Pet Owners’ Attitudes and Opinions towards Cat and Dog Care Practices in Aotearoa New Zealand
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Please choose the option (Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree) that most closely describes how you feel about the following statements. Dogs should: have regular vet checks; have up-to-date vaccinations; have up-to-date flea treatments; have up-to-date worming treatment; be desexed; be micro-chipped; be bred for particular looks; not have their appearance modified (e.g., tail docking, ear cropping, branding, tattooing); have a specialized diet from a pet shop or vet clinic; not be trained using behavior modifying collars (e.g., shock, spray, check chain); have ribs, hips, and a spine that are not visible but are easily felt; have access to adequate housing. Please provide further explanation if required.
- Please choose the option (Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree) that most closely describes how you feel about the following statements. Cats should: have regular vet checks; have up-to-date vaccinations; have up-to-date flea treatment; have up-to-date worming treatment; be desexed; be micro-chipped; be bred for certain looks; have their appearance modified (e.g., branding, tattooing); have a specialized diet from a pet shop or vet clinic; have ribs, hips, and a spine that are not visible but are easily felt; have access to adequate housing. Please provide further explanation if required.
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Description of the Respondents
3.2. Attitudes towards Dog Care
They should have veterinarian checks and flea and worm treatments etc., when needed. But if you have experience in what to look for health-wise, i.e., keeping an eye on their weight, energy, behavior changes, water consumption, physical changes etc. and don’t want to use chemicals on them all the time (flea worm treatments etc.). I don’t think it should be a constant thing to do. As long as your checking and looking out for them and get them treatment/checked with any concerns or if it’s been a long period since they were checked or they are elderly etc.
I have read that it’s best that dogs are desexed after their growth plates have closed, around 18 months which is best for the dog/s if the owner is responsible. However, that’s not always the case, so it would be great to see ovary-sparing spay/vasectomy rather than traditional ops on younger dog/s so they can keep their hormones needed for correct growth.
One of my dogs stopped being aggressive after a single session with a shock collar which we did not continue as it changed his behavior overnight. It took 11 months listening to bullshit about it damaging a dog before we tried it. Changed his and our lives as now he goes on group walks is off-leash and can do all manner of activities before he was not able to be near motorbikes, bikes, children (he now works as a child therapy dog), trolleys, skateboards, men near me and other dogs.
Each of these things is down to the owner. The problem with shock collars or training collars, docking, branding etc. is not a problem with loving owners who aren’t going to injure or let someone injure their pet. I have dogs with docked tails and ears and it’s not been a problem but some people are cheap and cruel. It is the same for training collars, you have an idiot with a shock collar on their dog day in and day out vs someone who has a high quality, level adjustable collar used only for a short period of training.... it’s not a one answer fits all, it’s down to a moronic owner—it comes down to needing a license to own a dog and massive penalties for cruelty etc.
3.3. Pet Owner’s Attitudes and Knowledge towards Cat Care
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brooks, H.L.; Rushton, K.; Lovell, K.; Bee, P.; Walker, L.; Grant, L.; Rogers, A. The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry 2018, 18, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barker, S.B.; Wolen, A.R. The benefits of human-companion animal interaction: A review. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2008, 35, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- American Veterinary Medical Association. Pet Ownership & Demographic Sourcebook; American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Westgarth, C.; Pinchbeck, G.L.; Bradshaw, J.W.; Dawson, S.; Gaskell, R.M.; Christley, R.M. Factors associated with dog ownership and contact with dogs in a UK community. BMC Vet. Res. 2007, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Companion Animals New Zealand. Companion Animals in New Zealand 2020; Companion Animals New Zealand: Auckland, New Zealand, 2020; ISBN 978-0-473-53489-9. Available online: https://www.companionanimals.nz/publications (accessed on 13 August 2023).
