See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248333865

Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behavior of

kenneled dogs

Article  in  Applied Animal Behaviour Science · September 1992

DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80096-6

CITATIONS READS

163 573

3 authors, including:

James A Serpell
University of Pennsylvania
191 PUBLICATIONS   6,293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) View project

The Domestic Dog, 2nd Edition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James A Serpell on 13 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 34 ( 1992 ) 365-383 365
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on

the behaviour of kennelled dogs

Robert C. Hubrecht a, James A. SerpelP and Trevor B. Poole b

aCompanion Animal Research Group (Department of Clinical Veterinat3, Medicine), ARS Site, 307
Huntingdon Rd., Cambridge CB3 0JQ, UK
bUniversities Federation qf Animal Welfare, 8 Hamilton Close, South Mimms,
Potters Bat', EN6 3QD, UK
(Accepted 17 February 1992)

ABSTRACT

Hubrecht, R.C., Serpell, J,A. and Poole, T.B., 1992. Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on
the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Appl. Anita. Behav. Sci., 34: 365-383.

The dog (Canisfami/iaris) has been domesticated for thousands of years but the effects of different
housing regimens on canine behaviour are poorly understood. This study presents behavioural data
collected from solitary and group-housed dogs housed in animal shelters and laboratories. The dogs
differed greatly in their behaviour under the different housing regimens. Solitary dogs were more
inactive (72-85% of observed time compared with group-housed dogs 54-62% of observed time),
and spent more time in non-social repetitive locomotory behaviour categories (4-5% compared with
group-housed 0.9-2% of observed time). Group-housed dogs were not only able to interact socially,
but also spent more time investigating the floor of their pens, presumably because of the increased
olfactory stimuli. Group-housed laboratory dogs provided with kennels used them for: rest, play and
the control of social interactions. Single-housed dogs, which were housed in smaller pens, had low
overall activity and tended towards stereotyped circling rather than pacing. At all the sites the oppor-
tunities for interactions with humans were limited (0.24-2.52% of the time observed). The results
are discussed in terms of cage design and animal husbandry.

INTRODUCTION

The domestic dog is thought to have been derived from the wolf, a highly
social carnivore (Scott and Fuller, 1965, Fox, 1971; Nowak and Paradiso,
1983 ). While most dogs lead lives in which there are abundant opportunities
for exercise, exploration, and social interaction with other dogs or humans,
they may be housed for long periods in much more restricted environments
for various reasons: ( I ) animal shelters rescue strays and house them for
varying periods before re-homing or euthanising them; (2) dogs may need to

Correspondence to: Dr. R. Hubrecht, Companion Animal Research Group (Department of

Clinical Veterinary Medicine), ARS Site, 307 Huntingdon Rd., Cambridge CB3 0JQ, UK.

© 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved 0168-1591/92/$05.00

366 R.C. HUBRECHT ET AL.

be kept in quarantine; (3) some breeds, predominantly beagles, are kept in

laboratories for experimental work. In many instances, the demands of exper-
imental design or quarantine require that dogs be kept either in solitary con-
finement or in very small groups. The housing and space given to dogs varies
widely between institutions and, in the past, the emphasis has often been to-
wards ease of husbandry rather than the animals' needs. There are official
guidelines in the UK (provided by the Home Office following collaboration
with the Royal Society and The Universities Federation of Animal Welfare)
which recommend minimum pen sizes for dogs of various weights in single-
and group-housing, but the experimental basis for these guidelines is unclear.
It is well known that, as with many other species, confinement of dogs in
conditions of restricted physical or social complexity can result in behav-
ioural abnormalities (Thompson et al., 1956, Fox, 1965, 1986; Andersen and
Good, 1970), which may take the form of stereotypies, allelomimetic behav-
iour or reduced behavioural repertoire. Most previous studies have been re-
stricted to the effects of cage size and have found little or no effect on activity
(Neamand et al., 1975; Hite et al., 1977; Campbell et al., 1988 ). On the other
hand, Hughes et al. (1989) found that larger cages and housing dogs in pairs
rather than singly reduced, rather than increased, the amount of exercise taken.
The effects of housing on conspecific social interactions are poorly under-
stood, although Pettijohn et al. (1980) showed that reducing cage area for
telomian dogs had no effect on agonistic frequency. Detailed information re-
garding the environmental needs of kennelled dogs is therefore scarce.
In the present study we examined the behaviour of dogs housed, either sin-
gly or in groups, in animal shelters and in commercial laboratories. The sites
differed not only in the degree of space available and the amount of social
interaction possible, but also in the physical complexity of the environment.
The aim of the study was to determine how dog behaviour varied under these
different conditions with the ultimate goal of discovering which features of
housing and husbandry might be important in terms of canine welfare.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sites and housing

