In The Following Table, How Many Mistakes Are Made When An Animal Is Predicted To Be A Dog?

Abstract

A considerable number of adopted animals are returned to animal shelters post-adoption which tin can be stressful for both the animal and the possessor. In this retrospective analysis of 23,932 animal records from a US shelter, we identified animal characteristics associated with the likelihood of render, central return reasons, and outcomes mail service-render for dogs and cats. Binary logistic regression models were used to draw the likelihood of render, render reason and event based on intake age, intake blazon, sex, breed and render frequency. Behavioral bug and incompatibility with existing pets were the most common render reasons. Historic period and breed group (dogs but) predicted the likelihood of render, render reason and post-adoption return effect. Adult dogs had the greatest odds of mail-adoption return (OR iii.40, 95% CI 2.88–4.01) and post-return euthanasia (OR 3.94, 95% CI 2.04–7.59). Toy and terrier breeds were 65% and 35% less likely to be returned compared with herding breeds. Pit bull-blazon breeds were more than likely to be returned multiple times (X _ii  = xviii.11, p = 0.01) and euthanized mail service-return (OR two.60, 95% CI i.47–4.61). Our findings highlight the importance of beast beliefs in the retention of newly adopted animals and provide useful management for allocation of resources and future adoption counselling and post-adoption support services.

Introduction

An estimated 3.2 1000000 animals are adopted from animal shelters in the Usa each year¹, and the charge per unit of adoption appears to be increasing². Well-nigh owners written report high levels of satisfaction with their newly adopted pet^three,four,5, however a considerable number of adopted animals are returned to shelters for various reasons. Current estimates range between vii and twenty%^{vi,7,8,9,10,11,12}. Over contempo years, the perception of returned adoptions inside the sheltering community has begun to change^{13, 14}. While returns were once viewed every bit "failed" adoptions, there is now more emphasis placed on the possible benefits of temporary adoptions^xv, such as short-term stress relief¹⁵ and an increased understanding of the animals' behavior in the dwelling environment. Nonetheless, the return process tin exist stressful for both the creature and the owner. The brute's likelihood of a alive release issue (leaving the shelter live) may be jeopardized if the shelter does not have the required infinite or resources available, meaning the animate being may be euthanized (humane killing of the animal). Re-entry to the shelter too means the fauna is again exposed to the multitude of stressors associated with the shelter environment (see Taylor and Mills¹⁶ for review). Shore¹⁷ reported more than half of relinquishing adopters found the return process 'very difficult' and 41% indicated they would not prefer another animal in the hereafter¹⁷.

Behavioral problems are reported as a key reason for unsuccessful dog adoptions worldwide^{vi, eight, 17, 18}. A contempo study of 102 returned dogs at a shelter in Texas found 56% of dogs were returned due to behavioral problems, 31% were returned for owner-related reasons and 9% were returned for medical needs. Aggression towards humans and animals were listed as the two most mutual render reasons^eighteen. In the UK, 59% of dogs returned to Dogs Trust shelters occurred due to behavioral issues, with dogs displaying assailment towards people having the highest likelihood of return⁸. Mondelli, et al.^seven found 39% of returns to a shelter in Italia were attributed to misbehavior, such as barking, destruction and hyperactivity, and a further 15% were returned for assailment. At a shelter in Northern Republic of ireland, Wells and Hepper⁹ found a significantly higher proportion of returned dogs exhibited beliefs problems compared with retained dogs⁹.

The primary factors that bulldoze cat returns are less clear cut^{v, 18, 19}. Hawes, et al.¹⁸ found that cats were returned more frequently due to owner-related reasons than animate being-based reasons, such as moving, disability to afford bones care and medical needs of the adopter. Even so, when considering the return reasons individually, aggression towards humans and destructive tendencies were ranked equally the 2d and equal third nigh common reasons^xviii. Other studies have reported behavior as the virtually prevalent return reason, although allergies to the cat and owner circumstances too led to a number of unsuccessful adoptions^{5, nineteen}. Data regarding postadoption returns of other species are scarce.

The likelihood of post-adoption returns is also associated with a range of possessor and fauna characteristics. The presence of children in the adopted abode has been linked with a higher take chances of return^{5, 8, ten, 20}. Young owners and get-go-time owners besides contain a college proportion of returned adoptions^{ten, 20}. The take chances of return is greater among older animals^{five, 19}, male dogs and medium to large dogs^{7, viii}. Conversely, caretaking behaviors of owners, such every bit visiting a veterinarian^{20, 21}, allowing the fauna to sleep in a family member's bed and attending training classes, take been associated with a decreased hazard of return⁸. Despite the influence of brute and owner variables on the gamble of return, there is a lack of data regarding differences in render reasons based on animal or owner characteristics.

There is also a dearth of information nigh animals' outcomes post-render. Ii previous studies have plant that returned dogs had a euthanasia rate betwixt 40 and fifty%, although both studies were conducted more than a decade agone^{12, 22}. Contempo research reported drastically different results with 791 of 816 returned dogs (97%) having a live release result. In this study, returned dogs had iv.77 times greater odds of live release compared with owner surrenders. This figure may overestimate the true live release charge per unit of returned dogs as the authors considered adoption, transfer to rescue grouping, and sent to foster care as a live release outcome. Including the latter as an consequence is inconsistent with their definition of foster care equally an interim home for rehabilitation prior to permanent adoption^xi.

