# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SSPCA - Sarawak Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
designboom | architecture & design magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
helping the stray dogs of thailand

According to a survey from the Thai Department of Livestock Development regarding dog populations in 2016, 750,000 out of a total of 6.7 million dogs in Thailand are strays, with the number constantly growing to this day. It is estimated that in Bangkok alone, there are 100,000 to 300,000 street dogs. Having no one to take care of them and barely surviving on pity, these animals roam the busy streets and are constantly exposed to harsh climate conditions, accidents, and abuse.

With this pressing issue in mind, Thai community group Stand for Strays has created Homeless Allot Model, a functional shelter for stray dogs made out of recycled billboards. The structure is easily deployable and can be set anywhere within the urban context of Thailand to protect our furry friends from heavy rain and intense heat.

all images courtesy of Stand for Strays

discarded billboards turned into shelters

Stand for Strays has launched its Homeless Allot Model with the goal to upgrade the urban fabric of Thailand and transform it into a dog-friendly environment. The structure is made out of a discarded billboard that has been repurposed into a functional shelter. The billboard panel is placed flat against a wall, fixed with hinges at its top, but can open at the bottom to create a tent-like canopy for any dog in need. On the back of the panel, a small platform has been installed, keeping the dog above ground level. This platform provides the animal with a safe, hygienic, and dry place to sleep, while it also allows for food to be placed in the shelter, without it being in direct contact with the ground. The panels can be easily unfolded by passers-by whenever they notice a stray dog wandering in the area.

The structure is made based on the idea of the three Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and it intends on saving the strays without increasing environmental pollution. It is made entirely of recycled and reused materials and since it lies flat on the walls, it keeps the pre-existing landscape almost unaltered.

project info:
name: Homeless Allot Model designer: Stand for Strays

barber osgerby develops slim bathroom luxury for AXOR in london penthouse

AXOR's 'make it yours!' campaign challenges interior designers into the bathroom world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
stray dogs in thailand find shelter in folding structures made from repurposed billboards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
thai community group stand for strays has created homeless allot model, a functional shelter for stray dogs made out of recycled billboards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here Are 34 Really Weird But Totally Awesome Inventions Made For Dogs. #32 Is Genius. | 애견, 동물 농장, 제품

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2016. 12. 13 - Here Are 34 Really Weird But Totally Awesome Inventions Made For Dogs. #32 Is Genius.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apr 7, 2014 - This Pin was discovered by Carolee Loredo. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
May 26, 2017 - Doghouse bench on the deck for my rat terrier! The unpainted middle partitions can be reconfigured or removed. His water bowl is always in shade and I know he's dry should it rain before I get home. I configured the partitions this way so the wind doesn't whistle thru. No, he's inside in cold weather - this is mom over-compensating. #doghouse #dogfurniture #dogslife #dogmom #diywoodfurniture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sep 12, 2018 - This Pin was discovered by TheSuperOcean.com. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
04-ago-2014 - Descubre (y guarda) tus propios Pines en Pinterest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Architects Create Stylish Doghouses—for a Good Cause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mar 14, 2019 - arf ITECTURE will benefit the Animal Rescue Fund of the Hamptons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pin by Lori on Animal Stuff in 2023 | Feral cats, Cat diy, Cat shelter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aug 20, 2023 - This Pin was discovered by Lori. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comedouros públicos disponibilizam ração e água para cachorros em situação de rua

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
13/mar/2016 - Em Cartagena, na Colômbia, foi instalado esse mês o primeiro comedouro público para cães e gatos em situação de rua da cidade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HELP US RESCUE ABUSE, SICK & INJURED STRAYS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Save Our Strays Association Kuching or more commonly known as “S.O.S Kuching”. Our organisation is a registered non-profit animal welfare group with the main objective to control and reduce the stray population in Kuching through humane approach, to create and increase awareness on anima

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal shelters and animal welfare: Raising the bar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stray or unowned, free-roaming animals, and in particular, cats, continue to be a societal challenge in North America. In addition to significant health and welfare problems of the animals themselves, there are public health and safety concerns with free-roaming animals, and key environmental concer…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences; University of Copenhagen, 1850 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen, Denmark

Department of Food and Resource Economics; University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen, Denmark

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

1. Introduction

Unwanted stray and homeless dogs and cats constitute a considerable problem in large parts of the world. Traditionally, the problem was thought to concern human health and safety primarily, and the main response was to euthanise these animals in large numbers [ 1]. Increasingly over the last three to four decades, the perception of this problem has changed in most Western countries, with a focus on avoiding euthanasia of stray and unowned dogs and cats. As a result, animal protection non-governmental organizations (NGOs)-and in some countries also public authorities-have invested in programmes to increase adoptions from shelters with the aim of minimising the need to kill these animals and instead find new homes for them. Undoubtedly, this change of focus has saved the lives of many millions of healthy dogs and cats. There has also been an increasing focus on the need for microchips, collars and identity (ID) tags to be able to reunite owners with dogs and cats that have gone astray [ 2]. In addition, publicly sponsored neutering programmes has been considered as a means to prevent the birth of unwanted puppies and kittens, thereby limiting shelter intake [ 3, 4].

However, there have been growing concerns about the extent to which shelters serve to either solve or exacerbate the underlying problems relating to unwanted or stray dogs and cats [ 5], i.e., that these animals live in poor conditions, reproduce in an uncontrolled manner, are viewed as a nuisance, and are euthanised in large numbers. These concerns go hand-in-hand with a growing effort to document the effects of shelters with true numbers of animals entering and leaving shelters, where many early studies on the subject seemed to have been based on rough and very diverse estimates [ 1, 6]. Thus, there is a widely recognised need for more knowledge on factors affecting shelter intake and adoption rates, and a recent review noted that most studies are only conducted at a single point in time and at one location, making it difficult to document spatial and temporal changes [ 5]. The current study looks at the role of shelters in managing the number of unwanted and stray animals in Denmark. This country is an interesting case because there is a major contrast between how dogs and cats are kept and regulated in Denmark.

About 20% of Danish households own a dog and a similar number of households have one or more cats [ 7, 8]. Legal regulations require that all dogs must be registered before the age of 8 weeks and there seems to be very high compliance. At the same time, people are required to keep their dogs confined or under strict control typically behind fences in gardens or on a leash when walking in urban areas [ 9]. There is no requirement to register cats, and even though people are obliged in principle to keep their cat on their own property, this legislation is not really enforced and cats are often left to roam freely [ 7]. According to [ 10] 71% of households with privately owned Danish cats allow their cats to roam all the time or on a regular basis. Therefore, some significant differences can be expected between these two species in terms of problems with stray animals.

Some Danish owners may want to relinquish or are no longer able to look after their dogs or cats. They can either sell them, give them away, go to a vet and have them euthanised, or take them to a shelter (some of which take the animals in for free while others charge a handling fee). There are no public shelters in Denmark-they are all owned by NGOs or private individuals. Furthermore, the way that shelters and other larger facilities keep dogs or cats is tightly regulated [ 11]. It is also possible that owners may abandon their dogs and cats so that they end up becoming strays or homeless animals.

In Denmark, all stray dogs are picked up, typically by the police or a private emergency service with which the authorithies have a contract, and are placed in some form of custody. Then it is advertised that the dog has been found, and the owner can get the dog back by paying the costs incurred. If no owner has reacted within three days the dog may, according to the Danish dog law [ 9], be euthanised or handed in to a shelter. Consequently, there are no street dogs in this country.

Cats, on the other hand, have always lived in large numbers as strays in Denmark. Since cats are not covered by a law comparable to the Danish dog law, stray cats are not picked up by the police or any other people working in an official capacity. Instead stray cats are picked up by or handed into various NGOs.

Some of the cats are unsocialised cats, which are of no relevance to the current study. As a matter of policy the main Danish NGOs do not allow these cats to enter shelters because they cannot become companion animals and because it is viewed as cruel to keep them confined (although there are some borderline cases and some unsocialised cats that enter shelters by mistake). Instead unsocialized cats are either euthanized or re-released as part of the trap-neuter-and-return programmes.

Socialised stray cats come from a number of sources. They may have been born on a farm and wandered off, they may have lived as companion animals and gone astray (and if they have not been earmarked or microchipped, which it is not legally required for a cat owner to do in Denmark, then it can be difficult to find the original owner), or they may have been abandoned by their original owners. Furthermore, it is common for cats to be left at shelters anonymously in boxes, bags, or cages.

Although there are a number of studies focusing on the effects of shelters measured in terms of the number of animals leaving the shelters alive relative to the total number of animals passing through in a given time period of time, to our knowledge, we are the first to study the flow of animals in and out of shelters over a longer period of time, i.e., 13 years. Based on our data we aim to address the following two questions: (1) What happens to intake, return to owner, adoption and euthanasia over the period when dogs are tightly regulated? (2) What happens when there is no regulation of cats, shelter capacity is increased and it becomes easier to surrender a cat to a shelter?

The principal conclusions of the paper are: (1) when dogs are generally kept in a controlled way and are tightly regulated as is the case in Denmark, the problem of unwanted and stray dogs is limited, and shelters can handle this well; (2) when there is a large surplus of stray cats, efforts to make it easier to move cats into shelters will result in both a large increase in stray cats being adopted and a major increase in the number of shelter cats being euthanised.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Identification and Inclusion of Shelters

Danish shelters were identified via a search in Google ® using the search terms "dyreinternater i Danmark" ("animal shelters in Denmark") and "danske dyreorganisationer" ("Danish animal organisations"). Furthermore, the Danish Central Business Register ( www.virk.dk) was searched, and the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (Glostrup, Denmark) was asked to provide a list of shelters. The authorities have this information, at least for shelters with dogs, as according to Danish law premises with more than four adult dogs (>18 weeks old) are considered professional entities and must be recorded as such [ 11].

