Address for

DVM, MSc (in

and Animal Hea

University of Sa

E-mail: osw

1558-7878/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.jv

Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2013) 8, 3-8

RESEARCH

Grouping protocol in shelters

Oswaldo Santosa,b, Gina Poloa,b, Rita Garciab, Eduardo Oliveirab,c, Adriana Vieirac,Nestor Calderonb,d, Rudy De Meestere

aGrupo de Bienestar Animal (BIAN), Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecina, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,Bogota D.C., Colombia;bInstituto Tecnico de Educacao e Controle Animal (ITEC), Cotia, Sao Paulo, Brazil;cCentro de Controle de Zoonoses, Gerencia de Controle da Raiva, Guarulhos, Brazil;dCentro de Investigacion de la Interrelacion de la Salud Animal, Humana y Ecologica (CISHAE), Universidad de La Salle,Bogota D.C, Colombia; andeDepartment of Animal Sciences, Catholic Ghent University College, Ghent, Belgium.

KEYWORDS: Abstract Dog population dynamics in shelters often requires the grouping of individuals, and changes

dog;shelter;bites;grouping;environmentalenrichment;

behavioral modification

to the composition of those groups. We developed a protocol to maximize the positive effects and re-duce the negative effects associated with grouping dogs. Twenty-three neutered dogs that had to begrouped participated in the study. Fifteen were adult females, 7 were adult males, and 1 was a juvenilefemale. The protocol was divided into phases that allowed the use of environmental enrichment (oc-cupational, social, nutritional, and sensorial) and behavioral modification (systematic desensitizationand counter-conditioning). There were no fights involving bites during the formation of groups. In 5(18.5%) of formed pairs, we observed unidirectional manifestations of aggression that did not involvephysical contact. Three pairs (10%) could not be formed because we saw bidirectional aggression man-ifestation involving physical contact but no bites. The proposed protocol is a viable alternative to im-prove grouping of dogs in the context of shelters. The protocol also has the potential to promotewellness, enhance production of desirable behaviors, and decrease the presence of behavioral prob-lems.� 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Constant transit of dogs in shelters, changes in their

Introduction

In some Brazilian states, euthanasia of healthy companionanimals in public and private animal shelters is prohibited(Sao Paulo, 2008; Rio Grande do Sul, 2009; Pernambuco,2010). As a consequence, dogs must be housed until theyare rehomed, die, or are euthanized for medical reasons.

reprint requests and correspondence: Oswaldo Santos,

progress), Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine

lth, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science,

o Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Tel: 1055-11-7104-9825.

aldo@vps.fmvz.usp.br

ee front matter � 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

eb.2012.03.002

health status, and behavioral problems (e.g., aggression)often necessitate grouping new dogs or rearranging estab-lished groups (Newbury et al., 2010). According to recentdirectives, housed animals should be maintained in stablegroups of compatible individuals (Anonymous, 2010). Incases where single housing is needed, the duration shouldbe limited to the minimum period necessary, and visual, au-ditory, olfactory, and/or tactile contact should be main-tained (Anonymous, 2010). Group housing of dogs,mainly in pairs, has positive effects on human–animal rela-tionships, behavioral health, adoption rate, and adoptionsuccess (Mertens and Unshelm, 1996). Moreover, group

4 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 8, No 1, January/February 2013

housing may reduce the frequency of vocalizations (Hettset al., 1992), could act as a social buffer compensatingfor the lack of space (De Palma et al., 2005), and mightcontribute to a positive social experience, which allowfaster integration of dogs to new situations (Sondereggerand Turner, 1996). Nevertheless, group housing is also as-sociated with negative consequences, such as fighting,physical risks of infectious disease exposure, and alsofear, stress, and anxiety in some members of the group(Newbury et al., 2010).

Dog fighting has negative implications for the welfare ofanimals and also can result in bite injuries suffered bypersonnel who try to separate dogs. In addition, someinjuries may require complex treatments, increasing thecosts associated with their care through use of additionalsupplies, staff commitment, and extra days of care for dogsthat cannot be offered for adoption because of the severityof injuries.

Some experiences can cause or exacerbate the presen-tation of aggressive behaviors (Mertens, 2002; Bradshawet al., 2009; Haug, 2008), and fighting could be one ofsuch experiences. This is relevant considering that behav-ioral problems, including aggressiveness, have been identi-fied as an important reason for relinquishment, and oftenthose dogs were sourced from shelters originally (Salmanet al., 2000; Corridan, 2010).