Agreement the key factors that result in unsuccessful adoptions across all species volition enable animal shelters to develop preventive strategies and target their resource towards the animals and owners who demand them most. The aims of this study were to: (a) identify characteristics associated with a greater adventure of return; (b) describe the central render reasons and the variations in return reasons by animate being characteristics; and (c) examine animals' outcomes post-return and place factors that predicted euthanasia.

Results

Between 2015 and 2019, 23,932 animals were adopted from Charleston Animal Society, including 9996 dogs, 13,450 cats and 486 animals of other species. Of the adopted animals, 9.ii% (n = 2211) were returned to the animal shelter within six-months of adoption. Dogs were the most frequently returned species with a return charge per unit of 16.3% (northward = 1628), followed by rabbits at 9.0% (n = 15). Cats were returned at a significantly lower rate of four.2% (n = 559, 10 ₂  = 997.64, p < 0.001). The remainder of returns consisted of two pigs, four republic of guinea pigs, 2 mice and one hamster. Tabular array ane presents the descriptive characteristics of all animals adopted between 2015 and 2019.

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of animals adopted between 2015 and 2019 (n = 23 945).

Total size table

Of the animals returned to the shelter, near were returned once (85.7%, due north = 1895), 11.2% of animals were returned twice (due north = 220 dogs, n = 28 cats) and 2.0% of animals were returned 3 times (n = 44 dogs, n = half dozen cats). Fourteen dogs were returned four times, three dogs were returned 5 times and 1 dog was returned six times. Dogs who were returned one time did non differ in sex (Ten ₂  = 2.32, p = 0.13) or return reason (X _two  = 8.10, p = 0.62) from dogs who were returned more than once. Intake historic period was associated with multiple return status (X ₂  = 14.94, p = 0.002) with significantly fewer puppies and more young developed dogs returned more than once. Breed groups too differed between one-off returns and multiple returns (X ₂  = 18.11, p = 0.01) with multiple-returns comprising more pit bull-type breeds and fewer sporting breeds. For cats, at that place were no meaning differences betwixt animals that were returned in one case and multiple returns. Overall, there was poor agreement between the first and second returning owners in terms of the reason provided for render (κ = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03–0.13, p = 0.002). The strongest agreement was seen between owners who returned animals due to the animal's wellness (κ = 0.29, 95% CI 0.xviii–0.twoscore, p < 0.001), although the strength of agreement was only considered 'fair'.

Associations between animate being characteristics and likelihood of return

The likelihood of return was associated with intake historic period and breed group for dogs, and intake historic period for cats (Table 2). Adult dogs (> 2–eight years) had the highest likelihood of return, with an odds ratio of 3.40 (95% CI two.88–4.01), followed past young adults and senior dogs who had an odds ratio of 2.90 (95% CI 2.47–3.41) and 2.24 (95% CI i.64–3.06), respectively. For cats, senior cats had the greatest likelihood of render compared with kittens (OR 4.97, 95% CI 3.34–7.40), followed past adult cats (OR 4.10, 95% CI 3.27–5.thirteen) and young adult cats (OR 3.02, 95% CI 2.39–3.fourscore) and. Considering breed, dogs in the toy brood group were 65% less likely to exist returned following adoption compared with herding breeds (OR 0.35, 95% 0.26–0.47) and terriers were 35% less likely to be returned compared with herding breeds (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49–0.86). Intake type was not associated with the likelihood of return for dogs or cats.

Table ii Logistic regression models describing the take a chance of return and euthanasia based on creature characteristics.

Full size table

Render reasons

The return reasons for dogs and cats are presented in Fig. one and Table 3. Behavioral issues (36.1%) were the most common reason for return for dogs, followed by incompatibility with existing pets (eighteen.3%). For cats, the most mutual return reason was incompatibility with existing pets (22.0%), followed by behavioral issues (19.seven%) and owner'south health, including allergies (18.4%). Rabbits were mainly returned due to behavioral issues (due north = 4, 26.seven%), incompatibility with existing pets (north = iii, 20.0%) and housing problems (n = 3, twenty.0%). All guinea pigs were returned due to incompatibility with pets (n = iv). The 2 pigs were returned due to behavior and incompatibility with pets, the mice were returned due to being unwanted (n = 2) and the hamster was returned due to unrealistic expectations.

Figure 1

Categorized reasons for returns, including the kickoff return for animals that were returned multiple times. Blackness bars represent dogs (n = 1627) and grey bars represent cats (northward = 559).

Total size image

Tabular array 3 Reasons for returned adoptions including starting time return only for multi-return animals (northward = 2186).

Full size tabular array

Return reasons differed across historic period groups for both dogs (Ten ₂  = 57.96, p = 0.002) and cats (X ₂  = 69.91, p < 0.001) every bit shown in Fig. 2. Brood groups were associated with render reasons for dogs (Ten ₂  = 99.72, p = 0.01). Hounds were returned more frequently than other breed groups due to the possessor'due south health or owner circumstances, while toy breeds were returned more frequently for the animal'southward health and incompatibility with children. Sporting breeds were more than often 'unwanted'. Sexual practice was not significantly associated with return reasons for dogs (X ₂  = 4.58, p = 0.92) or cats (X _ii  = 11.32, p = 0.26).