The shelters identified via these sources were listed and it was then assessed whether they were still active or had ceased to operate. The managers of shelters that were active at the time of the study were invited to contribute to the research, which was described in the invitation. Two reminders were sent to non-responders. Participants were assured anonymity in a written statement (see Supplementary text S1).

2.2. Data Manipulation

The participating shelters were asked only to submit data on the intake of dogs and of socialised, potentially adoptable, cats. Participating organisations provided intake and outcome data summarised on a yearly basis for the study period. These data were arranged under the categories: (a) owner relinquished including returns (animals adopted from the shelter but later returned to the shelter by the new owner); (b) strays (animals handed in by authorities, professionals and private citizens stating that they had no relation to the animal, and in the case of cats this included only socialised and not feral animals); (c) rescues (animals obtained following cases of neglect); (d) others (including animals born in the shelter, transfers between shelters or from veterinary clinics, and those dumped outside the shelter). The output from the shelters included the categories: (i) rehomed (where the animal was adopted by a private individual); (ii) returned to owner (typically strays with identification or that were located by their owner); (iii) euthanised; iv) dead; v) others (including transfers between shelters and lost and stolen animals). Unlike shelters in some other countries, Danish shelters do not perform requested euthanasia and, therefore, this is not part of the output. Shelter managers were interviewed about their definitions of data variables to resolve any issues caused by discrepancies in their data-recording practices. Major inconsistencies between intake and outcome data were resolved with the shelter staff.

The data were tabulated for each species, year, and input or output category. The live release rates (LRR) were calculated as the proportion of all live output from all categories of outcome including euthanasia and death: (n rehomed + n returned to owner + n others)/n left shelter dead or alive) [ 12] for each year. The total intake and LRR were plotted as a function of year. Furthermore, the proportion of each category of intake and output for each species was plotted over time.

2.3. Completeness Assessment

Not all participating shelters provided data for all years. The number of omitted cases were interpolated from the years they did provide data, based on the average intake and outcome in the years included, which was deemed reasonable based on visual inspection of the data. Furthermore, the number of animals handled at shelters that did not contribute data was estimated based on: (a) a survey of their website, or (b) personal contact with people linked to the shelter requesting a best estimate of the population they handled. This information was used as the basis for a crude estimate of our survey coverage.

2.4. Proxy Measure of the Population of Stray and Homeless Cats

As a proxy measure of the population of homeless and stray cats, we obtained annual summarised records of cats hit by vehicles. We obtained this information from one of the major organisations, which has a hotline that people can use to report animals injured in traffic. The data were available for 2012 to 2018, and were plotted alongside the annual intake data.

2.5. Information from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Charge of Danish Shelters Handling Cats

In light of our finding of a dramatic increase in the intake of cats into Danish shelters during the period studied, an email was sent to four senior contacts who worked or had previously worked with the four main NGOs in charge of Danish shelters with a large intake of cats. The email contained questions about this development (see Supplementary text S2).

3. Results

We identified 20 organisations that managed 52 shelters in total, with 37 (71%) of the shelters providing data for the study. Of these, 19 managed only cats, one managed only dogs, and the remainder managed both species. One dog shelter did not provide data for 1 year, thus excluding an estimated 109 dogs. Five cat shelters did not provide data for 2 to 9 years, excluding an estimated 13,600 cats. Furthermore, among the shelters that did not provide data for the study, websites and personal contacts of the managers suggested that these managed approximately 1429 cats and 99 dogs in 2017. Therefore, with approximately 11,240 cats included and approximately 1429 cats not included in 2017, the best estimate of completeness was 89% for cats. The intake of dogs was around 1553 in 2017, so with approximately 99 dogs not included this means that the completeness was approximately 94% of the estimated total number of animals at the national shelters.

The intake of dogs decreased during the study period from 2004 to 2017 from around 2000 to 1550 annually, while the intake of cats increased from 3100 in 2004 to more than 11,000 in 2017 ( Figure 1). The live release rates for both species decreased from around 0.94 in 2004 to 0.90 in 2017 for dogs, and from 0.85 in 2004 to 0.71 in 2017 for cats ( Figure 1). The number of cats reported hit by vehicles decreased from 3259 in 2012 to 2166 in 2018 ( Figure 1), corresponding to a decrease of 33%.

There was a major change in the sourcing of cats for shelters during the timespan of the study ( Figure 2). At the beginning of the period, roughly half were owner relinquished and the other half were strays. While the number of owner-relinquished cats was relatively stable, there was a dramatic increase in the number of stray cats entering shelters over the period, so that in recent years only 10%-15% of cats entering shelters were owner-relinquished, whereas about 80% were strays.

Unlike for cats, as can be seen from Figure 3, the majority of dogs entering Danish shelters during the period were owner-relinquished, while the groups of strays and rescued dogs are of equal size. Over time, the number of owner-relinquished dogs dropped, while there was an increase in the number of stray dogs. Returns only accounted for around 1% annually, whereas rescues varied between 12% and 27% of the yearly intake, with no obvious patterns.

As can be seen from Figure 4, most cats that entered the Danish shelters were either rehomed or euthanised. The absolute number of cats rehomed more than tripled over the period, but the relative proportion of cats that were euthanised almost doubled from around 15% to 29% of the yearly output.

As can be seen from Figure 5, the vast majority of dogs entering Danish shelters were rehomed. A significant proportion (between 8% and 15% of the yearly output) of dogs were returned to the owner, while there was an increase in the proportion (from 6% to around 10% of the yearly output) that were euthanised.

All four senior contacts who worked or had previously worked with the four main NGOs in charge of Danish shelters dealing with cats responded to our email. Three of the respondents still worked with the respective NGO. The responses reflected differences in how the NGOs operated, but they agreed on the overall story:

Ten years prior to the start of the period studied, approximately 50% of cats entering shelters were euthanised. After this, some Danish NGOs with an interest in cats put more focus on how they could become better at rescuing and rehoming unwanted and stray cats. This led to more potentially adoptable cats entering shelters and to more cats being adopted. Around the start of the study period, a growing collaboration developed among the NGOs running shelters and there was an expansion of capacity, making it easier to pass a cat on to a shelter. Around 2011, the largest NGO established a national hotline that people could call and ask to have cats in distress picked up for free, but through the hotline people could also get information about how to relinquish stray cats to a shelter.

The email from author Peter Sandøe to the NGOs as well as their responses (in an anonymised version) are available as an English translation in the supplementary files ( Supplementary text S2).

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion of Main Findings

The first of our findings that should be discussed is the low and slightly decreasing intake of dogs in Danish shelters during the period. At the beginning of the period, about two thirds of the dogs were relinquished by their owners, and at the end of the period this number decreased to around half of the dogs. Dogs that are not ill, old or have serious behavioural problems should be easy to adopt since there is a large demand for dogs.

The reasons for the simultaneous decrease in the intake of relinquished dogs and the live release rate seem to be connected. In recent years, social media has provided new and cheaper options to people who no longer want or are able to own a dog to pass the animals on to new prospective owners. They may even sell their dogs to make a profit. The dogs that entered shelters in the second half of the period studied may have been more difficult to pass on (i.e., they were more likely to be ill, old or have behavioural problems). This would have resulted in a greater proportion of these dogs being euthanised rather than adopted, despite a reasonably constant and small absolute number of shelter dogs being euthanised overall.

Most of the dogs that enter Danish shelters are rehomed. In the case of dogs then, it seems that the ideal rationale of shelters works out; thanks to the shelters, stray and unwanted dogs in difficult situations are taken care of, and most adoptable dogs are being adopted.

The situation for cats in Danish shelters is very different. Over the study period, there was a 250% increase in the number of cats entering shelters, from around 3000 per year to around 11,000 per year. We have no reason to believe that the number of stray cats increased during this period; on the contrary, the number of stray cats may have decreased as suggested by the lower number reported above as being hit by vehicles over a period when traffic increased. Thus, according to the Danish Road Directorate the amount of road traffic in Denmark increased 14% from 2010 to 2018 [ 13]. These numbers include both owned and stray cats but since we know that the number of owned cats increased during the period [ 7], this finding gives us a good reason to believe that the number of strays has decreased. This raises the question of why there was a higher intake.

Stray cats may be seen as a problem by two different groups of people based on two opposing views: some people view them as a nuisance because they make noise, leave their excrement in sandboxes and gardens, or for some other reasons (21% according to [ 10]). Other people may feel pity for them and want them to have a better and safer life by being rehomed via a shelter. People with these contrasting sentiments may want to change the 'stray' status of these cats. They may be willing to pay for this to happen, but they will typically want it to happen at as low a cost as possible.

To understand what drives the higher intake of stray cats into shelters, it is important to note that there may be other possible options for people who view unwanted or stray cats as a problem:

They may choose to live with the problem of stray cats in their vicinity.

They may take the cats to the vet, who may put them down (at a price of around 110 EUR or more)-if it is a cat that is owned but unwanted, this can be done at the request of the owner, and if it is without an owner, the vet may put it down if permitted by the municipality (a permission that is almost always given).

If they have a hunting license, they may also choose to kill their own unwanted cats, or ask someone with a hunting license to do so.

They may also kill or have someone kill the cats illegally.

Each of these options comes at a cost, emotional and/or financial. When it becomes easier to surrender a cat to a shelter, as it seems to have become during the period studied, it means that more people are likely to prefer that option to one of the aforementioned options. Thus, those who wished to get rid of one or more cats for one reason or another may have been tempted by the easy access to shelters. Those who were bothered by the cats may have seen it as an easy solution, while those who felt pity for the cats may have used the shelter option in the hope that a home could be found for the cats.