Using environmental enrichment, it is possible to in-crease behavioral diversity, reduce the frequency of behav-ioral problems, increase the number of normal behavioralpatterns, and increase the ability to cope with challenges(Calderon, 2010; Ellis, 2009). Behavioral modificationtechniques, such as systematic desensitization andcounter-conditioning, have been shown to be effective inthe management of interdog aggression in shelters (Oriheland Fraser, 2008). Both approaches may improve the be-havior and welfare of dogs, and this means that adoptionprograms can offer animals more appropriate for establish-ing healthy human–dog bond.

In this context, an ethological approach is needed to (1)evaluate the animals’ behavior, (2) offer rehabilitationopportunities to animals with behavioral problems, (3)determine in which conditions the adoption of an animal issafe and convenient, and (4) implement a postadoptionmonitoring program (Newbury et al., 2010).

In the past, the staff of the Zoonoses Control Center(ZCC) of Guarulhos subjectively decided which dogs weresuitable to group, and the formation of groups was made ina closed environment, with dogs being off leash. Althoughno detailed data were available, fighting during grouping ofdogs was considered by the staff of the ZCC of Guarulhosas one of the major problems. Owing to ethical consider-ations, we decided not to make a control group. Theobjective of this study was to evaluate the results of a newprotocol that uses environmental enrichment and behavioralmodification techniques to form or rearrange groups ofdogs.

Material and methods

This study was conducted in a public shelter fromGuarulhos, Brazil, between May and June 2010. Therewas a mean of 120 sheltered dogs distributed in groups of 3and 4 maintained in kennels with a length of 4.9 m and awidth of 3.80 m. Two intact adult male dogs were selectedbecause they had completed the quarantine period, andincoming dogs were required to be placed in the quarantinekennels. Twenty-one neutered dogs (15 adult females, 5adult males, and one 5-month female) were selectedbecause the dogs with which they had been grouped fought,got ill, or were adopted, thereby leaving free space avail-able for other dogs. In formation of groups, we tried to mixdogs of different sex with similar size. Before grouping, thedogs were trained to sit and to walk without pulling, usingprocedures described by Luescher and Medlock (2009);however, instead of using the Gentle Leader (Premier PetProducts, LLC, Midlothian, VA), we used a rope to makea head collar with functionality similar to that of the com-mercial product (Figure 1).

Once the dogs obeyed the commands without failingafter 3 consecutive times, they were considered ready forthe grouping procedure.

The grouping protocol developed used 4 phases thatallowed the application of different kinds of environmentalenrichment and behavioral modification techniques. Phase1 allowed distance recognition between dogs; phases 2 and3 emphasized on progressive approach to them; and inphase 4, dogs being grouped were placed in a kennel. Dogswore head collars during the first 2 phases.

The grouping protocol began with 2 dogs, each associ-ated with a handler identified as A or B. When there was aneed to create groups of 3 or 4 dogs, all possible pairsbetween those dogs were formed and then, beginning with1 pair, the group was completed by adding the remainingdogs (one first and then the other in cases of groups of 4members).

Phase 1ddistance recognition (scheduled time,5 minutes)

In an open place, 3 points were identified, forming animaginary triangle of 10 ! 10 ! 14 m. Dogs passed eachof the 3 points in turn, maintaining the distance between 2points. Dogs could urinate, defecate, and smell at eachpoint. The handlers positively reinforced calm behaviorswith affective words, treats, or/and petting at each point.Between points, the handlers just used positive words as apositive reinforcement of calm behaviors.

Handler B with his dog first began in the front and,having passed the third point, walked out at least 5 m awayfrom the triangle. Then, handler A and his dog completedthe pass by the last point, and all this was repeated onemore time, with handler A in the front and handler B in the

Figure 1 Steps to make a head collar with a rope.

Figure 2 Circle on the ground to guide handlers in phase2dprogressive approximation.

Santos et al Grouping protocol in shelters 5

back. The dog from the back had the opportunity to smellthe places the dog in the front had passed. Finally, dogswere walked to the place used for the second phase,maintaining a minimal distance of 5 m between them.

Phase 2dprogressive approximation (scheduledtime, 11 minutes 30 seconds withoutconsidering extra repetition caused byaggressive manifestations)

In an open place of 10 ! 10 m2, we designed a circlewith points on the ground to guide the handlers. The circlehad a 10-m diameter, and in clock positions 12 and 6, therewere 2 points identified with letters A and B. Another 2points were designed in clock positions 3 and 9. Insidethe circle, 4 equidistant points were marked with lettersand numbers (Figure 2).

This phase consisted of 5 steps, and progression fromone step to the next was only made when it was possible torepeat the step 3 times without any aggressive incidentfrom either of the dogs. In this phase, calm behavior waspositively reinforced with affective words, treats, andpetting. If it was not possible after 3 attempts, the entiregrouping process was repeated the following day using adifferent pair composition. If the second grouping attemptfailed, the dogs were appointed to an individual kennel.

