sex 2 F F F F M F F M Response to aggression No No No No No Growled Snapped Growled Protocol completed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

F, female; M, male. Discussion Our aim was to create a simple protocol that could easily be incorporated into daily shelter routines. The protocol consisted of (i) 2 handlers, (ii) 2 ropes, (iii) 2 open spaces, and (iv) 1 enclosed space. We used ropes to make head collars owing to the low cost of this material and the wide use of it in the ZCC of Guarulhos. The 4 phases were organized to allow the implementation of environmental enrichment and behavioral modification techniques. We used desensitization (progressive approach between dogs when they were clamed) and counter-conditioning (positive reinforcement of calm behavior and sit command in the presence of the other dog) to manage interdog aggression (Orihel and Fraser, 2008). It has been demonstrated that olfactory, auditory, visual, and tactile stimulation may produce changes in the biological functioning that are suggestive of enhanced physical and/or psychological welfare (Graham et al., 2005; Tod et al., 2005; Wells, 2009). The use of 3 locations, all bigger than kennels and 2 of which were open spaces with grass areas, allowed the diversification of sensory stimulation and possibly contributed to the welfare of the dogs. Use of the protocol also encouraged physical activity that could act as a mental stimulation. Handlers also had additional exercise as part of the protocol, benefiting their health as well (Cutt et al., 2007; Coleman et al., 2008). Teaching dogs to sit down and walk without pulling facilitated their management and allowed for the use of behavioral modification techniques (Luescher and Medlock, 2009). This improves dog behavior, has the potential to enhance the adoption

success (Hays, 2004; Luescher and Medlock, 2009), and may act as an occupational (mental) enrichment. Positive reinforcement of desirable behaviors through petting, affective words, and treats is also a means of implementing social (interspecific) enrichment, and at the same time, treats may also be a part of nutritional enrichment. It has been demonstrated that interspecific interaction can modify a dogs behavior and facilitate adoptions (Normando et al., 2009). In the first 2 phases in which dogs were held with head collars, we did not observe aggressive behaviors (except in 1 dog), and in the third phase, when the dogs encountered each other without the head collars, aggressive behaviors were observed. The absence of aggressive behaviors during the first 2 phases could be due to the effects of desensitization, counter-conditioning, appropriate use of head collars, and putative environmental enrichment. It is possible that aggressive behaviors occurred in the third phase because of the anxiety caused by the physical encounter (Bradshaw et al., 2009). In phase 4, we did not observe aggressive behaviors; however, once finished the protocol, 1 dog behaved aggressively. This aggression manifested at the time of feeding, so the dog was subsequently fed in isolation; this resolved the problem. The need for the availability of different locations to complete the different phases of the protocol and the availability of handlers to group dogs through the protocol may be a hindrance for its use; however, this must be balanced against the potential benefits. Efforts to overcome the difficulties related to the implementation of the protocol are cost-effective if problems associated with fights can be solved. Although the staff of the ZCC of Guarulhos considered the protocol effective, we could not compare the effectiveness of this protocol against previously developed protocols (e.g., leaving them off leash in a closed space) owing to the lack of data. This protocol did demonstrate potential to act as an environmental enrichment strategy and to enhance the effectiveness of adoptions. Conclusion The protocol proposed was developed as an alternative means of successfully grouping dogs in the ZCC of Guarulhos. Grouping dogs was one of the major issues for the staff owing to the seriousness of the problems associated with dog fighting. Having implemented this protocol to form 30 pairs of dogs, there were no fights involving bites. The protocol could be implemented not just to grouping dogs but also as a strategy of periodic environmental enrichment. Further studies could be conducted to evaluate the impact of the protocol in the success of adoptions. Acknowledgments The authors thank Dr. Cristina Magnabosco, director of the Department of hygiene and Health Protection, from Health Secretary of Guarulhos City. They also thank Gilberto Sousa de Medeiros, Marcia Aparecida Grosso, Renata Reinhardt, Ana Carolina Sarmento de Oliveira, Joo Paulo Slupko da Silva, and all individuals who participated in this study. A special thanks goes to Claire Corridan for her linguistic help and the suggestions to improve the document. References
1. Anonymous, 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at:http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:En:PDF.

View In Article 2. Bradshaw JWS, Blackwell EJ, Casey RA. Dominance in domestic dogs-useful construct or bad habit?. J. Vet. Behav.: Clin. Appl. Res. 2009;4:135144

View In Article 3. Caldern, N., 2010. Bienestar Animal. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Veterinarias, Vol. 1. pp. 48-57. Available at:http://issuu.com/academiacienciasveterinarias/docs/revistaacademian2v1#download. Accessed April 28, 2012.