- Forrest, R.; Awawdeh, L.; Esam, F.; Pearson, M.; Waran, N. The diets of companion cats in Aotearoa New Zealand: Identification of obesity risk factors. Animals 2021, 11, 2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mendoza Roldan, J.A.; Otranto, D. Zoonotic parasites associated with predation by dogs and cats. Parasites Vectors 2023, 16, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruce, S.J.; Zito, S.; Gates, M.C.; Aguilar, G.; Walker, J.K.; Goldwater, N.; Dale, A. Predation and risk behaviors of free-roaming owned cats in Auckland, New Zealand via the use of animal-borne cameras. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Voith, V.L. The impact of companion animal problems on society and the role of veterinarians. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2009, 39, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, B. The ’pet effect’: Health related aspects of companion animal ownership. Aust. Fam. Physician 2012, 41, 439–442. [Google Scholar]
- Alley, M.R.; Gartrell, B.D. Wildlife diseases in New Zealand: Recent findings and future challenges. N. Z. Vet. J. 2019, 67, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanen, L.A.; Kusters, J.G.; Overgaauw, P.A.M. Zoonotic risks of sleeping with pets. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, K.; Brown, J.A.; Lipton, B.; Dunn, J.; Stanek, D.; Behravesh, C.B.; Chapman, H.; Conger, T.H.; Vanover, T.; Edling, T.; et al. A review of zoonotic disease threats to pet owners: A compendium of measures to prevent zoonotic diseases associated with non-traditional pets: Rodents and other small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, backyard poultry, and other selected animals. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2022, 22, 303–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fraser, G.; Huang, Y.; Robinson, K.; Wilson, M.S.; Bulbulia, J.; Sibley, C.G. New Zealand pet owners’ demographic characteristics, personality, and health and wellbeing: More than just a fluff piece. Anthrozoös 2020, 33, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forrest, R.; Pearson, M.; Thomson, S.; Bakri, H.; Steiner, E.; Waran, N. Furry Whānau Wellbeing: Working with Local Communities for Positive Pet Welfare Outcomes; Prepared for the New Zealand Companion Animal Trust (NZCAT); Eastern Institute of Technology: Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand, 2019; ISBN 978-0-9951429-2-3. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, D.R. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am. J. Eval. 2006, 27, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forrest, R.; Awawdeh, L.; Esam, F.; Pearson, M.; Waran, N. Potential owner-related risk factors that may contribute to obesity in companion dogs in Aotearoa New Zealand. Animals 2022, 12, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Forrest, R.; Taylor, L.-A.; Roberts, J.; Pearson, M.; Foxall, D.; Scott-Chapman, S. PATU™: Fighting fit, fighting fat! The hinu wero approach. AlterNative Int. J. Indig. Peoples 2016, 12, 282–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gates, M.C.; Walker, J.; Zito, S.; Dale, A. Cross-sectional survey of pet ownership, veterinary service utilisation, and pet-related expenditures in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 2019, 67, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnston, L.; Szczepanski, J.; McDonagh, P. Demographics, lifestyle and veterinary care of cats in Australia and New Zealand. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2017, 19, 1199–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, T.; Clark, N.; Jones, M.K.; Herndon, A.; Mallyon, J.; Soares Magalhaes, R.J.; Abdullah, S. Perceptions of dog owners towards canine gastrointestinal parasitism and associated human health risk in Southeast Queensland. One Health 2021, 12, 100226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do Vale, B.; Lopes, A.P.; Fontes, M.D.C.; Silvestre, M.; Cardoso, L.; Coelho, A.C. A Cross-sectional study of knowledge on ownership, zoonoses and practices among pet owners in Northern Portugal. Animals 2021, 11, 3543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinert, K.; Kuhne, F.; Kramer, M.; Hackbarth, H. People’s perception of brachycephalic breeds and breed-related welfare problems in Germany. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 33, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries. Animal Welfare Legislation. 2022. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/legal/legislation-standards-and-reviews/animal-welfare-legislation/ (accessed on 30 August 2023).