Effigy 2

Categorized render reasons by age group. *Denotes statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Full size paradigm

Canine return reasons were analyzed individually if more than 50 owners provided the return reason, which showed age at intake was significantly associated with the following reasons: destructive within, too active, doesn't like pets, pets in home didn't like, landlord issues and health of animal (Table 4). The differences in return reasons based on age are shown in Fig. 3. Breed group was associated with 'assailment to animals' in dogs with significantly more than working breeds and fewer terrier breeds returned for aggression to animals.

Table 4 Individual return reasons (northward > 50) by sex, age, and breed amongst dogs.

Total size table

Effigy iii

Differences in non-categorized return reasons for dogs based on historic period group. *Denotes statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Full size image

Logistic regression models including render reason every bit a dichotomous variable (possessor or animal-based) mirrored the results of the Chi-Square assay, highlighting a significant association between return reason and age at intake for both dogs and cats, and breed for dogs but (Table 2).

Effect following render

Most returned animals were re-adopted (Tabular array 1), including lxxx.iii% of dogs and 90.2% of cats. Issue was associated with intake age, breed group, sex, return reason and return frequency for dogs (Table 2). Return reason was the strongest predictor of euthanasia followed by historic period.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to investigate post-adoption returns in a sample of 23,932 adopted animals with a 9.2% return charge per unit. Dogs were the most ofttimes returned species with a return charge per unit of 16.3%. Cats had a lower render rate of 4.2% and almost ane in ten rabbits were returned mail service-adoption. Of those returned, most animals were returned in one case during the report catamenia although 14.3% of returned animals were returned more once. Historic period at intake and brood (dogs only) predicted the odds of return, return reasons and post-render issue.

The likelihood of return increased significantly for both dogs and cats over the age of 6 months. Adult dogs were over three times more than likely to be returned, followed by young adults and senior dogs who had two.ix and ii.2 times the odds of being returned compared with puppies. The elevated risk of return in adult dogs may be explained past differences in behavior based on age of acquisition. Enquiry has shown that every bit the age at conquering increases, so too does the risk of resource guarding²³, and destructive behaviors²⁴. However, in both studies other variables had a greater influence on the likelihood of behavioral bug, such every bit the dog'southward sex²⁴ and owner's beliefs²³. Variations in early life feel may as well produce behavioral differences and therefore, influence the likelihood of return²⁵. The lower odds of return amidst senior dogs may be attributed to reduced exercise and grooming requirements, particularly if the dog has lived in a home previously. This finding is somewhat at odds with previous reports that older animals may be at greater risk of relinquishment due to ill-health²⁶ which speaks to the possible differences between the experience of a returned adoption and an possessor relinquishment. Interestingly, immature adult dogs comprised a higher proportion of multiple-returns than the other historic period groups, mayhap reflecting an adolescent phase characterized by increased conflict behavior²⁷. Qualitative research in the field has documented a similar trend. Shore¹⁷ found some returning owners indicated they would prefer a domestic dog of a different age in the future, although the management of change was split. Several respondents were interested in acquiring an older canis familiaris, while others would acquire a puppy. One respondent said she would adopt either a very immature dog or an older canis familiaris in the future only would avoid dogs in betwixt¹⁷. For cats, the take chances of return increased considerably for each age grouping. Young adult cats, adult cats and senior cats were three.0, iv.1 and 5.0 times more likely to be returned than kittens, respectively. The willingness of cats to interact with humans has been shown to decrease with age which may hinder the development of the human-cat bond and increase the take a chance of return²⁸. Kittens are also more adjustable to novel environments²⁹.

Breed group influenced the likelihood of return for dogs in that toy and terrier breeds were significantly less likely to exist returned. The association between breed group and risk of return may be owing to the canis familiaris'southward size as previous inquiry has shown medium and big dogs are more likely to be returned than small dogs^viii. We could not test this hypothesis due to a lack of data regarding dogs' weight. Breed group was also associated with the frequency of return with pit bull-type breeds comprising a higher proportion of multiple-returns than other brood groups.

Behavioral issues were a key reason for return of both dogs and cats, which parallels the current body of show and affirms the importance of animal beliefs in the evolution of a positive human being-animal relationship^{viii, ix, 12, eighteen}. Charleston Animal Guild provides a multitude of behavioral support services for adopters, although data regarding the utilization of these services was not bachelor. Contempo reports signal relatively few owners accept behavioral support^{xviii, 30}. At a shelter in Texas, less than half of returning owners utilized beliefs back up services, with 18% of dog adopters and vii% of cat adopters contacting the behavior team more than one time prior to returning their pet¹⁸. Hereafter studies on the employ and efficacy of postadoption behavioral support programs in reducing returns would be of bang-up value to the field. Incompatibility with existing pets contributed to approximately 20% of cat and dog returns; a college rate than previous reports which ranged between 3¹⁷ and 19%⁵. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering existing pets during adoption counselling. Cat adopters with existing pets may also benefit from adopting a kitten rather than an older cat every bit kittens had a significantly lower rate of return due to incompatibility with existing pets. The ideal age group for dog adopters with existing pets is more complex as puppies were returned at a lower rate for 'doesn't like pets' merely a college charge per unit for 'pet in the home didn't like'. Allergies were also a meaning driver of returns for cats, contributing fifteen% of all cat returns which is broadly comparable to previous studies^{v, 17, 19}.