Shelter housing and husbandry

Data were collected from two shelter sites: The Wood Green Animal Shel-
ter at King's Bush and Battersea Dogs Home, London.
At Wood Green, the dogs were housed in approximately triangular open,
grassed, adjacent pens of area about 744 m 2 holding between five and 11 dogs
of the same sex. Some of the pens contained small trees a n d / o r concrete play
structures and benches. Along the perimeters were paved walkways. Adjoin-
ing each pen was a small, concrete-floored, covered area which could be used
DOG BEHAVIOUR IN KENNELS 367

to provide shelter in bad weather. At night, the dogs were housed indoors in
heated rooms, containing two large raised beds filled with shredded paper
bedding. The dogs were fed twice a day at approximately 10:30 h and 15:30
h. Water was provided in a bucket ad libitum. Ambient temperature ranged
from - 3 to 19 ° C during the watches. Concrete areas of the pens were hosed
out in the mornings and cleaned out as necessary during the day.
Battersea Dogs Home housed their dogs indoors, either singly or in pairs,
in cages which measured 1.205 × 1.805 m. In each room there were between
27 and 32 cages on either side of a central walkway. A solid partition between
cages extended to a height of 0.9 m, above which there was mesh. Fibreglass
beds were provided, usually with no extra bedding. On most days, 15 min of
exercise was provided in a separate concrete run measuring 3 m X 6 m. The
dogs were fed either twice or three times a day as required and water was
provided in a trough ad libitum. Times of feeding were variable but were
approximately 08:00 h, 12:00 h and 15:30 h. Temperature was maintained
between 14 and 22°C. The pens were hosed out between 08:30 and 09.30 h
and further cleaned out as necessary during the day.

Laboratory housing and husbandry

Data were collected from dogs housed in groups on a slatted floor system
(SCAMPS a Housing), and from single-housed dogs (LSH) in indoor solid-
floored pens.
On SCAMPS the dogs were housed in same-sex groups of five, in pens
measuring 3.66 m X 1.83 m. The floors consisted of parallel, flat, galvanised
iron slats 1.9 cm wide separated by gaps of 1.9 cm. In each pen there was a
kennel with a solid floor measuring 1.7 mX0.86 m. A solid partition sepa-
rated pens up to a height of 1 m, above which there was mesh. Food was
provided by lowering a hopper filled with pellets (Expanded Diet A, SDS, 1
Stepfield, Witham) into the pen for up to 2 h day-~ at midday. Water was
provided ad libitum from drinking nipples. The building containing the pens
was unheated. Ambient temperature ranged from 0 to 15 °C. The pens were
hosed down twice a week.
In laboratory single-housing (LSH), the dogs were housed in pens of two
different sizes: 21 dogs were studied in pens measuring 1.53 m X 2.70 m, while
another 15 single-housed dogs were studied in larger pens 2.53 reX2.70 m.
Each pen contained a raised insulated sleeping-step at the rear of the pen. The
pens were separated by a solid partition 0.87 m high, with mesh above. Some
of the dogs were exercised once or twice a week by letting them run together
in rooms for 15 min while a member of staff was present. The dogs were fed
from bowls at approximately 14:00 h on Expanded Diet A with corn oil. Water

aSandwich, Comfortable, Autoclean, Metallic, Pedal-Support System.

368 R.C. HUBRECHT ET AL.

was provided ad libitum from drinking nipples. Temperature was maintained

at 18 __ 2°C, humidity at 55 _+ 10% relative humidity. The pens were swept
daily and hosed at least once a week.

Subjects

Shelter subjects
Data were collected from 50 group-housed dogs at Wood Green and 50
single-housed dogs at Battersea. A small n u m b e r of dogs were housed in pairs
at Battersea, and the opportunity was taken to collect data from eight dogs,
one from each pen. Dogs were of various breeds, the most frequent identifia-
ble dogs being G e r m a n shepherd dogs or their crosses (Table 1 ). Ages were
taken from owners' statements or estimations made by staff on entry. Gender,
ages and duration in shelter are given in Table 2.

