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.

Separation anxiety is common. Many dog owners do not seek help from a veterinarian but might consult a trainer. The objective of this study was to investigate Australian trainers’ opinions about separation anxiety. An online survey was distributed via training organisations, resulting in 63 completed surveys. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact tests were applied. Respondents were grouped into reward-based (n = 41) and balanced (n = 22) trainers. Most trainers (82.5%) used multiple methods to identify separation anxiety but only 7.9% referred to a veterinarian for diagnosis. Reward-based trainers ranked assistance from a veterinarian and owner’s willingness to try medication as more important than balanced trainers (p < 0.05). More balanced trainers reported that medication was rarely necessary in the cases they saw: 50% balanced compared with 4.9% reward-based trainers, with 95% CIs of [28.2, 71.8] and [0.6, 16.5], respectively. Almost all (95.5%) balanced trainers believed separation anxiety was preventable compared with 52.6% of reward-based trainers (p < 0.05). We conclude that opinions about separation anxiety varied between reward-based and balanced trainers. Trainers are not taught, expected, or legally allowed to diagnose anxiety disorders. This study showed that balanced trainers were less likely to recommend involvement of veterinarians who can make a diagnosis and rule out other causes of observed behaviours.