Age at intake was associated with return reasons for both dogs and cats. Considering owner- and creature-related render reasons as a dichotomous variable, nosotros found young developed and adult dogs were more likely to be returned for animal-related reasons than puppies. Specifically, puppies were returned at a lower rate for behavior bug, namely 'destructive within', while young adult dogs were returned more frequently for 'destructive inside' and 'too active'. Again, the increased rate of behavioral returns amongst young adults could be attributed to a phase of boyish behavior²⁷. Adopters' expectations for ownership may as well vary betwixt age groups. Most prospective dog owners wait some difficulties with dog training and behavior³¹, although puppy adopters may anticipate more 'puppy-like' behavior, such as destructive tendencies³². On the contrary, puppies were returned at a higher rate for housing bug, namely 'landlord issues'. Perchance, puppy adopters encountered more house-training issues that led to post-adoption returns. Information technology is also possible that puppy adopters were more than likely to impulsively adopt without approving from their landlord, merely further enquiry is needed to confirm this hypothesis. We besides plant senior dogs were returned at a higher rate due to the health of the owner or animal. Older adults may exist more inclined to adopt senior dogs due to their perceived lower grooming and practise needs, although further research is needed to support this hypothesis. Among cats, we found developed and senior cats had an increased likelihood of render due to beast-related reasons. Every bit described higher up, this may be related to the reduction in sociality with increasing age²⁸. Further analyses of the categorized render reasons showed a higher proportion of kitten returns occurred due to health concerns, possibly upper respiratory infections (URI). URIs are mutual in the shelter environment and bear upon kittens at a higher charge per unit due to their increased susceptibility^{33, 34}. Senior cats were returned at a higher charge per unit for incompatibility with children which is conceivable as older cats are reported to take the least satisfactory child-cat relationships³⁵.

Render reasons also differed based on brood group in dogs. Sporting breeds and hounds were less probable to exist returned for animal-based reasons than herding breeds, with hounds returned at a college rate due to the owner's wellness and circumstances, and sporting breeds returned at a higher rate for being unwanted. The categorization of return reasons besides showed toy breeds were returned more frequently due to the creature's health and incompatibility with children. Because the individual return reasons, working breed dogs were returned at a higher rate for aggression to animals which is unsurprising given i of the historical roles of the breed group is guarding³⁶. Future, prospective research focused on the influence of dog breed on return reasons would heighten our understanding of these associations.

Virtually returned animals were re-adopted, including lxxx% of dogs and ninety% of cats. The likelihood of re-adoption was associated with intake age, return reason, render frequency and sex activity for dogs. Age was a strong predictor of euthanasia with adult and senior dogs having approximately iv times greater odds of euthanasia, and young adult dogs displaying 2 times greater odds of euthanasia compared with puppies. Render reason was also a significant predictor of euthanasia for dogs. Dogs who were returned for creature-related reasons were more than four times more than likely to be euthanized than dogs returned for owner-related factors. Older animals and those returned for animal-related reasons may have had behavioral and/or medical concerns that meant they were unsuitable for rehoming. Animal behavior and health are also important considerations for adopters when choosing an brute^{37, 38} and animals relinquished for behavioral problems, former age, illness, and injury are less probable to be adopted³⁹. Canis familiaris breed was also associated with outcome. Pit bull-type breeds were more than than two and half times more likely to be euthanized post-return than other breed groups, replicating the findings of previous research^39,40,41. The procedure of breed designation is undoubtedly subject to potential fault. Shelter staff are inconsistent in their breed designations, and significant differences have been found between shelter breed labels and DNA analysis^42,43,44. Irrespective of the accurateness of designated breeds, brood labels have been identified equally an of import attribute in adoptability^{forty, 45}. Dogs labelled as pit bulls have been shown to spend longer in the shelter compared with phenotypically like dogs labelled as culling breeds. In the same written report, participants rated pit bulls as less intelligent, less approachable, less friendly, less adoptable, and more than aggressive than Border Collies and Labrador Retrievers⁴⁰. Pit bull-type breeds may besides differ behaviorally from other breeds, although electric current data is mixed. Some research suggests pit bulls show higher levels of interdog aggression⁴⁶, hyperactivity, impulsivity and compulsive beliefs⁴⁷ while other studies take establish the behavior of pit bulls was no worse than other breeds^{48, 49}. Although it is unclear whether the association between pit bull-type breeds and euthanasia mail-render is attributable to the breed-specific characteristics of the dog or the perceptions of the domestic dog based on breed characterization, future adoption counselling and post-adoption support services could target this group of at-risk dogs to potentially reduce returns and mail service-return euthanasia rates. Shelters may also see differences in mail service-return outcomes with removal of the breed characterization. Male dogs and dogs who were returned more than in one case also had slightly elevated odds of euthanasia.

