Explore the vast range of titles available.

Housing issues are a major contributor to companion animal relinquishment in the United States and beyond. In this study, we analyze a database of shelter intake records from 2019–2023 from 21 shelters across the United States to assess rates and subtypes of housing relinquishment, characteristics and outcomes of the relinquished animals, and longitudinal trends in housing relinquishment. Housing issues represented 14% ( n = 28,424) of overall intakes in the broader database ( N = 1,021,204 total intake records). Housing relinquishment subtypes were unspecified (54%), pet-related restrictions (27%), landlord issues (8%), housing loss (5%), and unhoused owners (5%). Large (mean weight: 55 lbs) and small dogs (mean weight: 11 lbs) were most common. Pit bull-type dogs comprised 12% of the overall relinquishments and mixed-breed dogs were 35%. Most animals had a live outcome, but live outcomes decreased over time ( p < 0.001, z = −6.91, slope = −0.11), and pit bull-type dogs ( X 2 (1) = 243.63, p < 0.001) and animals relinquished by unhoused owners ( OR = 0.64, p < 0.05) were most at risk of euthanasia or other shelter death. Over the study period, intakes due to loss of home increased ( p < 0.001, z = 9.82, slope = 0.29), while intakes due to pet restrictions ( p < 0.001, z = −6.82, slope = −0.17) and landlord issues decreased ( p < 0.001, z = −4.89, slope = −0.08). Overall cat intakes increased ( p < 0.001, z = 3.60, slope = 7.34), while dog intakes decreased ( p < 0.001, z = −4.89, slope = −0.08). The number of intakes that were pit bull-type dogs (compared to all other breeds) decreased over time ( p < 0.001, z = −4.56, slope = −0.06), as did average animal weight ( p < 0.001, z = −4.42, slope = −0.07) and age ( p < 0.001, z = −7.88, slope = −0.16). We discuss these findings in the context of the previous shelter and pet-friendly housing research and broader housing trends and policies in the United States.

Previous studies have underscored the difficulty low-income pet owners often face when attempting to secure affordable rental housing. Further exacerbating this housing disparity are fees charged on top of normal monthly rent to pet owners in “pet-friendly” rental housing. In this study, we aggregated rental housing listings from the twenty most populous cities in Texas, USA from a popular online rental database. We paired the rental listings with census tract information from the American Community Survey in order to investigate economic and racial/ethnic patterns in the spatial distribution of the properties. We find that less expensive pet-friendly listings were more likely to have pet fees charged on top of rent than rental units that were more expensive. Additionally, when pet fee burden was defined as a function of average income by census tract, low-income communities and communities of color were more likely than higher income and predominantly White communities to pay disproportionately higher fees to keep pets in their homes. We also find patterns of spatial inequalities related to pet fee burden by a metric of income inequality by city. The burden of pet rental fees may contribute to both housing insecurity and companion animal relinquishment. We discuss these findings as they relate to inequalities in housing, with particular attention to marginalized and disadvantaged people with pets. We conclude with recommendations for policy and practice.

The city of Houston, Texas has a growing deficit of available and affordable rental units for low-income residents. Due to pet policies, the shortage of affordable housing potentially puts renters who own pets at greater risk of housing insecurity. In this qualitative study, we use a community-engaged approach to document the lived experiences of finding and maintaining affordable housing among 24 current, former, and aspiring pet owners. The majority of the participants identified as female, were aged 44–60 years, identified as Black, had a high school education, and were employed full-time or on disability or government assistance. Many expressed having experienced homelessness in the past and/or having lived in several different types of affordable housing over their lifetime. Participants highlighted challenges in finding pet-inclusive affordable housing, emphasized its importance, and discussed issues faced, such as high pet charges, size and breed restrictions, and confusion surrounding pet policies. Landlord relationships and living conditions varied, with safety concerns prevalent. Having one’s pet designated as an Emotional Support Animal made tenants feel safe and secure, knowing they could not be refused, evicted, or otherwise charged extra. Participants shared what is working well and what could be improved. This study concludes with recommendations for fair application and awareness of pet policies in affordable housing, drawing on participating tenants’ experiences and existing efforts for policy and practice improvements.

Previous research has shown that housing insecurity contributes to animal relinquishment and that tenants with dogs face disadvantages in the rental market. Still, little is known about how dog owners navigate rental markets, nor how landlords and property managers perceive dogs and other pets. This case study reports on in-depth interviews with younger tenants with dogs and on open-ended survey responses from landlords and property managers. In their housing searches, tenants with dogs reported feeling powerless in negotiations and feeling discriminated against. They described settling for substandard properties, often located in less desirable neighborhoods. Also, some said they felt obliged to stay put in these rentals, given how difficult it had been to find a place that would accommodate their dogs. Meanwhile, landlords and property managers indicated that listings advertised as “pet-friendly” tend to receive more applicants than listings in which pets are prohibited. Suggestions for improvement included meeting pets prior to signing the lease; getting everything in writing; steering clear from furnished units; charging utilities to tenants; and speeding up the pet approval process when dealing with condominium boards. These suggestions offer implications for future research, partnerships, and policy options to improve the prospects of pets and their people in rental housing.