We used the scale proposed by Netto and Planta (1997)to categorize aggressive behavior.

Step 1 (scheduled time, 2:30 minutes): beginning atpoints A and B (Figure 2), dogs were walked clockwise onthe circle to complete 1 spin. Calm behavior was positively

reinforced with affective words and petting at the points lo-cated on the circle.

Step 2 (scheduled time, 1 minute): beginning at points Aand B, dogs were walked to the 1A and 1B points,respectively, where calm behavior and sit command werepositively reinforced before returning to A and B points.

Step 3 (scheduled time, 1 minute): beginning at points Aand B, dogs were walked to the 2A and 2B points,respectively, where calm behavior and sit command werepositively reinforced before returning to A and B points. Onthird repetition, the dog A was walked to point A and thedog B was also walked to point A (instead of point B) tocontinue with the next step.

Table Aggressive behaviors observed in 8 pairs of dogs during the grouping protocol in the Zoonoses Control Center of Guarulhos,Brazil

Pair Individual sex 1 Aggressive manifestation Phase Individual sex 2 Response to aggression Protocol completed

1 F Showed teeth 3 F No Yes2 M Snapped 3 F No Yes3 M Snapped 3 F No Yes4 M Snapped 3 F No Yes5 F Snapped 3 M No Yes6 F Snapped 3 F Growled No7 M Snapped 3 F Snapped No8 M Growled 2-3 M Growled No

F, female; M, male.

6 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 8, No 1, January/February 2013

Step 4 (scheduled time: 6 minutes): beginning at pointA, dogs were walked clockwise on the circle, with handlerA and his dog at the front and handler B with his dogfollowing them closely but not allowing physical contact.At the points located on the circle, the dogs that were at theback had the opportunity to smell the other dog for1 second, and calm behavior was positively reinforced inboth dogs. After 1 spin, the dog at the back passed to thefront, and one more spin was made.

Step 5 (scheduled time, 1 minute): walking one to theside of the other, dogs were taken to the position of phase 3.

Phase 3dapproach without head collars(scheduled time, 5 minutes)

Each dogwas held in an enclosed areawith a dimension of12! 2 m2. At the same time, the dogs were released withoutthe head collars, and handlers remained in silence, avoidingabrupt movements.When dogs completed 5minutes of inter-actions without aggressive manifestations, the next phasecould be started. When a bigger group had to be formed,all possible pairs between the dogs to be included in thegroup were formed at this point. When the last pair reachedthis phase, the dogs previously paired were added to the lastpair, one by one, at 5-minute intervals, whenever aggressivemanifestations were not observed.

Phase 4dintroduction of a group into thekennel (scheduled time, 5 minutes)

Once the group had been completed, it was transportedto the kennel and monitored until 5 minutes passed withoutany aggressive incident. If the dogs continued exhibitingaggression after 10 minutes, the grouping protocol wasstopped and attempted again the following day. If thesecond attempt failed with this group composition, rear-rangement of group members was attempted until asuccessful grouping was achieved. After finishing thisphase, monitoring was performed every 30 minutes duringthe rest of the day.

Results

We formed 27 pairs of dogs from 30 attempted pairings.Nineteen (70.3%) of them were formed with dogs ofopposite sex, and 8 (29.7%) were of females. Some ofthese pairs were subsequently combined to form 3 groupsof 3 dogs and 2 groups of 4.

Twenty-two (81.5%) pairs were formed successfullywithout any aggressive manifestations. Further 5 pairs(18.5%) were formed, but although there were no fightsinvolving bites, other unidirectional aggressive behaviorswere observed in phase 3 (Table). The remaining 3 pairscould not be formed because the dogs demonstrated bidi-rectional aggressive behavior that did not resolve with therepetition of the phase, the same day or the next (Table).However, all dogs were successfully grouped when thecomposition of pairs was changed.