One limitation of this study is the reliance on owner reports of return reasons. Owners may provide unreliable information at the time of return due to social desirability bias, in which individuals requite answers that they believe will be viewed more favorably past others, or to reduce the animal's risk of euthanasia. Enquiry on the topic has produced mixed results. Some data indicates that relinquishing owners reliably report their dog'southward beliefs at the time of relinquishment^fifty while other studies accept found inconsistencies betwixt relinquishing owner reports and domestic dog behavior^{51, 52}. Owner-reported render reasons are likely to also exist influenced past the adopter'due south expectations for ownership, ownership behaviors, perception of animal behavior and tolerance of behavioral problems^{8, 21}. For example, animal beliefs that is construed every bit normal by one adopter could exist considered problematic by another⁵³. This phenomenon has been documented previously whereby some owners practice non report behaviors as a problem despite reporting occurrences of the beliefs itself. Research has constitute dog owners who are employed/students, use positive reinforcement training methods just, practise non attend puppy classes or own small dogs are less likely to report trouble behaviors as a problem⁵⁴. The multifactorial nature of returns means the categorization of render reasons is also subject to potential mistake. For example, a dog that is returned for existence 'too active' may have arousal and hyperactivity problems that brand information technology difficult for the owner to manage safely, or the dog's activity level may simply be incompatible with the owner'due south lifestyle. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, we were unable to decipher such ambiguities. Futurity, prospective enquiry should aim to disentangle the owner- and animate being-related factors that contribute to post-adoption returns to increment our understanding of return reasons. The retrospective study design also prevented the inclusion of additional variables, such as animal behavior, size, ownership behaviors, and owner-beast attachment, that likely influence the homo–dog relationship and the gamble of return⁴⁹. In particular, dog size may bear on the likelihood of render⁸ and could be misreckoning the results surrounding breed. Charleston Creature Society operates an open adoption policy and encourages adopters to return animals directly to the shelter if necessary, although information technology is possible that nosotros misclassified animals who were rehomed through other avenues. The uncertain history of many animals inbound the shelter meant some variables were subject to potential fault. To reduce the risk of misclassification, we used categorical groupings where appropriate. Finally, despite the large sample size of the study, the generalizability of the findings is limited as the data were nerveless from a single facility that likely differs from other shelters. Charleston Beast Guild provides mail-adoption support services which may have reduced render rates by helping new owners to manage behavioral or medical difficulties. On the other hand, the open up return policy could have increased render rates every bit owners were enlightened that they could return the animal without any ramifications.

Through this study, nosotros accept identified groups of the shelter population that feel greater risk of post-adoption render. These data are crucial to promote successful adoptions and improve animals' outcomes as they highlight opportunities for targeted interventions and aid in the early on recognition of adopter-animal mismatches. Our results likewise pave the way for future research focused on the usefulness of interventions, such as behavioral support services, in reducing returns.

Determination

The nearly common reasons for returned adoptions at this large animal shelter in Southward Carolina were behavioral issues and incompatibility with existing pets. Taken together, our findings betoken that adult (> two–8 years) and young adult dogs (half dozen months-2 years) were most probable to be returned following adoption, primarily due to animal-based reasons, such every bit behavior. Adult dogs had the greatest odds of euthanasia post-return at nigh four times that of puppies. Toy and terrier dogs were less likely to be returned, while pit bull-type breeds were more than likely to be returned multiple times and more probable to exist euthanized post-return. Our study adds to a growing body of evidence that highlights the importance of animal behavior in the retentiveness of newly adopted animals and the development of the human-animal relationship. Our findings also provide useful direction for future adoption counselling and allocation of resources, including post-adoption support services.

Methods

Animal shelter characteristics

Charleston Beast Society is a large, open admission shelter located in South Carolina, USA. The shelter is the only open up access shelter in the region and took in approximately 3500 dogs and 4700 cats per yr between 2015 and 2019. Most animals that entered the shelter were strays, including 72% of dog and 89% of cat intakes. The remainder of shelter intakes were mostly owner relinquishments, including 24% of dog and x% of cat intakes. Charleston Brute Society operates an open adoption policy significant adopters can adopt and return animals to the shelter without sentence or ramifications. If the animal is returned within 30 days of adoption, adopters receive a refund in the course of a voucher for hereafter adoptions (except for animals adopted during fee-waived promotions). The shelter also provides post-adoption behavioral and veterinary support services. All adopted animals are eligible for a free veterinary check-upwards at local veterinary clinics and adopters can seek behavioral advice from the shelter's behavior team if needed. In virtually cases, adopters of animals with identified behavior issues likewise receive post-adoption follow-up phone calls from the behavior squad.

Variables

For all animals adopted between 1st January 2015 and 31st December 2019, sexual activity, known or estimated engagement of birth, brood (dogs only), intake date, intake type and adoption date were extracted from the electronic shelter records (PetPoint Data Management System, Version 5, Pethealth Software Solutions Inc., USA). Charleston Animal Order consented to the sharing of data equally the information are not publicly available. Animals returned to the shelter within 30 days of adoption were classified as a 'return' in the shelter'southward electronic database. To capture animals returned outside of the 30-twenty-four hours window, we extracted data for animals relinquished to the shelter within half-dozen months of the adoption where the person'southward ID was the aforementioned between the adopter and the relinquishing possessor. Nosotros then extracted return/relinquishment reason, render/relinquishment engagement, return/relinquishment event date, and return/relinquishment outcome (adoption, euthanasia, return to owner/guardian, transferred to some other animal shelter, died, return to field).