TABLE 1

Attributed breed o f subjects at the animal shelters

Breed Wood Green Battersea

Count % Count %

Bearded Collie cross 1 2

Collie cross 9 18 1 2
Doberman 6 12 3 6
D o b e r m a n cross 3 6
Greyhound 1 2 8 16
G r e y h o u n d cross 1
G e r m a n Shepherd Dog ( G S D ) 7 14 4 8
G S D cross 10 20
G S D cross Irish W o l f H o u n d 1 2
G S D cross collie 1 2
G S D cross labrador 1 2
Labrador cross 1 2 3 6
Lurcher 4 8 3 6
Mongrel 10 20 10 20
Rottweiller 2 4
Shetland Sheep Dog 1 2
Springer Spaniel I 2
Staffordshire Bull Terrier I
Staffordshire cross 2 4
Terrier cross 1 2 1 2
Whippet cross 3 6

Totals 50 100 50 100

DOG BEHAVIOUR IN KENNELS 369

TABLE 2

Gender, ages of subjects and duration of stay in housing at time of observation

Gender Age Mean age Duration of stay

(months) (months) (days)
Males Females

Wood Green 27 23 5-60 24.43 7-58

Battersea 28 22 9-30 26.17 8-259
Battersea Pairs 3 5 - - 3-234
SCAMPS 25 25 6-8 6.76 45-165
LSH 26 10 9-64 28.73 7-1520

Ages at Wood Green and Battersea were estimates from veterinary staff.

Laboratory subjects
Data were collected from 50 group-housed beagles on SCAMPS and 36 bea-
gles housed singly in laboratory accommodation. Gender, ages and duration
in the a c c o m m o d a t i o n are given in Table 2.

Observation methods

Watches
The dogs' behaviour was sampled using a focal animal technique. A hand-
held PSION Organiser was p r o g r a m m e d and used to record the time and du-
ration of the behaviour categories listed in Table 3. The data files were sub-
sequently analysed on an Apple Macintosh. Each dog's behaviour was contin-
uously recorded, for a period of 0.5 h between 08:30 and 12:30 h and for 0.5
h between 12:30 and 16:30 h. At the shelters the dogs readily became accus-
tomed to the presence of the observer, probably because of the usual presence
of the public. In contrast, at the laboratory sites, the presence of humans,
especially unknown humans, was rare. Preliminary observations of ten dogs,
comparing direct watches with those from remote video recordings, showed
that laboratory single-housed dogs were significantly less active when a strange
observer was in the room (two-tailed t-test P < 0.05 ). A more detailed analy-
sis of behaviour showed that this was due to the dogs trotting less and spend-
ing less time on hind legs looking over partitions. In the presence of the ob-
server the dogs also spent more time standing (two tailed t-test P < 0 . 0 5 ) .
These differences were clearly due to the presence of the observer, and were
not due to differences in observability. All watches in LSH and SCAMPS were,
therefore, made using a video camera to avoid changing the dogs' behaviour
by the presence of an observer. No differences were found between video and
observer watches for the other behaviour categories recorded and so we felt
justified in making comparisons between data collected by different methods
at shelters and laboratories. No significant differences were found between
370 R.C. HUBRECHTET AL.

TABLE 3

Behaviour categories used in the study

Category Definition

Rest Lying down with eyes open or closed

Sit Sit on hind legs
Stand Stand on four legs
Walk Ambulatory gait
Trot Trotting gait
Run Running gait
Hind Legs Standing on hind legs using forelegs against a wall to support the body
Circle Repetitive circling around pen
Tail chase Repetitive chasing of tail
Pace Repetitive pacing usually along a fence
Social pace Repetitive pacing along fence in parallel with a dog on the other side
Jump Repetitive jumping so that hind legs leave the ground
Wall bounce Repetitive jumping at wall, rebounding off it
Flank suck Repetitive and prolonged autogrooming of flank
Contact dog ~ Lying in contact with dog
Amicable dog Lick, paw or allogroom dog often with tail wag
Threat dog Snarl raise hackles to dog
Atlack dog Bite snap paw or chase dog
Defensive dog Evade dog, cower, roll over, lick face
Competitive dog Defend object or food from dog
Sniff dog Nose to any area of another dog
Solicit play dog Bow, metaplay
Play with dog Bouncing gait, play face, wrestle, play chase
T-dog Muzzle placed across neck of another dog
Mount dog Hetero-homosexual mounting
Mounted Focal animal mounted by other dog
Amicable human Lick, paw, allogroom human, often with tail wag
Threat human Snarl raise hackles to human
Attack human Bite snap paw or chase human
Defensive human Evade human, cower, roll over
Competitive human Defend object or food from human
Sniff human Nose to any area of human
Solicit play human Bow, metaplay with human
Play human Bouncing gait, play face, wrestle, play chase with human
Pat dog ~ Human pat dog
Bark ~ Staccato vocalisations
Howl t Long drawn out vocalisations
Bark at passers ~ Recorded where object of barking could be seen
Autogroom Lick, pull at body/pelage
Dig Dig at ground with fore paws
Urinate squat Urinate in squatting position
Urinate raised leg Urinate with one leg cocked
Kick ground Scratching ground with hind legs, usually following urination or defaecation
Sniff ground Nose to ground
Eat Eating food
Drink Drinking/mouth at drinking nipple
Coprophagy Eat own or other dog's faeces
DOG BEHAVIOUR IN KENNELS 371