Those who set up and run shelters may have several motives for doing so: one clear motive is to cater to the wishes of the group of people mentioned above who feel pity for homeless or stray cats. These are the people who typically support animal protection NGOs by becoming members and giving various forms of donation. Of course, the NGOs typically also care about dogs and cats and want to help them. The goal is for fewer dogs and cats to experience difficult lives as strays, and for fewer healthy and potentially adoptable dogs and cats to be euthanised.

The development of cat intake observed can in part be explained by one of the organisations changing their surrender procedure. Previously, diseased cats would not be included in the shelter statistics since they were taken directly to a veterinary practitioner for potential euthanasia and, therefore, never entered the shelter. After this change in procedure, the cats typically went through a shelter (Jens Jokumsen, personal communication), so some, but in our view most likely only a part of the higher intake, may be a reflection of this change.

During the same period, an effort was made by the animal protection NGOs running the shelters to increase the adoption rate of cats from shelters primarily by means of social media. As a result of this, the yearly number of shelter cats being rehomed more than tripled during the period. This increase in demand for shelter cats was, apparently, insufficient to keep up with the supply. The proportion of euthanised cats nearly doubled over the period, from around 15% to 29%.

This increase may, as already indicated, to some extent reflect changed management practices, including better screening of shelter cats for serious diseases such as feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia (FeLV). However, it may also to some extent be explained in terms of the need to euthanise surplus animals. It should be stressed that our study does not deliver data which can document the relative role of these two explanations of the increase in euthanasia of cats in Danish shelters.

4.2. Discussion of Findings from an Economic Market Perspective

Following our analysis above, we believe it could be useful to discuss dogs and cats in shelters from an economic market perspective [ 14]. It is possible to distinguish between an intake (input) and a release (output) market.

For the input market, a supply curve can be identified capturing the number of dogs and cats entering shelters. The supply of dogs and cats will decrease with an increase in the cost of bringing animals to shelters. The costs capture a number of factors, including the inconvenience of bringing animals to shelters and driving distance to nearest shelter. A demand curve can also be identified for the input market, and this curve represents the number of animals that shelters take in. If shelters take in all cats and dogs delivered at a certain cost then the demand curve will be a horizontal line. An equilibrium on the input market requires that supply equals demand, and an equilibrium cost on the input market can be identified based on this.

A supply curve can also be identified on the output market, and if all dogs and cats brought in are rehomed then this curve will be a vertical line equal to the amount of animals entering shelters. A demand curve for dogs and cats on the output market can also be identified and the quantity demanded will increase if the price that shelters require for animals decreases. When supply equals demand on the output market, there will be an equilibrium price for dogs and cats rehomed from shelters.

For dogs, as we have seen, a high proportion of animals are rehomed from shelters. Furthermore, the supply of dogs on the input market is low and the demand on the output market is high. It matters here that shelter dogs are much cheaper (400 EUR or less) than other dogs on the market, as in Denmark, dogs typically cost between 700 and 2000 EUR, depending on breed. This implies that we are close to an equilibrium on both the input and output market. Thus, from an economic perspective, the markets for shelter dogs are working well.

However, a lower proportion of cats are rehomed and this seems to be the combined effect of excess supply on both the input and the output market. As discussed above, the emotional and financial price of taking a cat to a shelter has decreased, while the price of adopting a cat from a shelter has been constant. This is typically around 140 EUR, which includes vaccination, neutering, and ear-marking or microchipping. While this price is by no means high, many people acquire cats without paying for them [ 7]. Even though it has been found that 86% of privately owned cats in Denmark are neutered [ 7], there still seems to be a large supply of kittens from private homes. In addition, people can often acquire them within their own neighbourhood, whereas they may have to go some distance to a shelter. So despite a considerable market for companion cats, people acquire them from other sources in such numbers that not all shelter cats can be sold.

To solve this problem, two economic incentives could be imagined: (i) a subsidy to buy cats from shelters; (ii) a tax on bringing cats to shelters. Solution (i) will reduce the cost of obtaining cats from shelters and thereby increase the quantity demanded. The cost of bringing cats to shelters increases with solution (ii), suggesting that the input supplied will be lower. However, a problem with solution (i) is that more people may want to obtain cats from shelters with the consequence that the demand from other supply sources may decrease, while people may try to get rid of cats in other ways with solution (ii). While both a tax and a subsidy would work well from a purely economic perspective, other problems with the two policies may arise, as we have seen. A more advanced economic analysis could try to analyse problems as externalities [ 15].

Apart from being able to reclaim some of the costs incurred, a motivation for charging a substantial price for shelter cats seems to be that the shelter will ensure that prospective owners are sincere in their wish to acquire a cat and will therefore end up being good and responsible owners. However, there is some evidence from the literature that lowering the price of cats from shelters will not lower the motivation of prospective owners [ 16].

Overall, the "shelter economy" seems to function less well for cats than for dogs; many more cats are taken into shelters (acquired) than are adopted (sold). Even though a large number of cats are taken care of, a growing number of these cats end up being euthanised. Furthermore, since there may be too many cats relative to the demand, it is possible that the problem of surplus cats is not really being solved, but instead just shifts from one group of cats to another-so that more cats are adopted out of shelters, while fewer are adopted in a more direct way.

By promoting adoptions from shelters, the relevant NGOs may also indirectly create a greater demand for cats. However, there is a danger that a side effect of this greater demand is that more people acquire cats from other sources without having them neutered, microchipped or ear-marked. As a result, the problem of stray cats may actually increase even more. We recommend that more structured economic planning should go into developing strategies for shelters. For an example of an economic approach to the issue, see [ 17].

4.3. Comparison with Findings from Other Countries

Globally, there have been a small number of studies with time series that are comparable to ours. A study of shelters in the USA recorded and compared the intake and output of dogs and cats in Metro Denver, CO, between 1989 and 2010 [ 18]. The authors found that the intake of dogs and cats was of a roughly equal size, but with more dogs than cats, unlike in our study where the intake of dogs was much lower than the intake of cats. This is likely to reflect the much stricter regulations on keeping dogs in Denmark compared to the USA. The intake of dogs declined over the years studied, as did the rate of euthanasia, while there was an increase in cat intake and a slight increase in the euthanasia rate for cats since 2000. A study from two counties in California [ 4] covering the period from 1990 to 2005/6 saw a similar development in the intake of dogs as that seen in Denver, but with a decrease in the cat intake, which the authors explained as resulting from the municipal spay/neuter voucher programme for cats. A group with some of the same authors as the Denver study [ 19] also performed a comprehensive study of animal shelter intake and outcome data for dogs and cats in Colorado covering over 90% of the intake from 2000 to 2007. They reported a decrease in the intake of dogs as well as a low and stable euthanasia rate, and an increase in the intake of cats, with an increasing euthanasia rate for this species. In line with this, an earlier study of animal care and control agencies in Ohio compared figures from 1996 with those from 2004 and found that the intake of dogs decreased as did the euthanasia rate, although this remained at a high level (from 61% to 46%), and while there was an increase in the cat intake, the rate of euthanasia fell, although it was still higher than for dogs (from 72% to 69%) [ 20]. A study of Michigan shelters in 2003 found the euthanasia rate for dogs to be 40% and for cats 57% [ 6]. Earlier studies from the USA also found higher euthanasia rates for cats than for dogs [ 1, 21]. In addition, two Australian studies [ 22, 23] found high euthanasia rates (65% and 74%) for cats. Another Australian study of dog intake and outcome data in three metropolitan shelters in 2001 and 2002 found a euthanasia rate for dogs of 32% [ 24].

We only found two studies from Western Europe comparing dogs and cats entering and leaving shelters. Both of these were based on questionnaires sent to dog and cat shelters in the UK. One study [ 25] covers the year 2009 and had responses from 55% of organisations, and the other [ 26] covered the year 2010 and had a response rate of 39%. The two studies found adoption rates of 77% and 75%, and euthanasia rates of 9% and 10% for dogs, while adoption rates of 90% and 77% and euthanasia rates of 5% and 13% were reported for cats. Compared to Denmark, slightly more dogs seemed to be euthanised, whereas the live release rate for cats in the UK seemed to be similar to what was found at the beginning of our study period in Denmark. However, the euthanasia rate for cats in Danish shelters at the end of the studied period was much higher than what was found in the UK, which can probably be explained by the specific Danish developments described above. A 2006 study of intake and output for cat shelters in Sweden (a neighbouring Scandinavian country) found that around 7400 cats entered shelters every year and less than 10% of these were euthanised [ 27]. Given that the population size of Sweden is nearly twice that of Denmark, the intake is similar to what we found around the start of the period studied, whereas the euthanasia rate was slightly lower. Overall, euthanasia rates for both dogs and cats seemed to be much lower in Western Europe compared to the USA and Australia.

The reviewed studies that covered developments over time, like our own study, saw a fall in the intake of dogs, while many saw an increase in the intake of cats. Similar to our findings, nearly all of the studies reported a higher euthanasia rate for cats than for dogs in shelters. Also in line with our findings, a report from the US [ 28] and a study from Taiwan [ 29] found a positive correlation between intake and euthanasia.

