Do dog-human bonds influence movements of free-ranging dogs in wilderness?

Saavedra-Aracena, Lorena; Grimm‐Seyfarth, Annegret; Schüttler, Elke

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105358

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, in response to the need of having a scale that specifically assessed the dog-owner relationship, Dwyer et al [11] developed the Monash Dog-Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS). Since its creation, the MDORS has been used in several studies [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Contrary to the majority of the previously used scales that mainly focused on the emotional facet of the pet-owner bond, the MDORS is a more heterogeneous tool that covers both affective and pragmatic aspects of the relationship.…”

Section: The Monash Dog-owner Relationship Scale (Mdors)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dog–Owner Relationship: Refinement and Validation of the Italian C/DORS for Dog Owners and Correlation with the LAPS

Riggio

Piotti

Diverio

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cat/Dog–Owner Relationship Scale (C/DORS) can be administered to both dog and cat owners. However, the scale as a whole has never been validated on a sample of dog owners. Furthermore, it has never been translated into Italian. The aim of this study was to translate the C/DORS into Italian, modify its response scale in order to improve the degree of response variability, and test its validity and reliability on a sample of dog-owners. Exploratory factor analysis revealed the same three-factor structure (Perceived Emotional Closeness = PEC, Pet–Owner Interactions = POI, Perceived Costs = PC) as the original English version, although some items had to be removed because of low- or cross-loadings. The validity of the construct was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis, by the correlations between each of the subscales and the C/DORS total score, and by the correlations with the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale. Cronbach’s α values for each subscale were above acceptable levels. Student owners scored higher on PEC and POI than owners with other occupations. Owners of dogs with behavioural problems scored lower on PEC and higher on PC. Keeping the dog outdoor was associated with lower POI. Finally, pet dog owners scored higher on PEC than AAI dog owners.

show abstract

Section: The Monash Dog-owner Relationship Scale (Mdors)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dog–Owner Relationship: Refinement and Validation of the Italian C/DORS for Dog Owners and Correlation with the LAPS

Riggio

Piotti

Diverio

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…GPS-tracked movement patterns of free-range poultry in northwestern Ecuador confirmed that backyard chickens (not given antibiotics) travel an average of 17 m from their household, and that this range overlapped with small-scale farms of broiler chickens (given antibiotics) (68). Free-roaming dogs are also common in urban and rural Quito (69), and have been shown to roam up to 28 km from their homes on average in rural Southern Chile (70). While some backyard chickens in our study site were kept in coops, some free-range chickens and free-roaming dogs may have been exposed to environmental contamination from nearby commercial operations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producingE. colicarriage among children in a food animal producing region of Quito, Ecuador

Amato

Loayza

Salinas

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria may be driven by human-animal-environment interactions, especially in regions with limited restrictions on antibiotic use, widespread food animal production, and free-roaming domestic animals. In this study, we aimed to identify risk factors related to domestic animals, backyard food animals, and commercial food animal production in Ecuadorian communities. Methods & Findings: We conducted a repeated-measures study from 2018-2021 in 7 semi-rural parishes of Quito, Ecuador to identify determinants of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E. coli (3GCR-EC) and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase E. coli (ESBL-EC) in children and domestic animals. We used multivariable log-binomial regression models to estimate relative risks (RR) of 3GCR-EC and ESBL-EC carriage. We collected 1,699 child fecal samples from 600 households and 1,871 animal fecal samples from 376 of the same households. Risk factors for 3GCR-EC included living within 5 km of more than 5 commercial food animal operations (RR: 1.36; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.16, 1.59), household pig ownership (1.23; 1.02, 1.48), child pet contact (1.23; 1.09, 1.39), and rarely/never washing hands after contact with animals (1.15; 0.98, 1.34). Risk factors for ESBL-EC were dog ownership (1.43; 1.00, 2.04), child pet contact (1.54; 1.10, 2.16), placing animal feces on household land/crops (1.63; 1.09, 2.46), and combined exposures to both household food animals and commercial food animal operation drainage paths (1.80; 0.94, 3.45). Conclusions: Policies and interventions that improve the safety of animal waste management in communities and in commercial food animal production operations may be necessary to curb the spread of resistant bacteria.

show abstract

“…Alie et al [ 48 ] suggest keepers of free-ranging dogs in Dominica were passive caregivers who did not play, train, or discipline their pets frequently. Similarly, during experiments on the dog–owner bond in our study area (Strange Situation Procedure, [ 49 ]), only 5/39 dogs played upon invitation [ 23 ]. Future studies are needed that experimentally address what factors influence dogs to follow unfamiliar persons, e.g., type and duration of dog–owner interactions, immediate cues such as food or petting by strangers (e.g., [ 47 ]), and inherent factors such as sociability [ 50 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While there is an ongoing debate on how regulations might be effectively enforced [ 18 ], there are often free-ranging dogs living near and accessing protected areas [ 19 , 20 ]. Dogs whose owners let them out without supervision can move large distances from their homes (e.g., up to 4.5 km in Tanzania [ 21 ]; 17 km in Australia [ 22 ]; 28.4 km in our study area [ 23 ]), and they visit a variety of habitats (e.g., forest in Brazil [ 24 ]; pastures in Chile [ 25 ], beaches in Mexico [ 26 ]). However, what drives them to visit the wilderness is still less clear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But surprisingly, how human interaction with free-ranging dogs, which are domesticated and highly social animals, shapes their movement has been investigated less frequently. Recently, Saavedra-Aracena et al demonstrated that the dog–owner bond, particularly the exploration behavior in the absence of the owner, explained further roaming [ 23 ]. Research on the human–dog link determined that free-ranging dogs tend to follow persons other than their owners [ 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Tourists Facilitators of the Movement of Free-Ranging Dogs?

Schüttler

Jiménez

2022

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dogs are the most abundant carnivores on earth and, as such, negatively impact wildlife. Free-ranging dogs roam in many protected areas, which in turn are often tourist destinations. Whether tourists influence their roaming is largely unexplored but highly relevant to wildlife conservation. To address this question, we obtained (i) 81 completed questionnaires from tourists on their experience with free-ranging dogs in the remote Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile, and (ii) photographs of three camera-traps placed next to trekking trails (n = 87 trap days). A third of the participants were followed by dogs for up to four days, and 39% saw free-ranging dogs on their hikes, but neither feeding dogs nor fear of them had any influence on whether tourists were followed by dogs. Camera-traps yielded 53 independent dog sequences, recorded 32 individuals plus 14 unidentified dogs, of which only one was leashed, with a frequency of one dog every 28th person. In 17% of 53 sequences, dogs were photographed together with hikers carrying large backpacks for several-day trips. We conclude that tourists are facilitators for the movement of dogs and highlight the importance of the engagement of the tourism sector in wildlife conservation in and close to protected areas.

show abstract

Do dog-human bonds influence movements of free-ranging dogs in wilderness?

Cited by 13 publications

References 66 publications

The Dog–Owner Relationship: Refinement and Validation of the Italian C/DORS for Dog Owners and Correlation with the LAPS

The Dog–Owner Relationship: Refinement and Validation of the Italian C/DORS for Dog Owners and Correlation with the LAPS

Risk factors for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producingE. colicarriage among children in a food animal producing region of Quito, Ecuador

Are Tourists Facilitators of the Movement of Free-Ranging Dogs?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About