Length of stay was calculated as the number of days between the animal'south intake date and outcome date, including whatsoever fourth dimension spent in a foster dwelling. Age at intake was calculated as the number of months between the beast'southward recorded date of birth and beginning intake date. For returned animals, historic period at intake was calculated as the number of months between engagement of birth and date of initial intake (prior to the outset return between 2015 and 2019). Post-return intake age was calculated as the number of months betwixt the animate being's appointment of birth and return date. Intake age was and so categorized every bit puppy/kitten (< 6 months), young adult (> 6 months–2 years), adult (> two–viii years) and senior (> 8 years). Principal breed was adamant at intake based on staff opinion due to the dog's phenotypic characteristics or the brood provided by the relinquishing owner. Staff could include a secondary brood in the electronic tape or select 'mix' to indicate the dog was a mixed breed. Dogs were then categorized based on their primary brood designation in accordance with the American Kennel Society's brood groups as herding, hound, not-sporting, sporting, terrier, toy and working⁵⁵, with 1 additional category for pit bull-type breeds⁴⁰. Dogs listed as Catahoula Leopard dog and Treeing Tennessee Brindle were coded as hounds⁵⁶. The full listing of breeds and breed groups are provided in Supplementary Tabular array S1. Spay/neuter status was non included in the analyses as the animate being shelter mandates that all animals are sterilized prior to adoption.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated for intake age group, breed group (dogs merely), intake type, length of stay and outcome type. Length of stay was assessed for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk examination and visual inspection of histograms. Although the information were not normally distributed, contained t-tests were used to compare length of stay betwixt returned and non-returned animals every bit they are robust for skewed data sets with large sample sizes⁵⁷. Paired t-tests were used to compare length of stay at initial intake and postal service-return intake for returned dogs and cats. We and so used Pearson's Chi-Square tests to compare intake age grouping, intake type, sexual activity, and brood group (dogs but) between returned and non-returned animals. Animals with return listed as their first intake blazon between 2015 and 2019 were excluded from analyses for intake type (n = 14 dogs, northward = 1 cats). Pearson'due south Chi-Square tests were used to compare return reasons, return frequency and effect blazon by intake historic period group, sex, and breed groups (dogs just). If > 20% of cells had expected values beneath five, Fisher-Freeman-Halton Verbal exam were used. Return reasons with n ≥ fifty were also considered individually for dogs merely. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using standardized residuals⁵⁸. For animals returned more than than in one case, Fleiss' kappa was used to test the forcefulness of agreement between the return reasons provided by the first and 2nd returning owners. Binary logistic regression models were used to describe the likelihood of return (returned/not returned), return reason (possessor-based/animate being-based) and event (adopted/euthanized) based on intake age group, sex, breed group (dogs but) and return frequency (consequence but). Effect was investigated amongst dogs just due to the minor number of cats that were euthanized (n = eighteen). Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24. Statistical significance was ready at p < 0.05 without adjustment for multiple comparisons^{59, threescore}.

Data availability

The data governance arrangements for the study do not let u.s. to redistribute Charleston Fauna Society data to other parties.

References

1. ASPCA. Shelter Intake and Give up - Pet Statistics. https://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-give up/pet-statistics. (2020).

2. Rowan, A. & Kartal, T. Dog population and canis familiaris sheltering trends in the The states of America. Animals 8, 68 (2018).

   Article  Google Scholar

3. Mornement, Yard. M., Coleman, G. J., Toukhsati, Due south. R. & Bennett, P. C. Evaluation of the predictive validity of the Behavioural Assessment for Re-homing K9's (Bawl) protocol and owner satisfaction with adopted dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 167, 35–42 (2015).

   Article  Google Scholar

4. Scott, South., Jong, E., McArthur, M. & Hazel, Southward. J. Follow-up surveys of people who take adopted dogs and cats from an Australian shelter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 201, forty–45 (2018).

   Article  Google Scholar

5. Neidhart, Fifty. & Boyd, R. Companion animal adoption study. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 5, 175–192 (2002).

   CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

6. Marston, L. C., Bennett, P. C. & Coleman, M. J. Adopting shelter dogs: Owner experiences of the first calendar month mail service-adoption. Anthrozoös xviii, 358–378 (2005).

   Article  Google Scholar

7. Mondelli, F. et al. The bail that never developed: Adoption and relinquishment of dogs in a rescue shelter. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 7, 253–266 (2004).

   CAS  Article  Google Scholar

8. Diesel, G., Pfeiffer, D. & Brodbelt, D. Factors affecting the success of rehoming dogs in the Great britain during 2005. Prev. Vet. Med. 84, 228–241 (2008).

   CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Key  Google Scholar

9. Wells, D. Fifty. & Hepper, P. G. Prevalence of behaviour problems reported by owners of dogs purchased from an creature rescue shelter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69, 55–65 (2000).

   CAS  PubMed  Commodity  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

10. Kidd, A. H., Kidd, R. M. & George, C. C. Successful and unsuccessful pet adoptions. Psychol. Rep. 70, 547–561 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar

11. Patronek, G. J. & Crowe, A. Factors associated with high live release for dogs at a large, open-admission, municipal shelter. Animals 8, 45 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar

12. Marston, L. C., Bennett, P. C. & Coleman, 1000. J. What happens to shelter dogs? An analysis of data for i year from iii Australian shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. seven, 27–47 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

13. Fricke, I. 'Return' is non a muddy word - Pets who come dorsum nowadays opportunities for u.s.a. to acquire, https://world wide web.animalsheltering.org/blog/return-not-dirty-give-and-take (2017).

