Uncontrolled outdoor access is associated with a number of welfare concerns for companion cats, including increased risks of disease and parasites, injury or death due to traffic, predation or ingestion of toxic substances, and getting permanently separated from their owner. In addition, cats pose a threat to local wildlife due to predatory behaviors, and can sometimes be a nuisance to human neighbors. Despite these concerns, recent estimates suggest that many owners are still providing their cats with uncontrolled outdoor access, likely because it also offers welfare benefits by allowing cats to perform natural behaviors, such as hunting, exploring, and climbing. While some have suggested that outdoor access is necessary to meet cats’ behavioral needs and to prevent related behavioral problems, others have recommended various environmental enrichment strategies that can be developed to meet these needs within an indoor environment or through supervised and controlled outdoor access. This review examines the welfare issues and benefits associated with outdoor access for cats, as well as what is currently known about peoples’ practices, knowledge, and attitudes about the provision of outdoor access for cats.

Tail-biting is globally recognized as a welfare concern for commercial swine production. Substantial research has been undertaken to identify risk factors and intervention methods to decrease and understand this vice. Tail-biting appears to be multifactorial and has proven difficult to predict and control. The primary objective of the scoping review was to identify and chart all available literature on the risk factors and interventions associated with tail-biting in pigs. A secondary objective was to identify gaps in the literature and identify the relevance for a systematic review. An online literature search of four databases, encompassing English, peer-reviewed and grey literature published from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 2019, was conducted. Relevance screening and charting of included articles were performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 465 citations were returned from the search strategy. Full-text screening was conducted on 118 articles, with 18 being excluded in the final stage. Interventions, possible risk factors, as well as successful and unsuccessful outcomes were important components of the scoping review. The risk factors and interventions pertaining to tail-biting were inconsistent, demonstrating the difficulty of inducing tail-biting in an experimental environment and the need for standardizing terms related to the behavior.

Many dogs show signs of fear during veterinary appointments. It is widely recommended to use desensitization and counter-conditioning training to reduce this fear. However, the efficacy of this method for reducing veterinary fear has not been examined. We assessed the effect of a standardized four-week training program on behavioural and physiological signs of fear in dogs with pre-existing veterinary fear. Owned dogs were randomly allocated to receive training (n = 15) or no training (n = 22; Control). Owners of dogs in the training group were instructed to perform exam-style handling on their dog and to visit the veterinary clinic weekly. Owners of control dogs were given no instructions. Fear responses were assessed before and after the training period by a blinded observer during clinic arrival and examination. Despite motivated owners volunteering to participate in the current study, 44% of owners were non-compliant to this training program. During examination, control dogs had higher odds (95% confidence Interval (CI)) of reduced posture compared to trained dogs (Odds ratio (OR): 3.79, CI: 1.03–16.3). Fear scores for trained dogs lowered during the second examination (p = 0.046), and 86.7% of dog owners reported a reduction in their dog’s fear levels across the training period (p = 0.007). When entering the clinic (p = 0.002) and during examination (p = 0.002), trained female dogs had a higher rate of lip licking than control females. The training program did not influence temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, avoidance, trembling, vocalizations, or willingness and encouragement to step on the scale. Results suggest that this four-week training program was mildly effective at reducing veterinary fear in dogs. Further research is necessary to explore the efficacy of longer, more intensive, and individualized training programs.

Background While euthanasia is a common feature of veterinary practice, research has yet to adequately explore the experiences, perception and wishes of pet owners, including their satisfaction and grief following companion animal euthanasia. Methods An online questionnaire was conducted with pet owners who had experienced euthanasia within the last 10 years to explore the relationship between pet owners’ experiences and their resulting satisfaction and grief following companion animal euthanasia. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression. Results Overall, participants (N=2354) reported high levels of satisfaction with their euthanasia experience. Their experience with the administration practices (i.e., payment and paperwork), emotional support, follow-up care and care for their pet’s remains was found to be associated with overall satisfaction. Participants’ grief was associated with the number of euthanasia previously experienced, the type of human–animal bond, if the euthanasia was emergent and the emotional support they received. Conclusion Findings contribute to existing research and shed light on some of the most important practices associated with companion animal euthanasia. Several practical recommendations are made, including developing standard operating procedures for companion animal euthanasia; exploring owners’ previous experiences, expectations and emotions; the importance of reassurance; and access to grief resources and services.

Use of scruffing and scruffing tools (eg, clipnosis clips) to immobilise cats is contentious, and cat handling guidelines vary in recommendations regarding these techniques. The current study examined whether cats show negative responses to the following restraint methods: (1) scruff (n=17), (2) clip application to the dorsal neck skin (n=16) and (3) full body (a known negative; n=19). Each cat was also handled with passive restraint (control) for comparison. During handling, cats were examined for behavioural (side/back ear positions, vocalisations, lip licking) and physiological (pupil dilation ratio, respiratory rate) responses. Full‐body restrained cats showed more negative responses than passively restrained cats (respiratory rate: p=0.006, F _3,37 =4.31, p=0.01; ear p=0.002, F _3,49 =6.70, p=0.0007; pupil: p=0.007, F _3,95 =14.24, p=0.004; vocalisations: p=0.009, F _3,49 =4.85, p=0.005) and scruff‐restrained cats (pupil: p=0.009; vocalisations: p=0.04). Clip restraint resulted in more negative responses than passive (pupil: p=0.01; vocalisations: p=0.007, ear p=0.02) and scruff restraint (pupil p=0.01; vocalisations: p=0.02). No differences were detected between full‐body restraint, known to be aversive, and clip restraint. Full‐body restraint and clip restraint resulted in the greatest number of negative responses, scruffing resulted in fewer negative responses and passive restraint showed the least number of responses. We therefore recommend against the use of full‐body and clip restraint, and suggest that scruff restraint should be avoided when possible.

While uncontrolled outdoor access can increase opportunities for cat physical and mental stimulation, it can also increase risks of injury and illness, and result in predation of wild birds and small animals. In Canada and the United States, it is often recommended to keep cats indoors, but many owners still provide some level of outdoor access. The objectives of this study were to use a cross-sectional survey to explore the attitudes and practices of cat owners in Canada and the United States toward outdoor access and to identify factors that influence the provision of uncontrolled outdoor access. A convenience sample of cat owners (N= 7,838) were recruited to complete an online survey, and a mixed logistic regression model was used to examine associations between cat and owner-related factors, and uncontrolled outdoor access for cats, with province/state included as a random effect. In total, 57% of owners kept their cats indoors, and 43% provided some form of outdoor access, with 21% of total owners providing uncontrolled outdoor access. Provision of uncontrolled outdoor access was associated with factors related to cat characteristics (e.g., sex, breed, presence of health, and behavioral issues), the home environment (e.g., living with other pets, types of enrichment provided), owner perspectives on outdoor access (e.g., level of agreement with potential benefits and consequence of outdoor access), and owner demographics (e.g., gender, education, area of residence). For cats with uncontrolled outdoor access, few owners reported their cats having a collar or a microchip, suggesting a need to increase education about precautionary measures to protect the welfare of outdoor cats. Results reveal how owners are caring for their cats in terms of providing outdoor access and generate hypotheses for future research to examine the influence of the owner-pet bond and educational programs on owner practices around providing outdoor access.