View In Article 4. Coleman KJ, Rosenberg DE, Conway TL, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev. Med. 2008;47:309312

View In Article 5. Corridan CL. The Role of Owner Expectation in Development of a Successful Human: Dog Bond. Lincoln, England, UK: University of Lincoln; 2010;

View In Article 6. Cutt H, Giles B, Knuiman M, Burke V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place. 2007;13:261272

View In Article

MEDLINE 7. De Palma C, Viggiano M, Barillari E, Palme R, Dufour AB, Fantini C, et al. Evaluating the temperament in shelter dogs. Behaviour.2005;142:13071328

View In Article 8. Ellis S. Environmental enrichment practical strategies for improving feline welfare. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2009;11:901912

View In Article 9. Graham L, Wells DL, Hepper PG. The influence of olfactory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;91:143153

View In Article Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (138 KB) 10. Haug LI. Canine aggression toward unfamiliar people and dogs. In: Landsberg GM, Horwitz DF editor. Practical Applications and New Perspectives in Veterinary Behaviour. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice. Vol. 38:USA: W. B. Saunders Co., Cornell Univeristy; 2008;p. 10231041

View In Article 11. Hays LD. Effects of Standardized Obedience Program on Approachability and Problems Behaviours in Dogs From Rescue Shelters [masters thesis]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University; 2004;Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/1261Accessed January 27, 2011

View In Article 12. Hetts S, Clark JD, Calpin JP, Arnold CE, Mateo JM. Influence behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.1992;34:137155

of

housing

conditions

on

beagle

View In Article Abstract Full-Text PDF (1085 KB) 13. Luescher AU, Medlock RT. The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;117:6368

View In Article Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (149 KB) 14. Mertens PA. Canine aggression. In: Horwitz D, Mills D, Heath S editor. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. Gloucester, UK: BSAVA; 2002;p. 195215

View In Article 15. Mertens PA, Unshelm J. Effects of group and individual housing on the behavior of kenneled dogs in animal shelters.Anthrozos. 1996;9:4051

View In Article 16. Netto WJ, Planta DJU. Behavioural testing for aggression in the domestic dog. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1997;52:243263

View In Article 17. Newbury S, Blinn M, Bushby P, Barker C, Dinnage J, Griffin B, et al. Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians; 2010;Available at: http://www.sheltervet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=29Accessed April 28, 2012

View In Article 18. Normando S, Corain L, Salvadoretti M, Meers L, Valsecchi P. Effects of an enhanced human interaction program on shelter dogs behaviour analysed using a novel nonparametric test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;116:211219

View In Article Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (314 KB) 19. Orihel JS, Fraser D. A note on the effectiveness of behavioural rehabilitation for reducing inter-dog aggression in shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;112:400405

View In Article Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (105 KB) 20. Pernambuco. Lei Ordinria N 1521/2010. Estado de Pernambuco Assembleia Legislativa. Available at:http://www.alepe.pe.gov.br/paginas/index.php?id=3598&paginapai=3576&numero=1521%2F2010. Accessed January 27, 2011.

View In Article

21. Rio Grande do Sul. Lei Estadual N 13.193, DE 30 DE JUNHO DE 2009, In Ministerio Pblico Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Available at:http://www.mp.rs.gov.br/ambiente/legislacao. Accessed January 27, 2011.

View In Article 22. Salman MD, Ruch R, Kogan L, New JC, Kass PH, Scarlett JM. Behavioural reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2000;3:93106

View In Article 23. So Paulo (Estado) (April 2008). Lei No 12.916, de 16 de Abril de 2008. In Dirio Oficial do Estado de So Paulo. Available at:http://dobuscadireta.imprensaoficial.com.br/default.aspx?DataPublicacao=20080417&Caderno=DOEI&NumeroPagina=1. Accessed January 27, 2011. ftp://ftp.saude.sp.gov.br/ftpsessp/bibliote/informe_eletronico/2008/iels.abril.08/iels73/E_LE12916_160408.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2012.

View In Article 24. Sonderegger SM, Turner DC. Introducing dogs into kennels: prediction of social tendencies to facilitate integration. Anim. Welf. 1996;5:391404

View In Article 25. Tod E, Brander D, Waran N. Efficacy of dog appeasing pheromone in reducing stress and fear related behaviour in shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;93:295308

View In Article Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (251 KB) 26. Wells D. Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for captive animals: a review. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2009;118:111

View In Article

PII: S1558-7878(12)00040-8, doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2012.03.002,

2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.