4.4. Limitations

Our study has a number of limitations; for example, the data from the shelters used in the current study were obtained from many different sources and using different types of recording practices. There is a risk that these practices varied among the shelters. As mentioned above, shelter managers were interviewed to resolve any issues caused by discrepancies in their data-recording practices. The completeness of the data was almost 90% in 2017, but this could not be recorded for the previous years, as several of the shelters no longer existed and the data from such shelters could not be retrieved. The majority of these are likely to have been small shelters, but we could not determine the degree of completeness and this was likely to have been lower in the first years of the study period. This could have an impact on the estimated proportion of cats. However, the major cat organisations provided data for the entire study period. For example, including only data from the four largest shelters that provided data for the entire period from 2005 to 2017 for cats, resulted in LRR cat,2005 = 0.85 and an LRR cat,2017 = 0.65 instead of 0.89 and 0.71, respectively, and the intake of cats would still have more than tripled from 2083 to 8201. Therefore, the drivers of numbers included were the shelters providing data both in the beginning and the end of the study period. The reasons for the increase has not been elucidated, but may have been affected by the changed visitation procedures, the established hotline, increased awareness, increased communication via social media etc., but still the animals recorded in the shelters are considered a valid representation of their presence there. Furthermore, we believe that we have included the majority of the population, because the Danish shelter community is relatively small and coherent, so that shelters with a significant intake would not go unnoticed.

The hotline for cats hit by vehicles has only existed since 2011, and the data are only an approximation of the level of the population of homeless and stray cats. However, the trend seems to be the opposite of that found in the shelters. We must also accept the uncertainty related to this estimate, particularly because advertisements for the hotline were more common in the beginning than at the end of the current reporting period. However, users may also have become accustomed to using the hotline, which would increase its use. Therefore, the proxy measure of the population of homeless and stray cats should be interpreted with caution.

5. Conclusions

Over the study period between 2004 and 2017, we found a low and slightly decreasing yearly intake of dogs, combined with a low but slightly increasing rate of dogs being euthanised in Danish shelters. In contrast to this, we found a major increase in the intake of cats to Danish shelters, combined with a much higher euthanasia rate that doubled over the same period. The difference between the dogs and cats moving in and out of Danish shelters reflects a difference in how the two species are kept and regulated in a wealthy northern country like Demark. While dogs are generally kept under control by the owner (i.e., by the use of leashes and fenced gardens), and are tightly regulated, cats are kept in less controlled and regulated ways, and therefore cat shelters may not on their own solve the problem of surplus cats. It is clear that cats are more difficult to control than dogs, which is also reflected in the international literature. However, economic analysis may contribute to a discussion of how to improve policy making for NGOs in charge of shelters.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/10/765/s1: Supplementary text S1. Cooperation agreement with shelters, Supplementary text S2. Correspondence with key cat organisations on their knowledge on the development from 2004-2017, Supplementary data S1. Dataset on calls for hotline about cats hit in traffic, Supplementary data S2. Anonymised raw data on the traffic of cats and dogs in and out of shelters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.S., J.B.H.J., F.J. and S.S.N.; methodology, P.S., J.B.H.J. and S.S.N.; software, S.S.N.; validation, J.B.H.J. and S.S.N.; formal analysis, S.S.N.; investigation, J.B.H.J. and P.S.; resources, P.S.; data curation, S.S.N.; writing-original draft preparation, P.S.; writing-review and editing, P.S., J.B.H.J., F.J. and S.S.N.; visualisation, S.S.N.; supervision, P.S. and S.S.N.; project administration, P.S. and S.S.N.; funding acquisition, P.S. and S.S.N.

Funding

This research was funded by the Danish Knowledge Center for Animal Welfare, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the following organisations for providing data and other information: Dansk Dyreværn Aalborg, Dansk Dyreværn Århus, Dyrenes Beskyttelse (Animal Protection Denmark), Dyreværnet, Inges Kattehjem, Kattens Værn, MinVenKatten, Hobro, and Sønderborg og Omegn Kattelaug. Thanks are also due to Sarah Layhe for editorial assistance, to Sara Kondrup for help in organising the references, and to Jens Jokumsen, Clare Palmer, Anna Olsson, and two anonymous referees for useful comments to an earlier version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

1. Sandøe, P.; Bjørnvad, C.R.; Forkman, B.; Nørspang, A.P.; Lund, T.B. Danskere og katte: Resultater fra en repræsentativ spørgeskemaundersøgelse. Dansk Vet. 2016, 99, 10-15. [Google Scholar]

2. Danmarks Statistik. Familiernes Kæledyr. Nyt Fra Danmarks Statistik, nr. 499. Available online: https://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2000/NR499.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2019).

3. Bekendtgørelse af lov om hunde. LBK nr 1373 af 30/11/2017 (Ministerial Order no. 1373 from 30 November 2017 on Law on Dogs, in Danish). Available online: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=194694 (accessed on 3 July 2019).

4. Bekendtgørelse om miljøregulering af visse aktiviteter. Bekendtgørelse nr 844 af 23/06/2017 (Ministerial Order no. 844 from 23 June 2017 on environmental regulation of certain activities, in Danish). Available online: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=192158#id8a2ff875-5ed7-454f-9a04-1418b1700cc1 (accessed on 3 July 2019).

5. No Kill Advocacy Center. Calculating an Animal Shelter's Live Release Rate. Available online: https://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/uploads/4/8/6/2/48624081/calclrr.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2019).

6. Vejdirektoratet. Trafikkens udvikling i tal. Vi bliver flere og flere på vejene. Available online: https://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/side/trafikkens-udvikling-i-tal#0 (accessed on 30 September 2019).

7. Varian, H.R. Microeconomic Analysis; W. W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]

8. Baumol, W.J.; Oates, W.E. The Theory of Environmental Policy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]

9. Eriksson, P.; Loberg, J.; Andersson, M. A survey of cat shelters in Sweden. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 283-288. [Google Scholar]

10. Marsh, P. Getting to Zero: A Roadmap to Ending Animal Shelter Overpopulation in the United States; Town and Country Reprographics, Inc.: Concord, NH, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]

11. Yen, I.-F.; Lin, H.-I.; Lan, D.-J.; Chang, T.-W.; Pan, K.; Fei, C.-Y. Statistical study of the association between shelter canine intakes and euthanasia from 2001 to 2011 in Taiwan. Thai J. Vet. Med. 2013, 43, 137-141. Available online: https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tjvm/article/view/9568 (accessed on 30 September 2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shelters Reflect but Cannot Solve Underlying Problems with Relinquished and Stray Animals-A Retrospective Study of Dogs and Cats Entering and Leaving Shelters in Denmark from 2004 to 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Data covering about 90% of the estimated intake of dogs and cats to Danish shelters from 2004 to 2017 were used to study the effects of tight control of dogs and of efforts to increase shelter services for unwanted or stray cats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anisimov, A. & Ryzhenkov, A. (2019). Is it possible to change the destiny of stray animals by legal means?: International Journal of Legal Discourse, 4(2), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2019-2020

Bowman, M. (1988) The Protection of Animals under International Law. 4 Connecticut Journal of International Law, 487 - 489.

Bracke, M.B.M., Vermeer, H.M. & van Emous, R.A. (2019). Animal welfare regulations and practices in 7 (potential) trade-agreement partners of the EU with a focus on laying hens, broilers and pigs: Mexico, Chile, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey and the Philippines (Wageningen Livestock Research report; No. 1160). https://doi.org/10.18174/475497 Accessed January 6, 2021.

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. (2009). Shelter Animal Statistics

http://cfhs.ca/athome/shelter_animal_statistics , Accessed: 8.4.2021.

Dedel, K. (2012). Animal Cruelty. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 65. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5.

Dodurka, T. (2009). Population Management in Dogs. https://slideplayer.biz.tr/slide/1887058/ Accessed March 12, 2021.

Fanning, E. (2019). Variability in Preventative Animal Cruelty Legislation in Canada. Justice Institute of British Columbia.

Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Association. (anon. n.d.) Promoting veterinary leadership in stray dog control in Europe,

http://www.fve.org/uploads/publications/docs/004_stray_dogs_position_paper_adopted_22_may_2015.pdf Accessed: 28.05.2021.

Fenlon B. (2007, Feb 9). Toronto's war on homeless cats. CNews,

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/02/09/3569010-sun.html Accessed 8.4.2021.

Gibson, M. (2011). The Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare. Deakin Law Review 16(2): 539 - 540.

Güçlü Yavuzcan, H., Şahin, D., Gür,B., Sevgül,O. & Yavuz,C. (2019). An Instructional Model for Social Design Education: A Design Project for Stray Animals Including Production-Based Learning Approach. International Journal of Design and Technology Education. 24(1): 33-64

Humane Canada. (2017). Animal shelter statistics (Final Report).

https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cfhs/pages/427/attachments/original/1542135547/ Humane_Canada_-_2017_Shelter_Statistics_-_FINAL.pdf?1542135547 Accessed May 11, 2021.

Jabatan Perkhidmatan Veterinar Malaysia. (2020). Kod Amalan Kebajikan Haiwan Aktiviti Kawalan Haiwan Terbiar Serta Pengurusan Tempat Kurungan Dan Perlindungan Haiwan. Edisi Kedua.

Kass, P.H, New, J.C Jr, Scarlett, J.M., & Salman, M.D. (2001). Understanding animal companion surplus in the United States: Relinquishment of non-adoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4:4, 237-248.

https://10.1207/S15327604JAWS0404_01

Lord, L.K., Wittum, T.E., Ferketich, A.K., Funk, J.A., Rajala-Schultz, P., & Kauffman, R.M. (2006). Demographic trends for animal care and control agencies in Ohio from 1996 to 2004. J Am Vet Med Assoc., 229:48-54.

Masten, J. (2008) Don't Feed the Animals: Queso's Law and How the Texas Legislature Abandoned Stray Animals, A Comment on H.B. 2328 and the New Tex. Penal Code Sec. 42.092. 60 Baylor Law Review 964.

Menteş Gürler, A., Melikoğlu, B. & Şule Osmanağaoğlu, S. (2011). A Historical Evaluation of Animal Protection Efforts of Non-Governmental Organizations in Turkey. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 17. 901-908.

