Abstract

Meeting the needs of dogs in a typical animal shelter can be a challenging proposition. Negative environmental inputs, such as excessive noise, restrictive kenneling, and social isolation, contribute to the compromised welfare that dogs experience. Human-animal interaction, such as time spent outside of the shelter, has been shown to positively influence dogs’ cortisol and activity levels. What is less understood is if longer durations of foster care could extend those benefits. In addition, dogs living with a conspecific in the shelter, co-housing, has been even less explored, but available findings suggest that dogs’ behavior can be improved by living with another dog. In the present study, we investigated the impacts of weeklong fostering on dogs’ urinary cortisol and activity. Two animal shelters, one open and one managed admission, participated. At the open admission facility, a smaller sub-study explored the effects of co-housing prior to foster care (i.e., with and without a dog) and following (i.e., without another dog or with a familiar or unknown dog) in the animal shelter. To answer these research questions, dogs’ urine was collected in the morning for cortisol: creatinine analysis and activity monitors were worn by the dogs for 17 days: five days in the animal shelter, seven days in a caregiver’s home, and five days in the shelter following foster care. In total, 84 dogs participated with 1,385 cortisol: creatinine values and 1,205 activity totals across five activity level types. At both shelters, we found dogs’ cortisol levels decreased, and they spent more time resting during weeklong fostering. Moreover, no significant differences in cortisol or activity were found pre- and post-fostering, with the exception of more time being spent in mid-intensity activity in the shelter following foster care as compared to before. These findings align with investigations of shorter durations of foster care, although the magnitude of the present intervention’s impact was greater. With regards to the type of housing dogs experienced (with or without another dog), no difference was found in dogs’ cortisol values in either the days before or after foster care with no effect on their activity detected pre-fostering; however, dogs’ activity was influenced by living with a familiar dog upon reentry to the animal shelter following foster care. Specifically, dogs rested more and engaged in less intense activity, indicating a positive effect on their welfare. Lastly as has been previously observed, significant differences in cortisol and activity were found between our shelters, suggesting that environmental differences are contributing to canine welfare that require further scientific exploration. In total, a weeklong reprieve from the animal shelter, as well as co-housing with a familiar dog upon return to the shelter are two evidence-based interventions that can improve the welfare of shelter-living dogs awaiting adoption.