TABLE 3 - - cont.

Category Definition

Chew Chew non-nutritive material, e.g. pebble

Eat grass Eating grass (only possible at Wood Green)
Mouth toy Chew toy
Defaecate
Kennel In Kennel (SCAMPS only)
Staffavailable ~ Staffavailable for interaction with dogs in pen
Public available ~ Public available for interaction with clogs in pen

Locomotory categories were recorded in the absence of other mutually exclusive behaviours.
~Indicates non-exclusive category.

dogs housed in large or small cages in LSH; their data were, therefore, lumped
for further analysis. At Battersea and at LSH the watches did not include the
time when dogs were taken out of their pens for exercise.

Analysis of movement behaviour categories

Stereotypies have been defined as repeated, relatively invariate sequences
of movements which have no obvious purpose, and are often associated with
poor housing (e.g. Fraser and Broom, 1990). In the present study circling,
pacing, social pacing, tail chase, wall bounce and flank suck were classified as
repetitive behaviour categories. Those categories that comprised an average
of 1% or more of the dogs' observable time at any of the sites (walk, trot, run,
hind legs, circle, pace, social pace and j u m p ) also appeared to be very likely
to auto-repeat. A five-interval sequence analysis using pre-post state histo-
grams (Douglas and Tweed, 1979) was used to investigate autorepetition of
movement categories. As the categories by definition could not follow them-
selves the analysis looked at lags of 2-5 behaviour categories. Expected means
were calculated and 95% confidence intervals were used to detect lags at which
a behaviour occurred more or less often than expected. At Wood Green, pac-
ing and social pacing were found to autorepeat at all of the lags. At Battersea,
pacing repeated at all of the lags while circling repeated at lag 2. At LSH,
circling repeated at lags of 2 and 4. At Battersea, SCAMPS and LSH, jump
repeated at lags of 2, 3, 4 and 5. It therefore seemed reasonable to treat jump-
ing, circling, pacing and social pacing as being qualitatively different to the
other movement categories and probably stereotypic. However, as social pac-
ing and jumping may have had secondary functions, the term repetitive be-
haviour will be used.

RESULTS

Time budgets
Time budgets for the dogs at each of the sites are shown in Fig. 1. For this
purpose, the behaviour categories for which scores were obtained were
summed as follows:
372 R.C. HUBRECHT ET AL.

Active: Walk, trot, run, hind legs

Active (repetitive): Circle, pace, social pace, jump, tail chase, wall
bounce, flanksuck
Inactive: Sit, rest, stand
Socialise with human: Amicable human, defensive human, play with hu-
man, sniff h u m a n
Socialise with dogs: Amicable dog, threat dog, attack dog, defensive dog,
competitive dog, play dog, solicit play dog, T-dog,
sniff dog, m o u n t dog, m o u n t e d
Alimentary: Eat, drink, eat grass, urinate raised, urinate squat,
defaecate, coprophagy
Others: Dig, sniff ground, kick ground, chew, m o u t h toy,
autogroom
In kennel: Only in SCAMPS

