by S Newbury · Cited by 102 — It is important to note that each of the organizations listed above and an opportunity for shelters to conduct a thorough assessment of current.

59 KB – 67 Pages

PAGE – 1 ============
Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal SheltersAuthors: Sandra Newbury, Mary K. Blinn, Philip A. Bushby, Cynthia Barker Cox, Julie D. Dinnage, Brenda GrifÞn, Kate F. Hurley, Natalie Isaza, Wes Jones, Lila Miller, Jeanette OÕQuin, Gary J. Patronek, Martha Smith-Blackmore, Miranda Spindel Association of Shelter Veterinarians TM

PAGE – 3 ============
iSandra Newbury, DVM, Chair, Editor Koret Shelter Medicine Program, Center for Companion Animal Health, University of California Davis, Davis, California. Adjunct Assistant Professor of Shelter Animal Medicine, Department of Pathobiological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin. Mary K. Blinn, DVM Shelter Veterinarian, Charlotte/Mecklenburg Animal Care and Control, Charlotte, North Carolina. Philip A. Bushby, DVM, MS, DACVS Marcia Lane Endowed Professor of Humane Ethics and Animal Welfare, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi.Cynthia Barker Cox, DVMHead Shelter Veterinarian, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Boston, Massachusetts.Julie D. Dinnage, DVMExecutive Director, Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Scottsdale, Arizona. Brenda GrifÞn, DVM, MS, DACVIMAdjunct Associate Professor of Shelter Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Kate F. Hurley, DVM, MPVM Koret Shelter Medicine Program, Center for Companion Animal Health, University of California Davis, Davis, California. Natalie Isaza, DVMClinical Assistant Professor, Merial Shelter Medicine Clerkship, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Wes Jones, DVM Shelter Veterinarian, Napa Humane, Napa, California. Lila Miller, DVM, Editor Vice-President, Veterinary Advisor, ASPCA, New York. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, New York. University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Jeanette OÕQuin, DVMPublic Health Veterinarian, Ohio Department of Health, Zoonotic Disease Program, Columbus, Ohio.Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, Editor Vice President for Animal Welfare and New Program Development, Animal Rescue League of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts.Clinical Assistant Professor, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts, North Grafton, Massachusetts.Martha Smith-Blackmore, DVM, Editor Director of Veterinary Medical Services, Animal Rescue League of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts.Fellow, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy. Clinical Assistant Professor, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts, North Grafton, Massachusetts.Miranda Spindel, DVM, MSDirector of Veterinary Outreach, ASPCA, Fort Collins, Colorado. Authors Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters

PAGE – 4 ============
iiForewordvIntroduction 1Background 2 1. Challenges to Ensuring Welfare 2 2. The Need for Standards 3 3. The Five Freedoms and Companion Animals 4How to Use This Document 5Management and Record Keeping 6 1. Establishment of Policies and Protocols 6 2. Management Structure 6 3. Training 6 4. Animal IdentiÞcation and Record Keeping6Facility Design and Environment 7 1. Primary Enclosure 7 2. Surfaces and Drainage 9 3. Heating Ventilation, and Air Quality 9 4. Light10 5. Sound Control11 6. Drop Boxes11Population Management12 1. Capacity for Care12 2. Protocols for Maintaining Adequate Capacity for Care13 3. Monitoring Statistical Data13Sanitation14 1. Cleaning and Disinfection14 a) Sanitation Procedures14 b) Fomite Control16 2. Other Cleaning17 3. Rodent/Pest Control 17Medical Health and Physical Well-being 18 1. Veterinary Relationship and Recordkeeping 18 2. Considerations on Intake19Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters Table of contents

PAGE – 5 ============
iii 3. Vaccinations 19 4. Emergency Medical Care20 5. Pain Management20 6. Parasite Control21 7. Monitoring and Daily Rounds21 8. Nutrition22 9. Population Well-being 23 10. Response to Disease or Illness23 a) Isolation23 b) Diagnosis24 c) Outbreak Response24 11. Medical Treatment of Shelter Animals 24Behavioral Health and Mental Well-being 26 1. Considerations on Intake26 a) Behavioral History 26 b) Minimizing Stress 26 2. Behavior Evaluation26 3. In-shelter Care28 a) Environment28 Enclosures28 Separation28 b) Daily Routine28 c) Enrichment and Socialization28 Interactions with People28 Behavioral Considerations for Long-term Shelter Stays 29 Other Types of Enrichment 30 d) Behavioral ModiÞcation30Group Housing 31 1. Risks and BeneÞts of Group Housing31 2. Facilities31 3. Selection31 4. When Group Housing is Inappropriate32Table of contents