Discussion

Our aim was to create a simple protocol that could easily beincorporated into daily shelter routines. The protocolconsisted of (i) 2 handlers, (ii) 2 ropes, (iii) 2 open spaces,and (iv) 1 enclosed space. We used ropes to make head col-lars owing to the low cost of this material and the wide useof it in the ZCC of Guarulhos. The 4 phases were organizedto allow the implementation of environmental enrichmentand behavioral modification techniques. We used desensi-tization (progressive approach between dogs when theywere clamed) and counter-conditioning (positive reinforce-ment of calm behavior and sit command in the presence ofthe other dog) to manage interdog aggression (Orihel andFraser, 2008). It has been demonstrated that olfactory, audi-tory, visual, and tactile stimulation may produce changes inthe biological functioning that are suggestive of enhancedphysical and/or psychological welfare (Graham et al.,2005; Tod et al., 2005; Wells, 2009). The use of 3 locations,all bigger than kennels and 2 of which were open spaceswith grass areas, allowed the diversification of sensorystimulation and possibly contributed to the welfare of the

Santos et al Grouping protocol in shelters 7

dogs. Use of the protocol also encouraged physical activitythat could act as a mental stimulation. Handlers also hadadditional exercise as part of the protocol, benefiting theirhealth as well (Cutt et al., 2007; Coleman et al., 2008).Teaching dogs to sit down and walk without pulling facili-tated their management and allowed for the use of behav-ioral modification techniques (Luescher and Medlock,2009). This improves dog behavior, has the potential to en-hance the adoption success (Hays, 2004; Luescher andMedlock, 2009), and may act as an occupational (mental)enrichment. Positive reinforcement of desirable behaviorsthrough petting, affective words, and treats is also a meansof implementing social (interspecific) enrichment, and atthe same time, treats may also be a part of nutritional en-richment. It has been demonstrated that interspecific inter-action can modify a dog’s behavior and facilitate adoptions(Normando et al., 2009).

In the first 2 phases in which dogs were held with headcollars, we did not observe aggressive behaviors (except in1 dog), and in the third phase, when the dogs encounteredeach other without the head collars, aggressive behaviorswere observed. The absence of aggressive behaviors duringthe first 2 phases could be due to the effects of desensitization,counter-conditioning, appropriate use of head collars, andputative environmental enrichment. It is possible that ag-gressive behaviors occurred in the third phase because of theanxiety caused by the physical encounter (Bradshaw et al.,2009). In phase 4, we did not observe aggressive behaviors;however, once finished the protocol, 1 dog behaved aggres-sively. This aggression manifested at the time of feeding,so the dog was subsequently fed in isolation; this resolvedthe problem.

The need for the availability of different locations tocomplete the different phases of the protocol and theavailability of handlers to group dogs through the protocolmay be a hindrance for its use; however, this must bebalanced against the potential benefits. Efforts to overcomethe difficulties related to the implementation of the protocolare cost-effective if problems associated with fights can besolved. Although the staff of the ZCC of Guarulhos consid-ered the protocol effective, we could not compare theeffectiveness of this protocol against previously developedprotocols (e.g., leaving them off leash in a closed space)owing to the lack of data. This protocol did demonstratepotential to act as an environmental enrichment strategy andto enhance the effectiveness of adoptions.

Conclusion

The protocol proposed was developed as an alternativemeans of successfully grouping dogs in the ZCC ofGuarulhos. Grouping dogs was one of the major issuesfor the staff owing to the seriousness of the problemsassociated with dog fighting. Having implemented thisprotocol to form 30 pairs of dogs, there were no fightsinvolving bites. The protocol could be implemented not just

to grouping dogs but also as a strategy of periodicenvironmental enrichment. Further studies could be con-ducted to evaluate the impact of the protocol in the successof adoptions.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Cristina Magnabosco, director ofthe Department of hygiene and Health Protection, fromHealth Secretary of Guarulhos City. They also thankGilberto Sousa de Medeiros, Marcia Aparecida Grosso,Renata Reinhardt, Ana Carolina Sarmento de Oliveira, JoaoPaulo Slupko da Silva, and all individuals who participatedin this study. A special thanks goes to Claire Corridan forher linguistic help and the suggestions to improve thedocument.

References

Anonymous, 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and

of the Council. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri5OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:En:PDF.

Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J., Casey, R.A., 2009. Dominance in do-

mestic dogs-useful construct or bad habit? J. Vet. Behav.: Clin.

Appl. Res. 4, 135-144.

Calderon, N., 2010. Bienestar Animal. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias

Veterinarias, Vol. 1. pp. 48-57. Available at: http://issuu.com/academi

acienciasveterinarias/docs/revistaacademian2v1#download. Accessed

April 28, 2012.

Coleman, K.J., Rosenberg, D.E., Conway, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E.,

Frank, L.D., Cain, K., 2008. Physical activity, weight status, and

neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev. Med. 47, 309-312.

Corridan, C.L., 2010. The Role of Owner Expectation in Development of a

Successful Human: Dog Bond. University of Lincoln, Lincoln, Eng-

land, UK.

Cutt, H., Giles, B., Knuiman, M., Burke, V., 2007. Dog ownership, health

and physical activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place

13, 261-272.