14. Hamrick, L. All in good time - Trial adoptions can pave the way to more and ameliorate matches. https://www.animalsheltering.org/web log/all-adept-time (2020).

15. Gunter, L. Thou., Feuerbacher, East. N., Gilchrist, R. J. & Wynne, C. D. Evaluating the effects of a temporary fostering program on shelter dog welfare. PeerJ vii, e6620 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

16. Taylor, K. & Mills, D. The outcome of the kennel environment on canine welfare: A critical review of experimental studies. Anim. Welf. 16, 435 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar

17. Shore, E. R. Returning a recently adopted companion fauna: Adopters' reasons for and reactions to the failed adoption experience. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 8, 187–198 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

18. Hawes, S. Chiliad., Kerrigan, J. M., Hupe, T. & Morris, 1000. Due north. Factors informing the return of adopted dogs and cats to an animal shelter. Animals ten, 1573 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar

19. Casey, R. A., Vandenbussche, South., Bradshaw, J. W. & Roberts, M. A. Reasons for relinquishment and return of domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) to rescue shelters in the UK. Anthrozoös 22, 347–358 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar

20. American Humane Association. Keeping pets (dogs and cats) in homes: A iii-phase retention written report. (http://www.americanhumane.org/petsmart-keeping-pets-stage-ii.pdf, 2012).

21. Patronek, Chiliad. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, Thou. P. & Ecker, C. Run a risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an fauna shelter. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 209, 572–581 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

22. Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T. & Moyer, M. R. Population dynamics and the run a risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös 8, 31–43 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar

23. McGreevy, P. D. & Masters, A. Thou. Risk factors for separation-related distress and feed-related assailment in dogs: Additional findings from a survey of Australian dog owners. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109, 320–328 (2008).

    Commodity  Google Scholar

24. Martínez, Á. G., Pernas, Chiliad. S., Casalta, F. J. D., Rey, M. L. South. & De la Cruz Palomino, 50. F. Chance factors associated with behavioral problems in dogs. J. Vet. Behav. six, 225–231 (2011).

25. Dietz, 50., Arnold, A.-Yard.K., Goerlich-Jansson, V. C. & Vinke, C. M. The importance of early life experiences for the development of behavioural disorders in domestic dogs. Behaviour 155, 83–114 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar

26. Kass, P. H., New, J. C. Jr., Scarlett, J. M. & Salman, M. D. Understanding animal companion surplus in the U.s.: Relinquishment of nonadoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 4, 237–248 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar

27. Asher, L., England, M. C., Sommerville, R. & Harvey, Due north. D. Teenage dogs? Evidence for adolescent-phase conflict behaviour and an clan betwixt zipper to humans and pubertal timing in the domestic dog. Biol. Lett. 16, 20200097 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

28. Dark-brown, W. P. & Stephan, V. Fifty. The influence of degree of socialization and age on length of stay of shelter cats. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1–8 (2020).

29. Casey, R. A. & Bradshaw, J. W. S. The effects of additional socialisation for kittens in a rescue middle on their behaviour and suitability as a pet. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 196–205 (2008).

    Commodity  Google Scholar

30. Buckland, East. 50., Murray, J. One thousand., Woodward, J. L., Da Costa, R. East. O. & Casey, R. A. in ISAZ 2020.

31. Powell, L. et al. Expectations for dog ownership: Perceived physical, mental and psychosocial health consequences amid prospective adopters. PLoS ONE thirteen, e0200276 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar

32. Seksel, K. Preventing behavior issues in puppies and kittens. Vet. Clin. Northward. Am. Minor Anim. Pract. 38, 971–982 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar

33. Dinnage, J. D., Scarlett, J. Thousand. & Richards, J. R. Descriptive epidemiology of feline upper respiratory tract disease in an brute shelter. J. Feline Med. Surg. eleven, 816–825 (2009).

    PubMed  Commodity  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

34. Pedersen, N. C., Sato, R., Foley, J. E. & Poland, A. Mutual virus infections in cats, before and later on existence placed in shelters, with emphasis on feline enteric coronavirus. J. Feline Med. Surg. six, 83–88 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

35. Hart, Fifty. A. et al. Compatibility of cats with children in the family. Front. Vet. Sci. 5, 278 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Key  Article  Google Scholar

36. Mehrkam, L. R. & Wynne, C. D. Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): Current status of the science. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 155, 12–27 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar

37. Siettou, C., Fraser, I. G. & Fraser, R. W. Investigating some of the factors that influence "consumer" choice when adopting a shelter dog in the United Kingdom. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 17, 136–147 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

38. Weiss, E., Miller, K., Mohan-Gibbons, H. & Vela, C. Why did y'all choose this pet?: Adopters and pet pick preferences in v beast shelters in the United States. Animals 2, 144–159 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

39. Lepper, M., Kass, P. H. & Hart, Fifty. A. Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia among dogs and cats in a California animal shelter. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. v, 29–42 (2002).