Merringer, I. (2021, April 9) Coyote sightings west of Toronto triple. Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/coyote-sightings-in-toronto-triple/article2396500/ Accessed: 19.5.2021.

Morris, K.N., Wolf, J.L. & Gies, D.L. (2011) Trends in intake and outcome data for animal shelters in Colorado, 2000 to 2007. J Am Vet Med Assoc., 238:329-336.

Özen, A. (2016). A Historical Overview of Turkey's Animal Welfare Legislation. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 23 (6): 1019-1026. https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2016.17214

Pets by the numbers. (n.d.). Humane Society of the United States.

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/overpopulation_estimates.html Accessed: 7.3.2021.

Reese, L.A. (2015). The Dog Days of Detroit: Urban Stray and Feral Animals. Meeting Report, City & Community, 14(2) : 167-182

See, W.L. Alvin (2013). Animal Protection Laws of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies.

The Animal Act 1953

The Animal Welfare Act 2015

Turner, P., Berry, J. and MacDonald, S. (2012). Animal shelters and animal welfare: Raising the bar. Can Vet J. 53(8): 893 - 896 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3398531/ Accessed 6.1.2021.

Voslárˇvá, E. & Passantino, A. (2012). Stray dog and cat laws and enforcement in Czech Republic and in Italy. Ann Ist Super Sanità, 48 (1), 97-104. https://10.4415/ANN_12_01_16

Walton, D., & Zhang, N. (2016). An argumentation interface for expert opinion evidence. Ratio Juris, 29(1): 59-82. https://doi/10.1111/raju.12115 Accessed 4.3.2021.

Wells, D. & Hepper, P.G. (1992) The Behaviour of Dogs in a Rescue Shelter, Animal Welfare, 1 (3): 171-186(16)

World Animal Protection (November 2, 2014). Malaysia. Accessed: 5.5.2021.

WSAVA Animal Welfare Guidelines (2018) Accessed: 12.2.2021

WSPA, Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare World Society for the Protection of Animals http://www.wspa-international.org/wspaswork/udaw/Default.aspx Accessed 15.3.2021.

Yiğit, A., Aslım, G. & Can, H. (2020) Evaluation on shelter medicine and stray animal shelters in Turkey. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 26 (1): 17-24, 2020. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2019.22096 Accessed: 3.4.2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Enhancing Legal Protection of Stray Animals Welfare Through Society Intervention And Enforcement in Malaysia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anisimov, A. & Ryzhenkov, A. (2019). Is it possible to change the destiny of stray animals by legal means?: International Journal of Legal Discourse, 4(2), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2019-2020 Bowman, M. (1988) The Protection of Animals under International Law. 4 Connecticut Journal of International Law, 487 - 489. Bracke, M.B.M., Vermeer, H.M.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some other essential data in this paper should be read along with the following Supplementary data for the survey. It has to be made due to this paper's limited space, presentation style, wording, and structure. These data are tabulated in Table 1: Type of companion animals or pets and frequency reported by survey respondents. Table 2: Association between respondents' background and their answers on what happened to their previous pet animals. Table 3: The association between respondents' background (concerning their pet-keeping status) and their opinion about the causes of stray animal populations cannot be resolved effectively. Table 4: Association between respondents' background and opinions on properly managing stray animals. Table 5: Association between respondents' background and opinion on national strategy on stray and companion animal management. And Table 6: (Association between the respondents' background (concerning their pet-keeping status) and likelihood to keep any animal in the future.

Information on respondents' backgrounds

Based on the data summary in Fig. 1 and details in Table 2, 704 respondents participated in this study, of whom 66.2% were females, and 33.8% were males. The data also indicates that most respondents were between 17 and 30 (47.7%). The majority professed the religion of Islam (87.6%). In terms of marital status, the majority of respondents were single (51.0%). However, the percentage of married couples (47.3%) was almost equivalent to the broader population. More respondents (38.6%) came from a middle-income family, defined as RM 3,860.01 - RM 8,319.00, than a low-income household (36.6%), defined as RM 950.01 - RM 3, 860.00. In terms of profession, most respondents were civil servants or employees in government-related agencies or companies (41.1%), followed by students (25.6%) and private-sector workers (25.9%). Regarding education level, most respondents were well-educated, with 45.2% having obtained a bachelor's degree.

Regarding animal-keeping experience, 42.5% of respondents replied that they are currently keeping a pet, and 57.5% replied negatively. 75.7% of respondents responded yes when asked whether they had previously kept any animal, and 24.3% responded no.

a) About current animals

During the period of study, terrestrial domesticated animals, mainly cats, were recorded as the most popular pets (67.6%, 246/364), followed by dogs (8.2%, 30/364) and accumulative of other species of pets (24.2%, 88/364). (See Table 1).

b) About previous animals

The main reason some owners no longer keep their previous animals were several reasons (see Table 3). A total of 666 is an accumulative response to every single "yes" answer to this question. Most previously owned animals died because of disease (s), unexplained health complications, or illnesses associated with age (33.5%, n = 223), followed by those that were lost and unfound (n = 175, 26.3%) and those that died because of accidents such as being killed by a vehicle or jumping from high altitude because of a lack of proper surveillance (n = 135, 20.3%). Other reasons made up less than 9% of the responses.

When asked what happened to their previous animal, the answers given were influenced by several demographic variables, including gender and marital status. Males were less likely than females to respond that their pet died because of an accident (chi-square = 7.619, p < 0.01). Married couples and single people were less likely to respond that their previous animal died because of disease(s) (including died because of various diseases, unexplained health complications, or illnesses associated with age) than divorced people (chi-square = 11.011, p  < 0.01).

Human and animal continuum of knowledge and awareness

Regarding respondents' knowledge and awareness about animal rights and protection, Table 4 reveals that most respondents believe Malaysia currently provides viable acts and regulations as guidelines for protecting animal welfare (76.1%). Legislation often stipulates only the minimum standards for the protection of animals, and its effectiveness depends on the level of enforcement [45]. For example, Malaysia Animal Act 1953 requires the stray animal population, predominantly dogs, to be controlled, and the essentiality of giving good welfare treatment to an animal in the Animal Welfare Act 2015.

However, achieving the objective of both Acts could be stunted due to implementation factors and public adherents. The survey results indicate that slightly less than half of the respondents agreed that people in Malaysia adhere to animal welfare-based rules and regulations (49.4%). There have been reported 463 animal abuse cases across Malaysia in 2016, followed by a 10 percent increase in 2017, which made the cases reach 510. Subsequently, a 30 percent increase in 2018 became 662 reported cases. Moreover, there was also an increase in animal abuse cases from January to June 2019. More than 90 percent of these cases involved dogs, followed by cats [46].

Most respondents agreed that animals could have feelings, such as love and pleasure (98.7%) and pain and suffering (99.7%). For good sensation feelings, dogs exhibit a pleasurable oxytocin release when being stroked by a human [47]. An animal might eat less food and exhibit unusual behaviour characteristics for pain-reflection behaviours. Social behaviour is suppressed, agitated, may emit characteristic distress calls, experience respiratory and cardiovascular changes, inflammation, and release of stress hormones [48, 49]. Cross-species empathy also does exist in an animal when it experiences emotional contagion in response to other species' feelings and emotions [50].

Interestingly, previous studies show cats able to produce food soliciting' purrs were also perceived as more urgent and less pleasant-sounding by humans. They were also noted to include high frequency voiced components similar to those produced by human infants when crying [51]. Other studies show that a large percentage of pet owners report consistent signs of jealousy in domestic pets, including horses, birds, and cats. More research into the social emotions of animals other than dogs and primates may reveal that jealousy is more widespread than it appears to be [52].

Overall, 78.3% of respondents believe that animals have a creative mind, potentially enabling them to think rationally. This discovery corresponds with Jardim-Messeder et al. (2017) study that found that dogs may have about twice the number of neurons in their cerebral cortexes as cats have [53]. Neurons are the basic information processing units; thus, the more units in the brain, the more cognitively capable the animal is, which suggests contributing to the intensity of intelligence level. Previous research also has shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems [54]. However, the question of precisely what that means - whether they are making rational decisions or simply reacting to their environment through mindless reflex - remains a matter of scientific dispute and requires further research. Take dogs as an example. They can rear sheep, rescue victims, and provide safety to others. One limited study of 18 household dogs found that they lacked spatial memory and were more focused on the "what" of a task rather than the "where" [55]. Another study of canine cognitive abilities found that dogs' capabilities are no more exceptional than those of other animals, such as horses, chimpanzees, or cats [56].

Regarding animal rights, respondents were not inclined to confer an animal with inheritance rights (71.0%). Likewise, an animal's citizenship rights were considered inappropriate (76.0%). One of the logical reasons is that animals do not possess the capacity to survive in a man-made world. In many cases, pet owners inherited exceeded amount of wealth from their pets [57]. However, this norm cannot be accepted because accommodating an animal with lavish wealth does not guarantee that the animal will have a wonderful life. In turn, the animal needs good treatment with the capacity of a pet animal (provided by humans). Most benefits from the wealth will not give the animal any meaning, but the wealth executor (a human) will get all the benefits. The pet animal cannot compute a complex calculation concerning inherited wealth, but only humans can do that. Suppose the pet animal has progeny/offspring. In that case, the benefit will apply to them only after the human has managed the wealth as the only trusted wealth executor.

Most respondents (95.9%) from the survey also believe that dead animal carcasses should be respected, like when they are still alive. When a cat or dog dies, the corpse will usually be buried to acknowledge the service given by the animal to its owner. The animal kingdom also observed that adult dogs conceal other dead animals to respect the corpse [58]. Both situations convey that respecting the deceased is part of the instinct of a living being.

