CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology

Characteristics and welfare of long-term shelter dogs

Open access
Raudies, Christina, Waiblinger, Susanne, Arhant, Christine·2021·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani11010194PMC PMC7830969
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To identify characteristics that distinguish long-term (LT: stay > 1 year) from short-term shelter dogs (ST: ≤5 months) and to investigate if a long-term stay impairs welfare, we compared ST and LT dogs in Austrian no-kill shelters. Analyses including characteristics such as breed, sex, or age (shelter records), problem behaviour, and personality (questionnaires completed by staff) showed that LT dogs were significantly more often a “dangerous breed”, male, and older when admitted to the shelter. They were rated higher on “aggression” and “high arousal” and lower on the personality dimension “amicability”. A welfare assessment protocol including reaction toward humans (Shelter Quality Protocol), and in-kennel observations were used to assess the effect of the long-term stay. LT dogs tended to show more signs of aggression toward an unfamiliar human, but welfare assessment revealed no difference. During resting periods, LT dogs spent more time resting head up and had more bouts resting head down. Prior to feeding, they stood, vocalised, and yawned more. LT dogs are characterised by specific features such as being aroused easily and having difficulties to relax. Whether this is a result of the long-term stay or personality-associated, consequently causing lower adoption rates, remains to be determined.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani11010194

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prolonged shelter stays can negatively impact dogs, leading to increased signs of aggression, restlessness, and difficulty relaxing.

    “Prolonged shelter stays can negatively impact dogs, leading to increased signs of aggression, restlessness, and difficulty relaxing, as observed in long-term-stay dogs [175].”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [175]

    The Conclusions report more aggression and high arousal in long-term shelter dogs and suggest they may have difficulty relaxing. But the Discussion (§4.2) says it is unclear whether the shelter stay caused these differences or whether dogs’ pre-existing characteristics contributed, so the claim’s causal wording is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Persistent behaviors may be redirected toward inanimate objects and people, and may escalate to aggressive-like behaviors, posing a risk to animal and human safety and increasing risk of euthanasia.

    “Persistent behaviors may be redirected toward inanimate objects (e.g., destructive chewing of toys, beds) and people (e.g., nipping, mouthing), and may escalate to aggressive-like behaviors (snapping, biting) (13), posing a risk to animal and human safety, increasing risk of euthanasia (17–19).”

    From Combined enrichment and pharmaceutical intervention reduces excessive arousal in shelter dogs in a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

    Methods §2.5 lists destructive behaviour, mouthing hands or clothes, and redirected aggression among the behaviours assessed. It does not say that persistent behaviours are redirected toward objects or people, or that they escalate from mouthing to snapping or biting. The safety and euthanasia clause has separate citations (17–19), so it is not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Displays of excessive arousal can be undesirable to potential adopters, resulting in an increased length of stay in the animal shelter.

    “Further, displays of excessive arousal (e.g., vocalizations, repetitive movement back-and-forth) can also be undesirable to potential adopters, resulting in an increased length of stay in the animal shelter (17–19).”

    From Combined enrichment and pharmaceutical intervention reduces excessive arousal in shelter dogs in a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion (§4.1; page not provided) links high arousal to lower adoption chances for long-term shelter dogs. But it explicitly says the study cannot determine whether unwanted behaviours caused a longer stay or developed during it, so the claimed causal effect on length of stay is not established. The cited passages also do not establish repetitive back-and-forth movement as an example of the relevant high-arousal behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The lack of euthanasia policies results in the development of long-term dog populations, particularly for older, male, large-sized, neutered dogs of a "dangerous breed" displaying behavioural problems such as aggression and high arousal.

    “While the duration of a dog’s stay in a shelter varies widely [173], the lack of euthanasia policies results in the development of long-term dog populations, particularly for older, male, large-sized, neutered dogs of a “dangerous breed” displaying behavioural problems such as aggression and high arousal [174,175].”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [175]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Raudies, C., Waiblinger, S., & Arhant, C.
Affiliations
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
  • Raudies, Christina
  • Arhant, Christine
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-01-15
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
194
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani11010194
PMC
PMC7830969
OpenAlex
W3118717873
Cited by
45
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Keywords
shelter dogs, animal welfare, dog personality, aggression, arousal, resting behavior, behavioral problems, breed characteristics, adoption rates

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review