De Palma, C., Viggiano, M., Barillari, E., Palme, R., Dufour, A.B.,

Fantini, C., Natoli, E., 2005. Evaluating the temperament in shelter

dogs. Behaviour 142, 1307-1328.

Ellis, S., 2009. Environmental enrichment practical strategies for improv-

ing feline welfare. J. Feline Med. Surg. 11, 901-912.

Graham, L., Wells, D.L., Hepper, P.G., 2005. The influence of olfactory

stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91, 143-153.

Haug, L.I., 2008. Canine aggression toward unfamiliar people and dogs.

In: Landsberg, G.M., Horwitz, D.F. (Eds.), 2008. Practical Applica-

tions and New Perspectives in Veterinary Behaviour. Veterinary

Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice, Vol. 38. W. B. Sa-

unders Co., Cornell Univeristy, USA, pp. 1023-1041.

Hays, L.D., 2004. Effects of Standardized Obedience Program on Ap-

proachability and Problems Behaviours in Dogs From Rescue Shelters

[master’s thesis]. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/1261. Accessed January 27,

2011.

Hetts, S., Clark, J.D., Calpin, J.P., Arnold, C.E., Mateo, J.M., 1992. Influ-

ence of housing conditions on beagle behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav.

Sci. 34, 137-155.

Luescher, A.U., Medlock, R.T., 2009. The effects of training and environ-

mental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogs. Appl. Anim.

Behav. Sci. 117, 63-68.

8 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 8, No 1, January/February 2013

Mertens, P.A., 2002. Canine aggression. In: Horwitz, D., Mills, D.,

Heath, S. (Eds.), BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural

Medicine. BSAVA, Gloucester, UK, pp. 195-215.

Mertens, P.A., Unshelm, J., 1996. Effects of group and individual housing on

the behavior of kenneled dogs in animal shelters. Anthrozoos 9, 40-51.

Netto, W.J., Planta, D.J.U., 1997. Behavioural testing for aggression in the

domestic dog. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 52, 243-263.

Newbury, S., Blinn, M., Bushby, P., Barker, C., Dinnage, J., Griffin, B.,

Hurley, K., Isaza, N., Jones, W., Miller, L., O’Quin, J., Patronek, G.,

Smith-Blacmore, M., Spindel, M., 2010. Guidelines for Standards of

Care in Animal Shelters. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians.

Available at: http://www.sheltervet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&

subarticlenbr=29. Accessed April 28, 2012.

Normando, S., Corain, L., Salvadoretti, M., Meers, L., Valsecchi, P., 2009.

Effects of an enhanced human interaction program on shelter dogs’

behaviour analysed using a novel nonparametric test. Appl. Anim. Be-

hav. Sci. 116, 211-219.

Orihel, J.S., Fraser, D., 2008. A note on the effectiveness of behavioural

rehabilitation for reducing inter-dog aggression in shelter dogs.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 112, 400-405.

Pernambuco. Lei Ordinaria N� 1521/2010. Estado de Pernambuco Assem-

bleia Legislativa. Available at: http://www.alepe.pe.gov.br/paginas/in

dex.php?id53598&paginapai53576&numero51521%2F2010. Ac-

cessed January 27, 2011.

Rio Grande do Sul. Lei Estadual N 13.193, DE 30 DE JUNHO DE 2009, In

Ministerio Publico Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Available at: http://

www.mp.rs.gov.br/ambiente/legislacao. Accessed January 27, 2011.

Salman, M.D., Ruch, R., Kogan, L., New, J.C., Kass, P.H., Scarlett, J.M.,

2000. Behavioural reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12

shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 3, 93-106.

Sao Paulo (Estado) (April 2008). Lei No 12.916, de 16 de Abril de 2008.

In Diario Oficial do Estado de Sao Paulo. Available at: http://dobusca

direta.imprensaoficial.com.br/default.aspx?DataPublicacao520080417&

Caderno5DOE-I&NumeroPagina51. Accessed January 27, 2011. ftp://

ftp.saude.sp.gov.br/ftpsessp/bibliote/informe_eletronico/2008/iels.abril.

08/iels73/E_LE-12916_160408.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2012.

Sonderegger, S.M., Turner, D.C., 1996. Introducing dogs into kennels: pre-

diction of social tendencies to facilitate integration. Anim. Welf. 5,

391-404.

Tod, E., Brander, D., Waran, N., 2005. Efficacy of dog appeasing phero-

mone in reducing stress and fear related behaviour in shelter dogs.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 93, 295-308.

Wells, D., 2009. Sensory stimulation as environmental enrichment for cap-

tive animals: a review. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 118, 1-11.