Significant numbers of cats enter rescue and re-homing facilities each year, over half of which are relinquished directly by owners. Identifying the reasons why owners decide to give up their pet is an important step in the development of education strategies to encourage retention of cats by their owners. In addition, identifying why adopting owners fail to retain their new cats is important in the refinement of homing policies. Characteristics of 6,089 cats relinquished and returned to 11 rescue facilities in the UK were recorded over a year. In addition, information was collected on the reason why owners gave up, or brought back, their pet. Sixty percent of cats and kittens entering shelters were relinquished by owners, with 19% being due to owner circumstances, such as moving to rented accommodation or changes in family circumstances. Seven percent were for behavioral reasons, and 5% because of the occurrence of allergy or asthma in owners. Returned cats were significantly more likely to be ol...

Aggression between dogs is common and can result in injury. The aims of this study were to estimate prevalence, evaluate co‐occurrence with human‐directed aggression, and investigate potential risk factors, using a cross‐sectional convenience sample of dog owners. Aggression (barking, lunging, growling or biting) towards unfamiliar dogs was reported to currently occur, by 22 per cent of owners, and towards other dogs in the household, by 8 per cent. A low level of concordance between dog and human‐directed aggression suggested most dogs were not showing aggression in multiple contexts. Aggression towards other dogs in the household was associated with increasing dog age, use of positive punishment/negative reinforcement training techniques, and attending ring‐craft classes. Aggression towards other dogs on walks was associated with location of questionnaire distribution, owner age, age of dog, origin of dog, dog breed type, use of positive punishment/negative reinforcement training techniques and attending obedience classes for more than four weeks. In both, the amount of variance explained by models was low (<15 per cent), suggesting that unmeasured factors mostly accounted for differences between groups. These results suggest general characteristics of dogs and owners which contribute to intraspecific aggression, but also highlight that these are relatively minor predictors.

Background: The use of electronic training devices for dog training is controversial. The aims of this study were to give an indication of the extent to which dog owners use these devices in England, identify factors associated with their use, and compare owner report of outcomes. A convenience sample of dog owners in England was used to identify numbers using electronic training devices and identify reasons for use. Factors associated with use of remote e-collars only were determined by comparing dogs trained using these devices with two control populations matched for reason of use (recall / chasing problems). Comparison groups were: those using other ‘negative reinforcement / positive punishment’ training techniques, and those using ‘positive reinforcement / negative punishment’ based methods. A multinominal logistic regression model was used to compare factors between categories of training method. Owner reported success for use was compared using chi-squared analysis.Results: For England only, 3.3% (n = 133) owners reported using remote activated e-collars, 1.4% (n = 54) reported use of bark activated e-collars, and 0.9% (n = 36) reported using electronic boundary fences. In comparison with the e-collar group, owners using reward based training methods for recall / chasing were 2.8 times more likely to be female and 2.7 times less likely to have attended agility training. Owners using other aversive methods for recall / chasing were 2.8 times more likely to have attended puppy classes than those using e-collars. However, the model only explained 10% variance between groups. A significantly higher proportion of owners in the reward group reported training success than those in the e-collar group.Conclusions: In conclusion, a fairly low proportion of owners select to use electronic training devices. For a population matched by reason for training method use, characteristics of dogs, including occurrence of undesired behaviours do not appear to distinguish between training methods. Rather, owner gender and attendance at training classes appear more important, although explaining a relatively small amount of variance between groups. More owners using reward based methods for recall / chasing report a successful outcome of training than those using e-collars.