PAGE – 6 ============
ivAnimal Handling33 1. Restraint33 2. Location and Timing 33 3. Equipment33 4. Feral Cats33Euthanasia34 1. Euthanasia Technique 34 a) Carbon monoxide34 b) VeriÞcation of Death 35 2. Environment and Equipment35 3. Record Keeping and Controlled Substances36 4. Staff Training 36Spaying and neutering37 1. Veterinary Medical Guidelines 37 2. Surgery and Anesthesia 37 3. Identifying Neutered Animals38Animal Transport 39 1. Responsibilities of Participating Individuals and Organizations 39 a) General39 b) Responsibilities at Point of Origin39 c) Responsibilities During Transport 40 Primary Enclosure and Occupancy 40 Vehicles 40 Transporter Responsibilities 41 d) Responsibilities at Destination41Public Health42 1. Zoonoses42 2. Animal-Related Injuries43 3. Emerging Diseases and Anti-microbial Resistance44Conclusions 45References46Glossary of Terms 57

PAGE – 8 ============
viWhat will the Guidelines not address? While the Guidelines make recommendations in numerous areas of shelter operations, they are not intended to serve as an operations manual. The right approach for implementing the Guidelines will vary by organization depending on their particular resources and challenges. How are the Guidelines intended to help shelters? The ASV and the organizations who participated in authoring this Foreword hope that the Guidelines will serve as a source of evidence-based information and support for all organizations, regardless of size, structure or philosophy, who are striving to provide the most humane care possible for their animals. It is hoped that they will also serve as an impetus for on-going self-evaluation and improvement, and provide the basis on which organizations can argue for and obtain the resources they need to provide the most humane levels of care possible. The ASV has already documented instances in which shelters have used the Guidelines as a basis for making signiÞcant improvements in the level of animal care provided, at little or no cost to the organization. We support the ASVÕs intent to document and share these Òcase studiesÓ as a means of helping other organizations better understand how change can be implemented successfully, and cost effectively. Examples can be found in Animal Sheltering magazine in an ongoing series of articles entitled ÒGetting RealÓ. Here are two of these articles; may_jun_2011/getting_real_asv_standards.html jul_aug_2011/getting_real_asv_standards_austin_humane.pdf Case studies can be found on the ASV website, and ASPCA Pro provides a series of webinars on speciÞc Guidelines topics; . Organizational Self-Assessment The Guidelines represent an opportunity for organizational dialogue, reßection and most importantly, action. The Guidelines also present an opportunity for shelters to conduct a thorough assessment of current processes, and identify where improvements may be made for the beneÞt of the animals in their care. In the growing era of process improvement, shelters should be continually evaluating their ability to better house and care for animals. Prioritization and Implementation Each community situation is different. Each shelter and physical facility is different, and the timeline and process for implementation of the Guidelines should be adjusted to reßect the inherent differences in each organization. As mentioned, one signiÞcant note in the interpretation of these guidelines is that they do not represent an operational manual or instructional guide for implementation. Each organization must develop its own operational model to maximize its ability to better care for animals based on the information presented in the Guidelines. A prioritization and plan for how an agency will begin to address these items should be the Þrst order of business. One logical Þrst step is to review the guidelines which are considered ÒunacceptableÓ and address these issues as quickly as possible. Following a prioritized approach, addressing the ÒmustÓ guidelines would be the next step. These are the articulation of the minimum guidelines which should be in place in each facility. As stated more than once in this Foreword and in the Guidelines themselves, the differences and speciÞc challenges in organizations will dictate the ability of any agency to address these items and the speed with which they can be addressed. The important Þrst step is for each organization to recognize areas where improvements can be made and then to set forth a plan and timeline to address them. Foreword Authors. The National Federation of Humane Societies (NFHS) The Society of Animal Welfare Administrators (SAWA) The National Animal Control Association (NACA) The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Download the ÒGuidelines to Standards of Care in Animal SheltersÓ here.

