Dogs entering shelters can carry gastrointestinal parasites that may pose serious risks to other animals, shelter staff and visitors. Shelters provide an environment that could facilitate the spread of parasitic infections between animals. Nematodes and protozoa that transmit through ingestion or skin penetration are major enteric parasites of concern in shelter settings. Ancylostoma spp., Uncinaria stenocephala, Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina, Trichuris vulpis and Dipylidium caninum are the major helminths while Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Isospora spp. and Sarcocystis spp. are the most prevalent protozoan parasites in shelter dogs. The prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in shelter dogs is typically higher than in owned dogs. A range of cost-effective drugs is available for prevention and control of helminths in shelters, notably fenbendazole, pyrantel, oxantel, and praziquantel. Parasiticide options for protozoan parasites are often cost-prohibitive or limited by a lack of veterinary registration for use in dogs. Environmental control measures reliant upon hygiene and facility management are therefore a mainstay for control and prevention of protozoan parasites in shelters. This philosophy should also extend to helminth control, as integrated parasite control strategies can allow anthelmintics to be used more sparingly and judiciously. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively review the current knowledge on the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites most commonly found in dogs in shelters, canvass recommended treatment programs in shelter dogs, and to explore the likelihood that parasiticide resistance might emerge in a shelter environment.

In August 2008, the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia, commenced a trap-neuter-return (TNR) program to manage the population of approximately 69 free-roaming unowned urban cats on its Kensington campus. The goals of the program included an ongoing audit of cats on campus, stabilization of cat numbers through TNR, and a subsequent reduction in cat numbers over time while maintaining the health of remaining campus cats. Continuation of the TNR program over nine years resulted in a current population, as of September 2017, of 15 cats, all desexed (78% reduction). Regular monitoring of the cats through a daily feeding program identified a further 34 cats that immigrated on to campus since initiation of the program; these comprised 28 adult cats (16 unsocialized, 12 socialized) and six solitary kittens. In addition, 19 kittens were born on campus, 14 of which were born to immigrant pregnant females. Unsocialized adult immigrants were absorbed into the resident campus population. Where possible, socialized adult immigrants, solitary kittens, and campus-born kittens were removed from campus through rehoming. Overall, reasons for reductions in the cat population (original residents, immigrants, campus-born kittens; n = 122) included rehoming or return to owner (30%), death/euthanasia (30%) and disappearance (29%). This successful animal management program received some initial funding from the university to support desexing, but was subsequently funded through donations, and continues with the university’s approval and support.

A survey of Brisbane residents was undertaken to investigate community attitudes toward urban stray cats and their management. Surveys were distributed to 84 medical and dental practices across Brisbane City, and were completed by 305 patients and staff. Practices were targeted to achieve a sample of respondents from a representative distribution of socioeconomic backgrounds. After being informed about trap, neuter, and return (TNR) programs for management of urban stray cats, most respondents (79%), chose TNR as their preferred management strategy, while a lesser proportion (18%) expressed a preference to continue the current Brisbane City Council lethal control program (catching and culling ~1,000 cats annually), and 3.4% selected to leave the cats alone. Differences in beliefs and attitudes toward urban stray cats as a function of demographic variables were investigated. Statistical analyses indicated that respondents who were male, older, non-cat owners, those who believed euthanasia of stray cats was humane, and that urban stray cats spread disease to humans were significantly more likely to express a preference for lethal control, as opposed to non-lethal population management. Based on these findings, we recommend that information is disseminated to mitigate these concerns or negative beliefs, where warranted. Ultimately, findings from this study demonstrate that current Queensland legislation does not reflect public views and opinions on stray cat management and should be reviewed. Formal research evaluating the efficacy of TNR programs for urban stray cats in Australia would be in the public interest.

This retrospective study of cat admissions to RSPCA Queensland shelters describes changes associated with improved outcomes ending in live release in 2016 compared to 2011. There were 13,911 cat admissions in 2011 and 13,220 in 2016, with approximately 50% in both years admitted as strays from the general public or council contracts. In contrast, owner surrenders halved from 30% to 15% of admissions. Percentages of admissions ending in euthanasia decreased from 58% to 15%. Only 5% of cat admissions were reclaimed in each of these years, but the percentage rehomed increased from 34% to 74%, of which 61% of the increase was contributed by in-shelter adoptions and 39% from non-shelter sites, predominately retail partnerships. The percentage temporarily fostered until rehoming doubled. In 2011, euthanasias were most common for medical (32% of all euthanasias), behavioral (36%) and age/shelter number (30%) reasons, whereas in 2016, 69% of euthanasias were for medical reasons. The number of young kittens euthanized decreased from 1116 in 2011 to 22 in 2016. The number of cats classified as feral and euthanized decreased from 1178 to 132, in association with increased time for assessment of behavior and increased use of behavior modification programs and foster care. We attribute the improved cat outcomes to strategies that increased adoptions and reduced euthanasia of young kittens and poorly socialized cats, including foster programs. To achieve further decreases in euthanasia, strategies to decrease intake would be highly beneficial, such as those targeted to reduce stray cat admissions.

Over 200,000 stray and surrendered dogs are admitted to shelters and municipal facilities in Australia each year, and approximately 20% are euthanized. Contemporary, comprehensive data on the characteristics and outcomes of dogs entering shelters are required to reduce shelter admissions and euthanasia. However, there are currently limited up-to-date data published on dog admission into shelters. A retrospective single cohort study was conducted to describe the characteristics and outcomes of the dog population entering Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Queensland (RSPCA-QLD) shelters in 2014 (n = 11,967). The majority of dog admissions were strays from the public (24%) or from municipal councils (34%). Just over a quarter of admissions were puppies, 18% of adults (>6 months) were desexed, and the majority of admissions were crossbred dogs (92%). The majority of owner surrenders (86%) were due to human-related reasons. Most dogs were reclaimed (32%) or adopted (43%) and aggression was the most common reason for euthanasia of adult dogs (45%). Low-cost or free desexing and identification programs targeted to areas and breeds contributing to high intake, and increased support services for owners at risk of surrendering their dog, should be trialed to determine their cost effectiveness in reducing shelter admissions and euthanasia.

The recently published article, ‘A Case of Letting the Cat out of the Bag—Why Trap-Neuter-Return Is Not an Ethical Solution for Stray Cat (Felis catus) Management,’ by Crawford et al. warrants rebuttal. The case presented in the paper, opposing the initiation of TNR trials in Australia, ignores peer-reviewed evidence which substantiates the effectiveness of TNR at reducing unowned urban cat numbers. In addition, the paper’s authors offer a number of unrealistic recommendations, which are little more than a rebranding of the failed status quo. Urban stray cats have long been considered a problem across Australia. Current practice calls for the trapping and killing of thousands of healthy urban stray cats and kittens each year with no apparent effect on the total population. In contrast, the literature offers numerous examples, including two recent studies in Australia, of reductions in urban stray cat numbers where TNR has been implemented. TNR has also been associated with reduced feline intake and euthanasia at shelters, which improves both animal welfare and the well-being of shelter staff. A large-scale trial of TNR in an urban Australian context is scientifically justified and long overdue.