Slightly more than half of the respondents were not agreeable (50.6%) to the statement that animals should be given moral consideration equivalent to human beings whenever they are alive. At the same time, almost half of the respondents were agreeable (49.4%) to the statements. In reflection, the results show that many respondents still think that humans are the only creatures with the willpower to take morally permissible actions toward animals. Animals may have the desire, but humans have the autonomy to evaluate their actions rationally [59]. Therefore, how humans can address their moral obligation to animals is essential. In Malaysia, the last tenets of Rukun Negara, " Politeness and Morality " or mutual respect and good social behaviour, can be a relevant maxim for human-animal interaction. Although we tend not to give similar consideration to them, our behaviour and how we treat them properly as animals showcase the quality of humanity we bear.

Causes of the stray animal population

Respondents were asked for their opinions on the claim that stray animal issues in Malaysia cannot be resolved effectively (see Table 5). Demographic variables were thought to influence the respondents' answers.

This research indicates that 70.3% of respondents with those who previously had pets were more likely to choose lack of general awareness among the Malaysian public as the reason than the previous non-pet owner (chi-square = 8.588, p = 0.003). Stray population contribution factors involve people letting animals roam away without careful monitoring [60], removing/relinquishing unwanted animals to open-area such as housing, market, recreational, or city areas [61] or feeding a stray animal without taking any initiative to take care of it [62]. Non-pet owners are more likely than current pet owners to select the statement as the reason for the unsettled stray animal population in the country (chi-square = 27.171, p  < .001). However, inadequate knowledge of animal care is often thought the owner fails to seek information and treatment for their animal's health or behaviour problems [63].

45.7% of respondents with non-pet owners were more likely than current pet owners to select the ineffectiveness of the National Strategy to manage stray animal populations as a reason (chi-square = 7.387, p = 0.007). Moreover, those who previously had pets were more likely to choose it as a reason than previous non-pet owners (chi-square = 5.434, p =  0.020). For example, the Perak State Government is still in the process of drawing up an initial plan for the holistic management of abandoned dogs because various dog cases involving them impact community safety [64]. Meanwhile, companion and stray animals' matters are currently subordinate to other significant portfolios such as public health service, pollution control, and urban housing planning governed by the municipal authority [65]. In addition, there is no specific secretariat in Malaysia that looks at companion animal matter as a whole concept. Worldwide, some countries have already initiated it, even though it is not comprehensive as it should be. For example, the Government of South Australia has established Dog and Cat Management Board. The Board takes a leadership role by empowering councils with the tools they need to build safer communities, combatting the problem of increasing dog attacks, encouraging the proactive management of cats, and educating the community about safe behaviour around dogs. The Board breaks down council boundaries by facilitating quickly identifying and returning lost pets to their owners [66].

Animal shelters or sanctuaries are believed to provide temporary protection for millions of underprivileged and unowned cats and dogs [67]. However, less than half of the total respondents (42.1%) with non-pet owners are more likely than pet owners to choose the limitation of stray animal protection sanctuary area(s) as the reason (chi-square = 9.062, p = 0.003). Also, those who previously had pets were more likely to choose this as a reason than the previous non-pet owner (chi-square = 4.565, p  = 0.033). There have been growing concerns about how shelters solve or exacerbate the underlying problems of unwanted or overpopulated stray dogs and cats [40].

Sentiment upon the status of less strict enforcement in the country indicates that less than half (41.2%) of the respondents agreed with non-pet owners more likely than pet owners (chi-square = 4.817, p = 0.028). Similarly, those who previously had pets were likelier to choose this reason than previous non-pet owners (chi-square = 4.173, p  = 0.041). Concerning the status of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, it is considered a brand-new statute. The number of cases that have been charged under the Act so far is relatively very few and in very small proportions.

30.0% of respondents agreed that the owner feels burdened with the animal's behavior as the cause of the stray population. Although the rate of agreement of this current study is low, a previous study in Melbourne, Australia, indicates reasons for pet relinquishment, including being unable to care for the animals (31%), moving/accommodation issues (27%), and behavior issues (12%) [68]. Aggression is one of the main reasons owners relinquish pet cats and dogs. As the relinquish animals need to survive and breed (if not being desex by the owner), they are likely gather to the urban dumping sites in search of feeding opportunities [69]. Consequently, increases the threat of zoonotic disease transmission to humans and other animals [70].

This study observed small degrees of respondents' agreement on the number of competent officers in the country (28.0%), with non-pet owners than pet owners more likely to choose them as the causes for the unsettled stray animal population in the country (chi-square = 5.390, p  = 0.020). For example, this matter is also being influenced by the emergence of reports of abuse of power, corruption by state enforcement officers [71]. More convincing, 32.4% of the respondents also agree that fines for animal welfare offenses are inadequate. The severity of penalties for cruelty toward animals historically has been very mild, and countless complaints lodged to the authorities were unheeded even when the perpetrators were identified [72].

Management of stray animal population

Respondents were asked to give their opinion on adequately managing the stray animal population (see Table 6). Demographic variables influenced these answers.

The current study indicates that more than half of the total respondents, or 58% of them, support treating and vaccinating animals exposed to disease to manage the stray animal population effectively. Without proper vaccination, many non-vaccinated animals cannot achieve ample immunity against opportunistic pathogens, which could cause detrimental health effects later in their lives. Since 2015, when Malaysia lost its status as a free-rabies country, the Malaysian government has promoted pet mass vaccination, especially in disease outbreak States [73]. Nevertheless, other than the requirement for rabies vaccination in outbreak locations, general cat and dog vaccinations have not been made compulsory, making pet owners less likely to support this measure than the non-pet owner (chi-square = 18.335, p < 0.001). Also, gender attribution may explain why more female than male respondents choose vaccination as the preferred disease prevention method (chi-square = 6.080, p  = 0.014). It is in line with many previous findings reported that females tend to express more positive attitudes toward individual animals compared to male people [74, 75, 76]. The benefits of vaccinations and other antiparasitic treatments, when combined with desexing or sterilization, offer a significant improvement in public health by reducing the stray dogs' population and spread of rabies infections happened [77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84].

The results indicate that 40.1% of the respondent's selected readoption as a solution. Although the agreement rate is less than half of the total respondents, the rate is considerably much better than a study in Penang which found that only 19% of respondents believe readopting can effectively reduce the stray animal population [15]. Once adopted, an animal risks being returned to the animal shelter due to behavioural problems [85]. Thus, new owners and adopters would suggest considering the risk and benefits of adopting any stray animal and properly planning specific interventions before, during, and after adoption. These include in-house safety and animal behavioural assessment, pet identification devices, pet care educational materials for owners, training classes, subsidized veterinary health services, and emergency assistant responses. A long-term engagement program with prospective owners will potentially contribute to higher adoption success, and a lesser risk of relinquishment as prospective owners will make informed decisions when selecting suitable animals to adopt [40].

Overall, 35.7% of respondents agreed that respondents who previously had pets were also more likely to support desexing/sterilization of animals (neutering) initiatives than those who had never been animal owners (chi-square = 6.568, p  = 0.010). The Terrestrial Code Article 7.7.6 World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016) has recommended reproductive control as a combined measure alongside conventional culling for dog population control [86]. At the same time, previous research in Penang showcases that only 14% of respondents agree with desexing or neutering as an effective measure in reducing the stray animal population [15]. The support rate is considerably low as there is a lack of measurable results on the effectiveness of neutering in Malaysia for the long run 5-10 years. Dog reproductive control is currently more socially acceptable than culling in countries such as Italy [87], India [81, 84, 88], and Brazil [89].

In addition, 34. 1% of respondents were found to agree with re-homing and relocation, with the respondent with pets less likely to support this measure than the non-pet owner (chi-square = 28.060, p  < 0.001). It is parallel with the Penang study, which revealed that 31%, the majority, favoured providing a good animal shelter scheme that would reduce the stray animal population [15]. Stray protection areas, shelters, halfway homes, or sanctuaries could also be ideal spaces to retrain animals with unfavourable behaviours. There are include as high temperament levels and non-hygienic characteristics for a proportion of stray cats and dogs before they can be set free in their forever home via a readopting program [90].

Notably, 33.7% of respondents agreed that people who previously had pets were more likely to support Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) initiatives than those who had never been an animal owner (chi-square = 8.382, p  = 0.004). In the Penang study, 31% of respondents believed the TNR scheme could reduce the stray animal population effectively. There was a similar level of agreement (31%) for the Trap & Euthanize (TE) scheme. However, only 7% of respondents preferred Trap Neuter as a viable approach to reducing the stray animal population. The authors believed this happens because respondents want a positive and humane approach to the Free-Roaming Dogs (FRD) issue rather than TNR [15]. TNR is well-known as a non-lethal method that alters an animal's sexual organs so it can no longer reproduce [91].

However, the status of vaccinated, neutered, and microchipped of Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) dogs and cats can be the source of contentiousness for many residents in the community where the program took place. People may be concerned about public safety, zoonoses spread, and other nuisances caused by free-roaming animals. The possibility for someone who commits TNR can be referred to as breaching Section 33(2), Animal Welfare Act 2015. It happens if they allow an animal to be oppressed, fail, or neglect them to have a shelter, and abandon them till they are likely to suffer trauma, pain, or suffering due to relocation, starvation, thirst, injury, or illness. Above all, TNR effectiveness depends on the extent to which mass migration of animals from outside of the colony can be prevented (such as controlling urban waste), high levels of desexing of individual animals, high rates of adoption, and the allowance of time for natural attrition to occur [16].