PAGE – 9 ============
1The Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV) is an international organization whose mission is to improve the health and well-being of animals in shelters through the advancement of shelter medicine. This document is the result of work that the ASV began in 2008 to address the lack of guidelines or standards of care for animals in shelters. The Þrst step in the process was to convene a taskforce to deÞne the scope of this project. An exhaustive review of the scientiÞc literature was undertaken to uncover as much data as possible pertaining to housing, care, health, and well-being of dogs and cats in population settings. Members of the taskforce then undertook writing this document over a period of 2 years. In some cases, answers were not available in the literature; in those instances, recommendations have been based on the collective expert opinion of the authors. Every attempt was made to balance animal welfare science with practical and realistic recommendations speciÞc for shelters. The guiding principle was always animalsÕ needs, which remain the same regardless of the mission of an organization or the challenges involved in meeting those needs. As with any specialty, shelter medicine continues to evolve; studies and clinical experience continue to provide new information that animal caregivers must consider in order to provide truly humane care. Principles of animal care that were believed to be appropriate just a few years ago may no longer be considered to be effective or humane. Shelters should bear this in mind and be willing to adapt as they review their programs. The Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters is intended to be a living document that will be periodically reviewed and revised. This document does not attempt to provide speciÞc operational instructions, as these must be tailored to each individual setting. References are provided that can be used to obtain more detailed information. It is the authorsÕ greatest hope that this document will serve shelter animals and those who care for them by providing scientiÞc and humane guidelines for their care. Introduction Introduction

PAGE – 10 ============
2Historically, the provision of care for stray, unwanted, and owner-relinquished animals in the United States dates back to the founding of the Þrst large-scale animal shelters in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia in the late 1800Õs. Most shelters were originally intended for handling large numbers of dogs for brief periods of time as part of animal control programs. That mission drove shelter design and operation for nearly 100 years. Animal sheltering has evolved considerably since those early days. Sheltering organizations can now be found for almost any companion or domestic animal species (e.g., rabbits, birds, rodents, horses, livestock), and for many exotic species as well. The entities delivering services vary from large, well-established agencies with signiÞcant resources, to grass-roots groups, loosely-networked individuals, or individuals acting alone. The spectrum of programs is equally diverse, including: traditional open-admission shelters; care-for-life sanctuaries and hospices; home-based rescue and foster-care networks; virtual internet-based animal transport programs; behavioral rehabilitation centers; limited or planned admission shelters; no-kill or adoption guarantee shelters; high volume adoption agencies; and many permutations of these various approaches. In this document the term ÒshelterÓ is meant to apply to all of the entities mentioned above. In contrast to many other settings such as zoos or laboratories (AZA 2009, 2010; ILAR 1996), the care of animals in shelters remains unstandardized and unregulated at the national level. Although as of 2010, at least 18 states require animal shelters to be registered or licensed (CO, GA, IL, IA, KS, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NC, PA, RI, VT, WI), and six require establishment of an advisory board (CO, KS, LA, ME, MO, TX) (ASPCA 2006a, 2006b; MDAR 2009); these regulations are inconsistent and often inadequately monitored at the state or local levels. 1. Challenges to EnsuringWelfare The heterogeneous, fragmented nature of shelter systems, coupled with the lack of a consistent regulatory structure, has made it difÞcult to ensure adequate care for shelter animals. This difÞculty is compounded by a multitude of challenges. There is a growing body of literature documenting a long list of stressors for animals entering shelters, such as: leaving a familiar environment; conÞnement; adapting to new sounds, smells, and unfamiliar animals; and being handled by unfamiliar people. As occurs in zoo, farm, and laboratory settings, shelter animals can be challenged by boredom, frustration, isolation, social deprivation and other stresses arising out of conÞnement (GrifÞn 2006; Stephen 2005). Length of stay has been clearly identiÞed as a risk factor for animal illness in shelters (Dinnage, 2009; Edinboro 2004).Many facilities, which were historically designed for short-term handling of animals (e.g., for stray holding period), are poorly suited to meet the physical and behavioral needs of animals (Beerda 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; GrifÞn 2006; Hennessy 1997; Holt 2010; Hubrecht 1992; Kessler 1997, 1999b; McCobb 2005; Ottway 2003; Tuber 1996). Various factors have contributed to increased length of stay. At many shelters there is a greater potential for animals to be conÞned to inadequate institutional or quasi-institutional settings from months in many cases, to the remainder of their lives in others, compounding concerns about their welfare. The same issues recognized for many years by the zoological community (Maple 2003) are now confronting shelters. Over the past 15 years, there has been an explosive growth of grass-roots sheltering efforts. This expansion of the number of persons working on behalf of homeless companion animals has undoubtedly saved many animal lives, and overall is a very positive development. Concern arises, however, when animal care is provided by Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters Background