This mixed-method study explored the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on owners' veterinary healthcare seeking, with particular focus on dogs with chronic conditions. A convenience sample of 719 UK dog owners completed an online survey (December 2020-January 2021). Differences in treatment provision and respondents' decisions to seek care across acute, preventative, chronic conditions and for end-of-life care were explored. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with seeking care for any health issue compared to deciding against it, and urgency to seek care given symptom that could indicate chronic conditions. Open-ended questions were analyzed by thematic analysis. Significant (p-value < 0.05) differences in care seeking decisions were identified regarding access to veterinary care and the way treatment was provided across all health issues. The top reasons for not seeking care across all health issues were a lack of access to a veterinarian (30%, n = 56/187) and a reluctance for a dog to go to the clinic unaccompanied (20%, n = 38/187). Variables related to stronger dog-owner relationship, higher confidence in seeking care, perception of: benefits of veterinary care, dog's high susceptibility to illness and high severity of dog's condition, increased the odds of seeking, and urgency to seek, care. A dog's chronic illness diagnosis reduced the odds of seeking care during the pandemic, reportedly due to difficulties in accessing care for non-urgent issues. Qualitative analysis showed that limited access to routine consultations, delays in test results and restricted access to complementary treatments, led some owners of dogs with chronic conditions to believe that their dog's welfare had deteriorated during the pandemic. Pandemic control measures necessitated changes to how consultations were run. These changes were often viewed favorably, but dog-client separation during consultations were considered problematic, sometimes delaying veterinary advice-seeking, including for euthanasia. Separating owners from their dogs during veterinary consultations should be avoided wherever possible due to impacts on dogs, owners and healthcare seeking. Interventions to improve veterinary healthcare seeking could target attitudes toward benefits of seeking care, improve owners' self-efficacy and capitalize on the dog-owner bond. Such interventions should be implemented alongside interventions aimed at removing structural barriers to accessing healthcare.

Background: This study investigated the impacts of the first COVID-19 UK lockdown on dog walking and ownership. Methods: An online survey was circulated via social media (May–June 2020). Completed responses (n = 584) were analysed using within- and between-group comparisons, and multivariable linear and logistic regression models were created. Open-ended data were coded into key themes. Results: During lockdown, dogs were walked less frequently, yet for a similar duration per week and closer to home. Dogs whose owners lived alone, or whose owners or household members had heightened vulnerability to COVID-19 were walked less than before, as were high-energy dogs. A minority of owners continued dog walking despite exhibiting symptoms or needing to self-isolate, justifying lack of help, dog behavioural problems, living in less populated areas, and the importance of outdoor exercise for their mental health. Dog ownership had multiple benefits (companionship, purpose and motivation; break from bad; positive to focus on) as well as challenges (changes in dog behaviour, balancing dog needs with public health guidance, accessing pet food/supplies and services, and sharing crowded outdoor spaces with others). Most did not have an emergency care plan for their pet before the pandemic and only a handful developed one. Conclusions: Findings can be used to inform public health and dog welfare strategies for future lockdown situations or other disasters and emergencies likely to impact on daily routines.

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

OBJECTIVES: Our study objectives were to: 1) estimate differences in perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment among non-dog-owners, owners who walk their dogs (dog-walkers) and owners who do not walk their dogs (non-dog-walkers), and 2) estimate associations between perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment and dog-walking frequency. METHOD: A random cross-section of Calgary adults completed telephone interviews during August–October 2007 ( n = 2,199, response rate = 33.6%) or January–April 2008 ( n = 2,223, response rate = 36.7%). Telephone interviews and a follow-up questionnaire captured physical activity, health and sociodemographic characteristics, dog-ownership, and perceived built environment characteristics. Using ANOVA, we compared the perceived built environment among non-dog-owners, non-dog-walkers and dog-walkers. For dog-owners only, logistic regression estimated associations (odds ratios: OR) between dogwalking participation and perceived built environment. Among dog-walkers, logistic regression estimated associations between dog-walking ≥4 times/week and perceived built environment. Furthermore, among dog-walkers, linear regression estimated associations (unstandardized β ) between dog-walking frequency and perceived built environment. RESULTS: Compared with dog-walkers, non-dog-owners reported more positive perceptions of neighbourhood street connectivity, pedestrian infrastructure, and walkability ( p < 0.05). Among dog-walkers, aesthetics was positively associated ( p < 0.05) with the likelihood of walking the dog ≥4 times in a usual week (covariate-adjusted-OR = 1.67) and dog-walking frequency (covariate-adjusted- β = 0.15). Among dog-walkers, walkability was also positively associated ( p < 0.05) with dog-walking ≥4 times in a usual week (covariate-adjusted-OR = 1.03) and dog-walking frequency (covariateadjusted- β = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment appear to differ between non-dog-owners and dog-owners. While built environment improvements may not encourage owners to initiate dog-walking, creating attractive and walkable neighbourhoods may support regular dog-walking among owners already walking their dogs.