Other stray animal population reduction measures that received a minimal level of agreement by survey respondents were socializing with public communities (13.5%), suspending offspring labor or delivery (10.7%), and terminating offspring labor or delivery (planned abortion) (4.5%).

Concerning lethal methods, shooting elicited the lowest respondent acceptance (1.8%) due to its apparent brutalism in exterminating living beings. Support for lethal methods (e.g., shooting) is very low (1.8%) despite their potential for money-saving, with male respondents more supportive than females (chi-square = 15.279, p = < 0.001), and pet owners were less likely than non-pet owners to support it (chi-square = 6.557, p = 0.010). In comparison, sentiment on euthanasia or mercy killing received slightly higher or 9.4% agreement with female respondents more supportive than the male of the procedure (chi-square = 8.534, p = 0.003), pet owners are less likely than non-pet owners to support the measure (chi-square = 5.581, p  = 0.018). It corresponds with the previous study showcasing that 70% of the public disagreed with the Trap & Euthanasia (TE) scheme because it is inhumane to kill animals in general. Only 12% of respondents favored the TE scheme and considered it the most effective solution to stray animal problems [15]. This research also found that males are more likely to support using lethal methods than females. Overall, this current study indicates that male, non-pet owners tend to believe that the euthanasia of stray animals, especially urban strays that potentially spread disease, is humane and significantly more likely to prefer lethal control [37]. By contrast, females were less likely to choose lethal control and had more significant concern for animal welfare and rights than males [75].

National strategy on stray and companion animal management

Respondents were asked to give their opinion on the National Strategy of Strays and Companion Animal Management (see Table 7). The answers given were influenced by several demographic variables.

Suggestions for the creation of a stray animal protection area or sanctuary through public, private, and community integration or a blue ocean strategic partnership achieved 48.4% agreement with those who previously had pets more likely to support the measure than previous non-pet owners (chi-square = 4.451, p = 0.035). As the animal sanctuary does not mean a permanent place for cats and dogs to live permanently, the current pet owners were less likely to support the initiative than non-pet owners (chi-square = 5.089, p  = 0.024) is noted. Therefore, the animal sanctuary should be developed based on sustainable development goals that ensure ecological continuity between animal and human relations. In this sense, it should attract active public involvement by being a recreation place to promote mutual ethnic volunteerism and green entrepreneurship among local citizens. More importantly, it is to promote adoptions via long-term engagement with the fosterer to minimize unnecessary in-house congestion due to over-receiving.

This current study indicates that less than half of the total respondents, or 40.5% of respondents, agree to limit the number of pets per household. The finding parallels other studies indicating, for instance, that 70% of people in New Zealand agree with a proposed limit of two cats per household [16]. This intervention can sound restrictive for some, with pet owners less likely to support it than non-pet owners (chi-square = 44.705, p  < 0.001). However, an excessive number of pets contribute to the long-standing overpopulation problems by adding some strays in a locality. Conversely, the owner having fewer pets should also reduce the nuisance to other residential communities and encourage owners to give more careful attention to their pets. In this sense, the move by the local authority of Boroondara City, Victoria, Australia, to restrict the number of domestic pets can serve as an exemplary implementation model in Malaysia. Suppose the owner needs to keep more than the permitted number of animals, mammals, or birds on their property for whatever reason. In that case, they must apply for an Excess Animal Permit [92].

47.4% of respondents favour the government imposing compulsory animal registration for pet owners, sellers, and breeders. In contrast, more than 70% of people in an Australian study favoured a compulsory dog registration scheme [93]. This requirement is not limited to specific dog breeds but involves cats and other domestic animals [94]. Locally, however, Malaysian regulation only demands dog owners to register their pets, except for cat owners. In reflection of the current study, pet owners were observed less to support the measure than non-pet owners (chi-square = 26.723, p  < 0.001). Only recently, the Malaysian government, via DVS, started to enforce a brand new My Animal Welfare, but this pet registration platform is still in a rudimentary phase. Initially, it only focuses on a few sectors, namely activities regarding animal hostels, animal riding, and herding, animal shelter including stray animal protection, and pet shop and pet trading [95].

Unwanted pets are often given away for logistical or financial reasons. Evidence suggests that pre-surgical euthanasia on pet dogs may be primarily economically motivated simply because treatment costs are too high [96]. In relation, 39.6% of respondents agreed to increase the financial allocation for funds or grants under the National Companion Animal Welfare Management Program. Respondents that previously had a pet were more likely to support an increase in the financial allocation for the fund or grants under the National Companion Animal Welfare Management Program than those who had never been an animal owner (chi-square = 16.737, p  < 0.001). On the other hand, authorities can be self-sufficient, which has been practiced in South Australia. The authority's operation is almost entirely funded by a percentage of dog registration fees remitted by councils and breeder registration fees. Dogs and Cats Online continues to provide savings to councils through registration renewal notices, reduced postage and administration costs, easier annual reporting processes, and streamlined registration. Most importantly, Dogs and Cats Online continues to deliver efficiencies to Authorised Officers to guide and assist councils in establishing cat and dog by laws [97].

With regard to not allowing animals to roam without the owner's supervision, there was 35.9% agreement with pet owners less likely to support the measure than non-pet owners (chi-square = 19.032, p  < 0.001). Pet containment is a preventive way for the owner to have a complex experience and profound feelings, such as grieving whenever undesirable things happen to their previous pet, such as losing a pet [98]. However, this current research observed low levels (17.2%) of agreement regarding pet confinement at a designated time. It is somewhat lower than other researchers who reported 36% public agreement toward the measure [16]. However, in other studies, the percentage was lower [99]. Interestingly, the range of agreement was between 45-54% if this measure took place during the night [100]. In Australia, the level of compliance relating to the confinement of cats at night has been reported to vary between 32-80% [101]. Conversely, other research indicates that confinement only at night minimally reduces predation behavior as companion cats largely hunt during the day [102]. Regardless of whether it takes place during the day or night, the benefits of pet confinement have been documented to control public nuisance caused by unrestrained pets [33, 34, 103]. It reduce the injury rates associated with road accidents, and minimize risks encounters with other cats, and dog attacks [34, 104].

In addition, 33.9% of respondents agreed to increase fines for anyone who discards/loses any animal, especially in public areas. Furthermore, 40.6% of respondents agreed that a community services penalty should be applied to offenders involving animal welfare cases. Both types of penalties could teach the offender not to engage in similar wrongdoings in the future. However, community services are a pragmatic type of punishment driven by a value-laden approach that promotes direct social engagement between offenders and public citizens.

Overall, 32.4% of respondents with pet owners are less likely to support the measure than non-pet owners (chi-square = 7.525, p  = 0.006) are favour of the effort to strengthen the national strategy regarding companion animal breeding policies. The number of domestic animals sterilized may be increased by offering subsidized sterilization programs to low-income pet owners [105]. This is because the program is accessible to poor and needy caretakers (B40 group members) who need help transporting their cats and dogs to the place where the surgery is performed and back home again. Other options to address this issue include providing services through a network of private veterinary clinics (if enough clinics participate) and mobile surgical facilities.

The survey results also indicate that 33.5% of public respondents agreed with establishing more animal welfare rangers posts such as animal police, residential community brigades, and stray animal attendees dedicated to patrolling, investigating, and curbing animal cruelty cases throughout the country.

Furthermore, 28.6% of respondents agreed that those who previously had a pet were more likely to support using modernized technologies or ICT devices to monitor, track, and manage animals more efficiently than previous non-pet owners (chi-square = 6.225, p  = 0.013). Presenting a physical pet identification tag with QR barcodes would allow anyone to obtain the contact information of pet owners simply by using a smartphone application. Implanting a recognizable pet microchip would allow the authority to access the pet and its owner's status in detail. Consequently, lost pets are more likely to be reclaimed as pet identity information is continually updated and corrected [102, 106, 107]. However, the government must assess and study the risk associated with personal data breaches before implementing the measure.

Concerning education, 27.3% of respondents with pet owners less likely to support the measure than non-pet owners (chi-square = 25.586, p  < 0.001) agreed that periodical animal handling training should be compulsory for everyone who engages with animal beings. In Duxbury et al.'s (2003) research, the owners of puppies that attended socialization classes run by the shelter from which they were adopted obtained some benefits [108]. Pets were relinquished less frequently than owners that attended socialization classes elsewhere or did not attend any classes [108]. In the current research, 31.1% of respondents agreed with acclimatizing to more vital religious teaching values on animal welfare for every individual. Because many Malaysians are Malay Muslims, reform toward holistic-based education can be translated practically as a residential mosque can be transformed into an animal-friendly mosque. Additionally, 28.7% of respondents agreed with incorporating animal welfare-related courses into mainstream education curricula in schools and higher learning institutions. It is due to the lack of mandatory curriculum subjects that give special attention to the welfare of domesticated companion animals living in human habitats.

Regarding animal education, 13.8% of respondents believed that animals should be trained through special training classes taught by an animal trainer. It aligns with previous research, showing that dogs housed in animal shelters can learn new behaviours, inhibiting problem behaviour [109, 110]. It can provide benefits to the prospective owner in making the animal much easier to handle and thus minimizing the risk of relinquishment. However, the suggestion that animals should be trained through a particular training class taught by an animal trainer causes the current pet owners less likely to support the measure than non-pet owners (chi-square = 8.523, p  = 0.004). Hence, promoting compulsory periodical pet obedience classes should focus on dangerous dog breeds owned by special permits.