PAGE – 11 ============
3individuals with good intentions but with little to no appropriate training in population husbandry, animal behavior, animal health, and/or veterinary medicine. Lack of awareness of information about sheltering or lack of connections to the larger shelter community may be additional barriers to ensuring adequate care. There have been a growing number of incidents where shelter conditions have caused severe animal suffering and unnecessary death (ALDF website; Dudding 2009; HSUS 2007; Mckinnon 2009; Peat 2009; WBZN 2009). A growing number of allegations of cruelty have been Þled against shelters or sanctuaries for failure to provide adequate and humane care (LA Times 2010). Lack of acceptable standards of care and failure to recognize or respond to animal suffering has contributed to these cases. Many of these issues are not unique to the sheltering community. Over a quarter century ago, scandals revolving around substandard animal care, neglect and mismanagement rocked the laboratory animal world (Blum 1994) and the zoo community (Maple 2003). For laboratories, this led to signiÞcant federal regulation of animal care; for zoos, this triggered considerable internal dialogue and enhanced self- regulation (Wielbnowski 2003). Debates about farm animal welfare continue with less apparent progress. Consequently, the failure to self-regulate husbandry in some concentrated animal feeding operations (Òfactory farmsÓ) has begun to drive the public to seek legislative solutions (e.g., ballot initiatives to ban gestation and veal crates). 2. The Need for StandardsDespite the lessons learned from the high-proÞle examples referenced above, and the availability of substantial resources to guide shelter operations (ASPCA 2009; HSUS 2010; Miller 2004b, 2009; NACA 2009c; Peterson 2008; UC Davis website), it is regrettable that serious deÞciencies in companion-animal care in shelters continue to occur. There is convincing evidence that societal expectations for the care and welfare of animals have increased. This ethic is reßected in the professional literature as well as in extensive guidelines and/or codes of ethics issued by trade organizations, regulatory bodies, advisory boards and policy-making agencies for animals in almost every conceivable setting except animal shelters [e.g., zoological parks (AZA 2009, 2010; Kohn 1994), research laboratories (CACC 1993; ILAR 1996; SCAW 2001), breeding kennels (AKC 2006, 2008), catteries (CFA 2009; CVMA 2009), exotic wildlife sanctuaries (ASA 2009; Brent 2007; GFAS 2009), animal agriculture (FASS 1999; Mench 2008; Veissier 2008), pet industry retailers (PIJAC 2009), boarding kennels (CVMA 2007; New Zealand 1993; PCSA 2009), domestic wildlife rehabilitation (Miller 2000), animal rescue (ARA), equine rescue and retirement facilities (AAEP 2004; GFAS 2009)]. It might be assumed that anti-cruelty statutes would protect shelter animals, but these statutes are often not sufÞcient to ensure that animals in either public or private shelter and rescue settings receive proper care. One reason for this is that many retain 19th- century wording, which is difÞcult to interpret in modern settings, i.e.: It can be difÞcult to apply this outdated anti- cruelty language to address modern concerns Background ÒWhoever overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates or kills an animal, or causes or procures an animal to be overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, cruelly beaten, mutilated or killed;É and whoever, having the charge or custody of an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inßicts unnecessary cruelty upon it, or unnecessarily fails to provide it with proper food, drink, shelter, sanitary environment, or protection from the weather, and whoever, as owner, possessor, or person having the charge or custody of an animal, cruelly drives or works it when unÞt for labor, or willfully abandons it, or carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhumane manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture suffering or cruelty of any kind commits the crime of cruelty to animalsÓ.

59 KB – 67 Pages