    CAS  Commodity  Google Scholar

40. Gunter, L. G., Barber, R. T. & Wynne, C. D. What'south in a proper noun? Effect of breed perceptions and labeling on attractiveness, adoptions and length of stay for pit-bull-type dogs. PLoS ONE 11, e0146857 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar

41. Svoboda, H. & Hoffman, C. Investigating the function of glaze colour, age, sex, and brood on outcomes for dogs at two animal shelters in the United states of america. Anim. Welf. 24, 497–506 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar

42. Voith, Five. L., Ingram, E., Mitsouras, M. & Irizarry, M. Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 12, 253–262 (2009).

    CAS  Commodity  Google Scholar

43. Hoffman, C. L., Harrison, N., Wolff, L. & Westgarth, C. Is that canis familiaris a pit bull? A cross-country comparison of perceptions of shelter workers regarding brood identification. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 17, 322–339 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

44. Olson, Thousand. R. et al. Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. Vet. J. 206, 197–202 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

45. Cohen, Due north. P., Chodorow, M. & Byosiere, S.-Eastward. A label's a characterization, no matter the dog: Evaluating the generalizability of the removal of breed labels from adoption cards. PLoS 1 15, e0238176 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

46. Duffy, D. L., Hsu, Y. & Serpell, J. A. Breed differences in canine assailment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 441–460 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar

47. Salonen, M. et al. Prevalence, comorbidity, and brood differences in canine anxiety in 13,700 Finnish pet dogs. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–eleven (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

48. MacNeil-Allcock, A., Clarke, N., Ledger, R. & Fraser, D. Assailment, behaviour and animal care amongst pit bulls and other dogs adopted from an animal shelter. Anim. Welf. UFAW J. twenty, 463 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar

49. Kwan, J. Y. & Bain, M. J. Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment and training techniques of dogs. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. sixteen, 168–183 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

50. Duffy, D. L., Kruger, K. A. & Serpell, J. A. Evaluation of a behavioral assessment tool for dogs relinquished to shelters. Prev. Vet. Med. 117, 601–609 (2014).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Primal  Google Scholar

51. Segurson, S. A., Serpell, J. A. & Hart, B. 50. Evaluation of a behavioral assessment questionnaire for use in the label of behavioral issues of dogs relinquished to animal shelters. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 227, 1755–1761 (2005).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

52. Stephen, J. & Ledger, R. Relinquishing dog owners' ability to predict behavioural problems in shelter dogs post adoption. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 107, 88–99 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar

53. Pirrone, F., Pierantoni, L., Mazzola, S. M., Vigo, D. & Albertini, Chiliad. Possessor and brute factors predict the incidence of, and owner reaction toward, problematic behaviors in companion dogs. J. Vet. Behav. x, 295–301 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar

54. Lord, Thou. S. et al. Owner perception of trouble behaviours in dogs aged half dozen and ix-months. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 232, 105147 (2020).

    Commodity  Google Scholar

55. American Kennel Club. List Of Breeds By Grouping. https://www.akc.org/public-education/resource/general-tips-information/domestic dog-breeds-sorted-groups/ (2020).

56. Protopopova, A., Gilmour, A. J., Weiss, R. H., Shen, J. Y. & Wynne, C. D. L. The effects of social grooming and other factors on adoption success of shelter dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 142, 61–68 (2012).

    Commodity  Google Scholar

57. Fagerland, Thousand. West. t-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—a paradox of statistical practice?. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12, 78 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Article  Google Scholar

58. Sharpe, D. Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what?. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 20, 8 (2015).

    Google Scholar

59. Feise, R. J. Practice multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2, 1–iv (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar

60. Rothman, K. J. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 43–46 (1990).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Nosotros thank Charleston Animal Society for providing their support, expertise, and data throughout this study.

Writer information

Author notes

1. These authors jointly supervised this piece of work: James Serpell and Brittany Watson.

Affiliations

1. School of Veterinary Medicine, Academy of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United states of america

   Lauren Powell, Chelsea Reinhard, James Serpell & Brittany Watson

2. Charleston Fauna Society, Northward Charleston, SC, USA

   Donya Satriale & Margaret Morris

Contributions

L.P., C. R., B. Westward. and J.S. conceived and designed the study. D.South. and Thousand.M. provided the original data. L.P. extracted the data, performed the information analyses, and drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted manuscript.

Respective writer

Correspondence to Lauren Powell.

Ideals declarations

Competing interests

D.S. and M.M. are paid employees of Charleston Animal Society. Charleston Animal Club did not fund this enquiry or contribute to the study design, information analysis or initial drafting of the manuscript. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional data

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This commodity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you lot requite appropriate credit to the original author(due south) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended apply is non permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you volition need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this commodity

Cite this article

Powell, L., Reinhard, C., Satriale, D. et al. Characterizing unsuccessful beast adoptions: historic period and breed predict the likelihood of return, reasons for render and postal service-return outcomes. Sci Rep 11, 8018 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87649-two

Download commendation

• Received: 22 January 2021

• Accepted: 30 March 2021

• Published: 13 April 2021

• DOI : https://doi.org/x.1038/s41598-021-87649-ii

Further reading

• The impact of returning a pet to the shelter on future brute adoptions

  • Lauren Powell
  • Chelsea Fifty. Reinhard
  • Brittany Watson

  Scientific Reports (2022)

Comments

By submitting a comment you concord to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you lot find something abusive or that does non comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87649-2

Posted by: thompsonocces1967.blogspot.com

Share this post