- Eyarefe, O.D.; Oguntoye, C.O. Cosmetic tail docking: An overview of abuse and report of an interesting case. BMC Vet. Res. 2016, 12, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bennett, P.C.; Perini, E. Tail docking in dogs: A review of the issues. Aust. Vet. J. 2003, 81, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mills, K.E.; Robbins, J.; von Keyserlingk, M.A. Tail docking and ear cropping dogs: Public awareness and perceptions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Australian National Kennel Council. Code of Practice for the Tail Docking of Dogs; Australian National Kennel Council: Melton, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Morton, D. Docking of dogs: Practical and ethical aspects. Vet. Rec. 1992, 131, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rudolph, J.K.; Myers, L.J. Is the bark worse than the bite? Vet. Forum. 2004, 12, 26–43. [Google Scholar]
- Masson, S.; de la Vega, S.; Gazzano, A.; Mariti, C.; Pereira, G.D.G.; Halsberghe, C.; Leyvraz, A.M.; McPeake, K.; Schoening, B. Electronic training devices: Discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology. J. Vet. Behav. 2018, 25, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dess, N.; Linwick, D.; Patterson, J.; Overmier, J.; Levine, S. Immediate and proactive effects of predictability on plasma cortisol responses in dogs. Behav. Neurosci. 1984, 97, 1005–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fearon, R. Owners enlisted in battle over shock collars. Vet. Times 2004, 23, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Waddle, H. Vet bodies make fresh shock collar ban plea. Vet. Times 2007, 37, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Schilder, M.B.H.; van der Borg, J.A.M. Training dogs with help of the shock collar: Short and long term behavioural effects. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 85, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinwoodie, I.R.; Zottola, V.; Dodman, N.H. An investigation into the effectiveness of various professionals and behavior modification programs, with or without medication, for the treatment of canine aggression. J. Vet. Behav. 2021, 43, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wales bans electric shock collars for dogs and cats. Vet. Rec. 2010, 166, 413. [CrossRef]
- Blackwell, E.J.; Bolster, C.; Richards, G.; Loftus, B.A.; Casey, R.A. The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: Estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christiansen, F.O.; Bakken, M.; Braastad, B.O. Behavioural differences between three breed groups of hunting dogs confronted with domestic sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 72, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rioja-Lang, F.; Bacon, H.; Connor, M.; Dwyer, C.M. Prioritisation of animal welfare issues in the UK using expert consensus. Vet. Rec. 2020, 187, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dogs Should: | Strongly Agree | Agree | Total Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Total Disagree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have access to adequate housing | 90.9% | 8.5% | 99.4% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
Have up-to-date worming treatment | 66.7% | 28.2% | 94.9% | 3.9% | 0.8% | 0.4% | 1.2% |
Be microchipped | 77.4% | 17.4% | 94.7% | 4.1% | 0.8% | 0.4% | 1.2% |
Have up-to-date vaccinations | 69.8% | 21.5% | 91.3% | 7.0% | 1.4% | 0.3% | 1.7% |
Have up-to-date flea treatments | 63.5% | 27.3% | 90.8% | 7.1% | 1.5% | 0.6% | 2.1% |
Have regular vet checks | 54.5% | 30.7% | 85.1% | 12.7% | 1.9% | 0.3% | 2.1% |
Be desexed | 65.0% | 18.3% | 83.2% | 14.7% | 1.6% | 0.5% | 2.1% |
Not have their appearance modified (e.g., tail docking, ear cropping, tattooing) | 68.4% | 12.1% | 80.4% | 7.6% | 3.8% | 8.1% | 11.9% |
Not be trained using behavior-modifying collars | 43.6% | 21.0% | 64.6% | 20.6% | 8.8% | 6.1% | 14.8% |
Be bred for certain looks | 0.8% | 2.4% | 3.2% | 17.6% | 27.9% | 51.3% | 79.2% |
Cats Should: | Strongly Agree | Agree | Total Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Total Disagree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Have access to adequate housing | 84.7% | 13.2% | 98.0% | 1.6% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.4% |
Be desexed | 81.3% | 13.1% | 94.5% | 5.1% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% |
Have up-to-date worming treatment | 67.4% | 26.8% | 94.2% | 4.6% | 0.8% | 0.4% | 1.3% |
Have up-to-date flea treatment | 66.4% | 26.3% | 92.7% | 5.8% | 1.0% | 0.6% | 1.6% |
Have up-to-date vaccinations | 63.3% | 23.5% | 86.8% | 11.0% | 1.8% | 0.4% | 2.2% |
Be micro-chipped | 66.3% | 19.2% | 85.4% | 11.8% | 2.1% | 0.6% | 2.7% |
Have regular vet checks | 52.2% | 28.7% | 80.8% | 16.4% | 2.3% | 0.5% | 2.8% |
Have their appearance modified (e.g., Branding, tattooing) | 3.8% | 1.0% | 4.8% | 8.3% | 18.7% | 68.2% | 86.9% |
Be bred for particular looks | 0.9% | 1.9% | 2.8% | 20.3% | 26.5% | 50.4% | 76.9% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Forrest, R.; Pearson, M.; Awawdeh, L. Pet Owners’ Attitudes and Opinions towards Cat and Dog Care Practices in Aotearoa New Zealand. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 606. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10100606
Forrest R, Pearson M, Awawdeh L. Pet Owners’ Attitudes and Opinions towards Cat and Dog Care Practices in Aotearoa New Zealand. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(10):606. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10100606
Chicago/Turabian StyleForrest, Rachel, Maria Pearson, and Leena Awawdeh. 2023. "Pet Owners’ Attitudes and Opinions towards Cat and Dog Care Practices in Aotearoa New Zealand" Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 10: 606. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10100606