The public has expressed growing concern for the well-being of fishes, including popular pet species such as the Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). In captivity, male Bettas behave aggressively, often causing injuries and death if housed together. As a result, they are typically isolated in small fishbowls, which has been widely criticised as cruel. To investigate the impact of keeping Bettas in these conditions, we recorded the behaviour of individual males in containers of different sizes that were either bare or enriched with gravel, large rocks, and live plants. When male Bettas were housed individually in small bowls (0.5 L) they spent less time swimming than they did when they were kept in larger aquaria (10, 38, and 208 L). Fish that were kept in enriched containers exhibited more instances of swimming. To determine if two male Bettas housed together might coexist peacefully if given enough space and cover from plants and large rocks, we quantified the behaviour of pairs of male Bettas in bare or enriched aquaria of different sizes (10, 38, 208, 378 L). Fish performed fewer approaches and aggressive displays, but not attacks, and more bouts of foraging, when in larger aquaria. This study shows that the small fishbowls typically used in pet stores suppress swimming behaviour in male Bettas and at least a 10-L aquarium is required to ensure full expression of swimming behaviour. Furthermore, even the use of very large aquaria cannot guarantee peaceful cohabitation between two males.

Concerns over compromised companion rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus domesticus) welfare are widespread. The welfare problems have been linked to the perception of rabbits as low investment ‘children’s pets.’ To test this hypothesis and investigate the current conditions for rabbits, data were gathered from two surveys in 2021: a nationally representative survey of Danish companion animal owners (Survey I) and a detailed social media-based survey of Danish rabbit owners (Survey II). Using logistic regression, three owner-related variables (whether a child/adult was responsible for care of the rabbit, owner-opinion on rabbits’ suitability as ‘starter pets’ and willingness-to-pay [WTP] for veterinary treatment) were employed to investigate the effect of rabbit status on owner-provision of selected husbandry conditions. The 76 (Survey I) and 4,335 (Survey II) responses suggested that most rabbits are acquired for children and are solitarily housed, and that many are kept in cages of an unsuitable size and not checked daily. Owners who perceived rabbits as ‘starter pets’ and with lower WTP were more likely to house rabbits in restricted space and to not provide continuous gnawing opportunities, ad libitum hay or routine healthcare. A child fulfilling the role of the rabbit’s main caretaker was also associated with inadequate housing type and fewer gnawing opportunities. Thus, many rabbits live in unsuitable conditions, and owners who perceive rabbits as low investment ‘children’s pets’ are more likely to not provide recommended resources. Changing owners’ perceptions of rabbits and promoting suitable husbandry through official education programmes and minimum requirements is important if there are to be improvements made to rabbit welfare.

Although the term ‘quality of life’ (QoL) is not unfamiliar to veterinary surgeons, only recently has the scientific community attempted to measure it in farm and companion animals. Typically such studies have applied methodologies from the field of human health-related quality of life (HRQoL), without due consideration of the applicability of both the term and its measurement to animals. However, it is necessary to clarify the philosophical basis of QoL if it is to be defended as a rigorous and reliable aid to decision-making in animal welfare science. In this paper we review common concepts in human HRQoL and discuss the value of, and difficulties regarding, the transfer of the concept of human HRQoL to companion animals. Human definitions tend to focus on individuals and their assessment of the state of their life in terms of physical, social and psychological functioning. The use of the term ‘quality of life’ for animals may therefore expand on what is usually considered when using the term ‘welfare’, and thereby improve on current practice, which tends to focus on relatively few outcome measures that are largely indicative of poor welfare. However, failure in the human literature to properly define QoL and defend the choice of measures accordingly, together with the common use of objective indicators and proxies, has led to confusion over the relative roles of objective and subjective measures in the determination and constitution of QoL. A suggestion for an appropriate definition of animal QoL that clarifies these relationships is offered, together with a list of social/environmental and physical/psychological health-related domains that may be suitable for a generic companion animal QoL assessment tool. In the absence of knowledge on both basic needs and individual preferences, particularly for institutionalised animals, QoL tools may be more appropriately designed as outcome-based tools, focussing on observable signs of health and behaviour. The extent to which recent QoL assessment tools for companion animals have covered these domains, and the extent to which the psychometric properties of the tools have been addressed, is also briefly discussed.

How and why dog owners select a specific breed may impact upon the health of the dog they acquire, and upon the wider health of the breed they select. Brachycephalic breeds are rapidly increasing in popularity despite increasing evidence linking brachycephalism with chronic and severe health conditions. This study used a questionnaire to explore pre-, during and post-purchase behaviours and attitudes of dog-owners who own popular brachycephalic dog breeds (n = 3 breeds) compared to popular non-brachycephalic dog breeds (n = 7 breeds). The survey received 1,427 valid responses. Brachycephalic breed owners were younger, more likely to live with children, and to be buying their chosen breed for the first time. The factor that most highly influenced brachycephalic owners’ decisions to buy their breed was appearance, followed by breed size suited to lifestyle, good dog breed for children and good companion breed. Perceived health of the breed was less influential in decision-making for brachycephalic owners compared to non-brachycephalic owners. The way in which owners acquired their dog differed by breed type, with brachycephalic owners more likely to use puppyselling websites to find their dog, less likely to see either parent of their puppy, and less likely to ask to see any health records. Despite many brachycephalic breed health issues being directly related to conformation, appearance remains the most significant determinant in why people desire these breeds. More targeted educational interventions are needed to change buyer attitudes and, if ineffective, other more direct mechanisms (eg legislation) may be required to protect canine welfare.