Only a small rate, 21.7% of respondents with pet owners less likely to support the measure than non-pet owners (chi-square = 12.314, p  < 0.001) agreed on embargo (temporary banning) order to prevent a specific type of high population animal species (such as cats and dogs) from entering (being imported) into this country. In addition, 15.2% of respondents agreed on reducing the number of highly populated invasive species of animals sold in pet shops (such as domesticated cats and dogs). However, the impact of applying both measures should be studied in detail, as it may risk the economic balance of trading activities involving companion animals. Alternatively, extensive promotion should be focused on encouraging the public to become adopter families for unowned stray cats and dogs can provide long-term welfare and reduce their population on the streets.

There were minimal agreements on measures such as compulsory pet animal insurance, which 8.9% of respondents agreed on when the coverage benefits also extend to owners. Overall, 6.4% of respondents agreed to post more warning notices/messages that prohibit the public feeding of animals in public areas and commercial centres. There was a 5.1% agreement with the imposition of fines on those who feed stray animals without intending to keep them as pets. Regarding other measures, just 3.1% agreed that animals should be conferred with better rights, such as wealth inheritance from their owners. Only 0.4% agreed to export unwanted animals to a country with a minimal number of companion animals.

No respondent agreed on exporting unwanted stray animals to a country that defines domesticated animals such as cats and dogs as food sources. It is because in Malaysian culture, eating those animals is considered taboo, and any activities related to this, including trading, will attract serious remonstrations from the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Perspectives on Strays and Companion Animal Management in Malaysia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strays and companion animal management is a sensitive issue in Malaysia that incites solid and conflicting views. Through structured questionnaires administered to a random sample of 704 respondents, this study explored public opinion on a) causes of the stray animal population, b) the managem...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PDF | This research aims to reduce the number of stray animals in Malaysia by way of introducing an app that is convenient for the public to use. Stray... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Stray cats survive on their own and scavenge the surrounding areas for food to survive. Their exploitation to investigate the prevalence of ectoparasites can be of great medical importance for humans as they harbour a variety of zoonotic pathogens. Therefore, a survey of ectoparasites on stray cats was carried out from November 2017 to March 2018 around the Town of Knowledge to determine the prevalence of ectoparasites in stray cats and their potential to threaten the public health by infesting stray cats around Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. A total of 150 individuals of stray cats have been examined for ectoparasites. Of these hosts, 113 individuals (75.3%) of the stray cats were infested by at least one species of ectoparasites. There were nine species of ectoparasites belonging to four groups (louse, flea, mite, and tick). Louse (Felicola subrostratus, 44.7%) is the most frequent species of ectoparasite infesting the hosts in this area, followed by flea species, namely, Ctenocephalides felis (18.7%) and Ctenocephalides felis orientis (16.0%). Lynxacarus radovskyi (24.0%), Otodectes cynotis (0.7%), mite sp. 1 (0.7%), and mite sp. 2 (0.7%) constitute the four most common species of mites. Haemaphysalis sp. 1 (0.7%) and Haemaphysalis sp. 2 (0.7%) are the ticks discovered in this area. The result of this study highlights the importance of managing stray cats and controlling their population to minimize the number of individuals that can serve as ectoparasites hosts.

Keywords

Ectoparasite, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, prevalence, stray cats, zoonoses

Recommended Citation

KAMARUDDIN, NAIM CHE; ADRUS, MADINAH; and ISMAIL, WAN NURAINIE WAN (2020) "Prevalence of ectoparasites on a stray cat population from "Town of Knowledge" KotaSamarahan, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo," Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences: Vol. 44: No. 6, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2005-24
Available at: https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/veterinary/vol44/iss6/8

DOWNLOADS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prevalence of ectoparasites on a stray cat population from "Town of Knowledge" KotaSamarahan, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stray cats survive on their own and scavenge the surrounding areas for food to survive. Their exploitation to investigate the prevalence of ectoparasites can be of great medical importance for humans as they harbour a variety of zoonotic pathogens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CONTROL of stray and feral dogs and cats is a perennial problem.

As such, animal activists and welfare organisations have been promoting responsible pet ownership and the trap-neuter-release- manage (TNRM) approach among others.

However, these efforts have been fragmented and produce minimal results in terms of controlling the stray population.

Realising the complex nature of the issue, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Selangor has been trying to get all stakeholders to look into a holistic solution for decades but failed due to many factors including lack of interest and awareness on the matter.

In light of the discovery of some 100 emaciated dogs at the Kuala Langat Municipal Council pound earlier this month, SPCA Selangor's effort in finding a solution to the problem is gaining traction.

Its chairman Christine Chin said the organisation would take the lead in establishing a training programme for council staff on proper dog catching techniques, animal husbandry and shelter management to prevent unnecessary suffering of the animals.

It has been in discussion with the Selangor government to empower the local authorities with the tools and knowledge to help create caring and compassionate communities to address the problem holistically.

However, putting the responsibility of controlling the population of stray animals solely on local authorities was inadequate, she added.

"The responsibility is parked under the vector and pest control unit at the municipal or city councils, where the staff are not trained to handle dogs and cats, or manage an animal pound.

"Due to the lack of knowledge and funds, these pounds cannot be expected to rehabilitate and rehome the animals in their care," said Chin.

"Therefore, the animals are often euthanised to keep the pound manageable, much to the anger of the people.

"However, euthanasia is expensive too," she said, adding that the method was also non-sustainable and heartbreaking.

Many factors contributed to the stray animal population, which needed to be addressed too, she added.

"Some are feral, while others are dumped by irresponsible pet owners.

"Some pet owners allow their dogs and cats that are not sterilised to roam freely.

"Many guard dogs at factories and construction sites are not neutered and left to roam freely, adding to its population.

"Kind people who feed the stray animals without spaying or neutering them are also exacerbating the problem by keeping the animals healthy enough to mate," she said.

Chin said the Animal Welfare Board should play an important role in working with the local authorities to improve the management of stray animals and comply with the universal five freedoms of animals namely, freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort (environment); from pain, injury and disease; to express normal behaviour; and from fear and distress.

SPCA Selangor, which is a non-profit organisation, she said, was already running Stray Free Selangor programme with a vision to provide a home for every stray animal by focusing on high volume of spaying and neutering exercise and lobbying for humane, effective and sustainable ways to curb stray populations since 2017.

"Every local authority must have a subcommittee or unit to oversee the welfare of stray animals in their area of jurisdiction.

"Similarly, every residents association (RA) should have a subcommittee comprising animal lovers to look into the problem of stray animals in their neighbourhood.

"The animal welfare subcommittee in the local or city councils can reach out to animal rescuers or the RA subcommittee in their area of jurisdiction to help spay or neuter stray animals, rehome and promote responsible pet ownership.

"For instance, if there are strays in a neighbourhood, its RA subcommittee can look into the matter and work hand-in-hand with the local authority to address the problem.

"If the animals fail to be rehomed and there is no option other than for it to be euthanised, there must be a guideline to make sure that it is done in a humane manner," she said.

For help with funding, Chin said the Local Government Development Ministry could look into imposing a fee on property developers to manage strays.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CONTROL of stray and feral dogs and cats is a perennial problem.

# data[].attributes.body
1. "Helps Stray: Empowering Communities to Help Stray Cats and Dogs"

2. "Stray Saviors: Enhancing Lives of Homeless Animals"

3. "Stray to Stay: Improving the Lives of Homeless Animals"

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do another mind map on what are the features of your design.

2. Visual analysis of the existing public shelter designs?

3. Draft interview questions for SSCPA and the public.

4. Draft an Official letter to visit SSCPA for an interview session & observation.

5. You can start doing your observation, by wandering around and taking photos of the stray cats & dogs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Yanko Design - Modern Industrial Design News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By day, the Homeless Haven is like any regular park bench and by night it can transform into a temporary shelter. Designed like an expanding accordion, the bench simply elevates and extends into a cozy shelter, giving refuge from the elements. Smart!

Designers: Ke Wan, Xiaohua Ma, Xing Guo & Qingxiang Zhu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By day, the Homeless Haven is like any regular park bench and by night it can transform into a temporary shelter. Designed like an expanding accordion, the bench simply elevates and extends into a cozy shelter, giving refuge from the elements. Smart!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interview questions for SSCPA and the public.docx

# data[].attributes.body
Maybe some of these questions might be useful to you.

# data[].attributes.body
You can use straightforward title e.g. Stray Animals Shelter Design

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SASA Save A Stray Animal | Bukit Mertajam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SASA Save A Stray Animal, Bukit Mertajam. 721 likes · 32 talking about this. SASA是一个爱心节育动保非营利组织。SASA协会致力于TNR即是（TRAP NEUTER...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thesis Ti Siok Shan (Pet Grooming Service)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meet Rachel and Nicole, the sister team who set up @straytalessociety (STS)-a non-profit organisation whose mission it is to keep the hungry homeless dogs of KL well fed. ❤️ The two sisters, along with their mum and dad, used to regularly feed doggos in need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Participants, I am Chen Sze Yee, a final-year Design Technology student at UNIMAS. I am conducting a survey to understand community perspectives on helping stray animals. This questionnaire aims to gather insights on community perceptions and attitudes towards aiding stray animals. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey; your input is greatly appreciated.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What inspired your passion for animals, and how does this passion influence your daily life?

2. Can you share a memorable experience or story about your interaction with animals that deeply impacted you?

3. What initiatives or projects have you been involved in to support animal welfare or help stray animals?

4. In your opinion, what are the most pressing challenges faced by stray animals?

5. How do you believe individuals can contribute to improving the lives of stray animals in their communities?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stray Cats Helper - Yining Zhang - UAL Graduate Showcase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This project focuses on designing a service system to train volunteers to address the problem of stray cats in residential areas in China, reduce the number of ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the most frequently asked questions we receive is what to do if you’ve found a feral or stray cat, with many unsure of how to tell the difference. We’ve created a handy infographic