The kennel in SCAMPS appeared to be an important resource for the dogs

as they spent an average of 35% of their time in it, increasing to a m a x i m u m
of 51% in the afternoon. The kennel, being a very different environment to
the rest of the pen, allowed the dogs to exercise choice, thus providing them
with some control over their environment. It also provided a solid draught-
free floor for resting. From the behaviour of the dog, before entry or when
exiting, it was clear that the kennel was used for a n u m b e r of other activities:
dogs sometimes took food into the kennel, they were seen to use the kennel as
a refuge from other dogs, and used it during play. However, when the dogs
were inside the kennel it was impossible to accurately determine their behav-
iour. In view of the multiple uses of the kennel, it would have been inappro-
priate to consider time in kennel as the equivalent of one activity, such as
rest, and so for further analysis all scores were calculated as a percentage of
the time that the focal animal was visible. While this process produces artifi-
cially low scores for behaviours which might be preferentially carried out in
the kennel and tends to inflate those preferentially carried out outside the
kennel, it seems a reasonable compromise in view of the different uses of the
kennel. Because of these difficulties the time budget for SCAMPS is shown as
both inclusive and exclusive of time spent in the kennel.
At all sites the dogs spent the majority of their time inactive. Dogs were
most active at Wood Green and least active at Battersea. SCAMPS housing
was notable for the small a m o u n t of active (repetitive) behaviour and the
large proportion of time spent in alimentary behaviour.
For further comparison between sites, one-way analyses of variance were
carried out on all behaviour categories which comprised more than 1% of the
observable time at any one of the sites. A square root transformation was used
on the data. Degrees of freedom were 3,182. The results of all ANOVAs were
DOG BEHAVIOUR IN K E N N E L S 373

SCAMPS Excluding
Wood Green
time spent in kennel
1.82%
3.86% 6.05%
4 ~4o/^
9.'
0.

0.85%
9.80%,

.01°o 0.22%

t.. . . . . . .
54.22%
SCAMPS Including
time spent in kennel
12.43%,

0.56%

34.79%

35.36%

3,95%
6.38°°
6.39°°
LSH
Battersea

1.10% 2.91%
7.15% 1.02%
2.67%
• c

4.89%

84.53% 72.18%

Fig. 1. Mean time budgets at each site using summed behaviour categories. See text for details.
II, active: r--l, active (repetitive): [], inactive: F-A,socialise with human; [~, alimentary,: NI, so-
cialist with dog: rl]ll,others: [], in kennel.
TABLE 4 ..-.A

S c h e f f 6 F - v a l u e s f o r c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n sites

Behaviour W o o d G r e e n vs. W o o d G r e e n vs. W o o d G r e e n vs. B a t t e r s e a vs. B a t t e r s e a vs. S C A M P S vs.

Battersea SCAMPS Singles SCAMPS LSH LSH

Walk 55.58*** -0.02 12.24*** - 57.73*** - 11.04"** 13.17***

Trot 103.50*** 56.15*** 31.25"** - 7.18*** - 13.83*** - 1.60
Run 20.85*** 17.30"** 16.71"* -0.17 -0.008 0.08
H i n d legs - 9.28*** - 22.28*** - 27.55*** - 2.80* - 6.06*** - 0.87
Circle - 6.62*** - 0.0005 - 8.89*** 6.51"** - 0.39 - 8.77***
Pace 2.71" 3.71" 1.13 0.08 -0.20 -0.49
Social p a c e 5.28** 5.17** 4.60** - 0.0005 0.002 0.004
Rest - 7.39*** 0.68 0.64 12.56*** 2.85* - 2.41
Sit 0.12 - 5.11"* - 17.69*** - 5.62** - 18.53*** -4.56**
Stand -0.02 3.75* 9.15*** 4.33** 9.96*** 1.57
Play dog 1.73 - 29.51"** 1.75 - 45.52*** 0.01 39.59***
Sniffdog 29.98*** - 11.99"** 23.68*** - 79.89*** -0.02 64.55***
Contact dog 1.65 - 10.30*** 1.54 - 20.20*** 0.004 17.44***
Eat 0.03 - 7.02*** 0.09 - 7.99*** 0.02 7.40***
Drink 0.65 - 2.26 0.63 - 5.33** 0.003 4.71"*
Sniffground 10.98*** - 5.30** 1.17 - 31.55"** - 3.80* 10.17***
Autogroom -4.30*** - 1.51 - 1.03 0.72 0.78 0.01

* P < 0 . 0 5 : * * P < 0.01 : ***P< 0 . 0 0 I.

Sign i n d i c a t e s t h e d i r e c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n m e a n s .

,-r
c

f,-
DOG BEHAVIOLIR IN KENNELS 375

highly significant ( P < 0 . 0 0 5 ) . Post hoc Scheff6 F-tests were used for be-
tween-site comparisons (Table 4).