The European regulatory framework lacks standardisation as regards the minimum requirements for shelter facilities, making defining welfare standards for dogs challenging. Dog (Canis familiaris) welfare assessments should consist of a comprehensive set of measurements that allow the calculation of an overall ‘welfare score.’ The Shelter Quality protocol was developed for the purpose of assessing shelter dog welfare. The study aims to establish a standardised system for evaluating shelter dog welfare by obtaining agreement from experts on the weighting of different measures contributing to an overall welfare score. The Delphi technique is a widely used method for establishing consensus among experts. Two Delphi procedures were implemented and we compared their effectiveness in achieving expert consensus by evaluating rounds’ numbers required to reach consensus and the response and attrition rates. Expert consensus was achieved in Delphi 1 when the standard deviation in the expert weightings was ≤ 5. This was achieved easily for the welfare score weightings of the four principles: ‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, ‘Good Health’, and ‘Appropriate behaviour.’ Animal-based measures were found to reach consensus more quickly than resource-based measures. In Delphi 2, we used the coefficient of variation to determine consensus. No statistical differences were found between the two Delphi methods for attrition rate, response rate or number of participants. Continuing rounds until a consensus is reached is recommended as this method balances time and participant fatigue. A standardised scoring system is provided, using a single overall score of welfare that can be used to compare welfare standards between shelters.

An online survey, using open and prompted response questions, was undertaken to collate the views of stakeholders on the priority welfare issues currently facing companion dogs (Canis familiaris) in Great Britain and on dogs’ general quality of life. The stakeholder sectors targeted broadly comprised Education, Government, Industry, Charity and Veterinary. Overall, respondents described companion dogs as, at minimum, having a life worth living. Whether welfare issues were openly described or ranked within a set list, those of high priority in the perceptions of stakeholders matched those cited in published scientific literature; particularly, exaggerated physical features, inherited disease, obesity and inappropriate socialisation. Puppy farming and status dogs, which have been highlighted recently in the media, were also viewed as important. Lack of appropriate mental stimulation, irresponsible ownership and inappropriate environment were raised as priority issues by stakeholders and are under-reported in scientific literature. Significant differences between stakeholder sectors in ranking of welfare issues perceived importance, urgency to rectify, impact (on the individual) or prevalence in Britain may be explained by vested interests, organisational roles, differences in terminology and the contexts within which stakeholders came into contact with companion dogs. Pet travel, dew claw removal and complementary and alternative medicines were amongst those issues thought to be of least urgent welfare concern. Issues perceived to enhance welfare included the quality of veterinary care, physical stimulation, educational resources, responsible ownership, the high status of dogs in society and the work of welfare organisations.

Resources for tackling animal welfare issues are often limited. Obtaining a consensus of expert opinion on the most pressing issues to address is a valuable approach to try to ensure that resources are wisely spent. In this study, seven independent experts in a range of disciplines (including veterinary medicine, animal behaviour and welfare science and ethics) were consulted on the relative prioritisation of welfare issues impacting companion dogs in Great Britain. Experts first anonymously ranked the priority of 37 welfare issues, pre-defined from a literature review and an earlier published survey. In a subsequent two-day panel workshop, experts refined these issues into 25 composite groups and used specific criteria to agree their relative priorities as a Welfare Problem (WP; incorporating numbers of dogs affected, severity, duration and counter-balancing benefits) and a Strategic Priority (SP; a combination of WP and tractability). Other criteria — anthropogenicity, ethical significance and confidence in the issue-relevant evidence — were also discussed by the panel. Issues that scored highly for both WP and SP were: inappropriate husbandry, lack of owner knowledge, undesirable behaviours, inherited disease, inappropriate socialisation and habituation and conformation-related disorders. Other welfare issues, such as obese and overweight dogs, were judged as being important for welfare (WP) but not strategic priorities (SP), due to the expert-perceived difficulties in their management and resolution. This information can inform decisions on where future resources can most cost-effectively be targeted, to bring about the greatest improvement in companion dog welfare in Great Britain.

Veterinary care is important for maintaining companion animal health; however, it also has the potential to impact other aspects of patient welfare. To investigate factors related to veterinary care that are likely to influence canine and feline welfare, animal welfare researchers, veterinarians with an expertise in animal welfare, and Canadian and American companion and mixed animal veterinarians were invited to participate in a three-stage online survey. Participants were asked to do the following: i) identify factors related to the veterinary experience that impact patient welfare; ii) rate the relative impact of each factor; and iii) gauge the feasibility of measuring and improving each factor. Overall, 78 participants identified 85 factors that impact animal welfare in the clinic (eg restraint techniques) and home environment (eg advice regarding behaviour and training). Among factors, seven themes emerged: physical environment of the clinic; routine animal care provided by veterinary team members (‘staff); interactions between the patient, staff, and client; clinic management; medical and surgical procedures; staff attitudes and education; and communication between the veterinarian and client. Mean relative impact scores ranged from 1.0 to 3.8 on a five-point scale (0-4), with 70% of factors receiving a score greater than 3. Most participants (> 80%) agreed that 68% of the identified factors could be feasibly improved in an average veterinary clinic and that 43% of the factors could be feasibly measured during a welfare assessment. These results identify key areas where veterinary care may impact the welfare of canine and feline patients and highlight priority areas where assessment and improvement are possible.

This paper investigates public attitudes towards emotional experiences in animals. We surveyed 1,000 members of the public to investigate how companion animal ownership affects the attribution of emotions to animals and beliefs about whether animals can grieve. Respondents who owned a companion animal were more likely to believe that some animals can experience grief compared with respondents that did not own a companion animal. The non-owning respondents were more likely to believe that animals do not experience emotions including: anxiety, distress or depression, do not show behavioural changes when they are experiencing grief and do not grieve as a result of separation from a conspecific. Our findings show that companion animal ownership plays a significant role in the public perception of the emotional experiences of animals and belief in the animals’ ability to grieve.