Locomotion

Non-repetitive activities
Group-housed dogs spent more time walking than single-housed dogs
( P < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . Conversely, single-housed dogs spent more time resting than
group-housed dogs although the difference was only significant between Bat-
tersea and the two group-housed sites ( P < 0.001 ). Battersea dogs also spent
substantially more time resting than at LSH ( P < 0.05 ) (Fig. 2 ). Dogs in the
large enclosures at Wood Green both trotted and ran more than dogs at any
of the other sites (comparisons P < 0.01 or less ) (Fig.3). Running, however,
was a rare activity and was normally seen as the result of some disturbance
outside the enclosure.
Sitting and standing were postures in which the dog monitored the environ-
ment. At both the shelter sites, dogs spent more time standing and less time
sitting than in laboratory housing (comparisons P < 0 . 0 5 or smaller), al-
though the cumulative scores of standing and sitting were very similar (Fig.
4). The difference may have been due to the presence of visitors and staff at
the shelters. Standing on hind legs was rare in the open-meshed pens at Wood
Green but was seen in increasing amounts at Battersea, SCAMPS and LSH
( Fig. 4 ). These sites all had partitions between the pens.
40 Grout} Housed , Single Housed

30

~ ' ~0

20
~ ' - -C
C

10
.u
O.

Wood Green SCAMPS Battersea LSH

Site

Fig. 2. Percentage of observed time spent resting and walking (mean + SE ). II, rest; F~, walk.
376 R.C. HUBRECHTET AL.

14 744 6.69 2.17 4.17-6.83 Size of pen

in Square metres
G)
E 12.

10
m o

C
6

g&
c

OJ 2

0 -
Wood Green SCAMPS LSH Battersea

Site

Fig. 3. Percentage of observed time spent trotting and running (mean +_SE ). II, trot: [], run.

60 Shelter housing Laboratory housing

E 50
.=..,

e-, :~
o 40
T
T

"~ ~¢- 30

c
g ~. 20
c

e
L,- 10
Q.

Wood Green Battersea SCAMPS LSH

Site

Fig. 4. Percentage of obser~,ed time spent sitting, standing and on hind legs ( mean + SE ). II, sit"
I-1, stand: [], hind legs: • - 0 - , cumulative sit and stand.
DOG BEHAVIOUR IN KENNELS 377

Repetitive activities
In single housing a higher percentage of dogs exhibited repetitive behaviour
compared to those in group housing (Table 5 ). There were only small differ-
ences between Wood Green, Battersea and LSH in the mean repetitive behav-
iour score, but if social pacing (which may not be stereotypic) is removed
from the Wood Green score, it drops to 2.16%, well below the 4-4.9% ob-
tained in the single-housing sites. The data obtained from the eight pair-housed
dogs at Battersea showed that they spent considerably less time in repetitive
behaviour than single housed dogs at the same site (1.51% vs. 4.01%), al-
though other activities were also reduced. Repetitive behaviour was ex-
tremely rare under the SCAMPS system and was not seen to any great extent
TABLE 5

Site scores for repetitive behaviour

Site Percentage of dogs For all dogs, Percentage ofdogs Highest score for
showing mean percentage spending > 10% repetitive behaviour
any repetitive of time spent in of time in (percentage of
behaviour repetitive behaviour repetitive behaviour time observed )

Wood Green 42 4 14 47
Battersea 62 4 12 63
SCAMPS 46 0.9 0 6
LSH 84 4.9 13 51

Group Housed Single Housed

E
4

,.Q

~- o 3

o-~

*-' "1
¢" W

L.
a.

O ~
Wood Green SCAMPS Battersea LSH

Site

Fig. 5. Percentage o f observed t i m e spent in active ( r e p e t i t i v e ) b e h a v i o u r (mean_+SE). B ,

circle: [], pace: G], social pace.
378 R.C. H U B R E C H T ET AL.

in any dog (maximum 6%), but at each of the other sites more than 10% of
the dogs spent more than 10% of their time in repetitive behaviour. No sig-
nificant correlations between duration of stay and repetitive behaviour were
found at any of the sites ( P > 0.05 ). Circling was the predominant repetitive
behaviour seen in single housing (Fig. 5) (all single- vs. group-housing com-
parisons P < 0.001 ). On the other hand, pacing was seen most at Wood Green
followed by LSH (comparisons between Wood Green and Battersea and
SCAMPS P < 0 . 0 5 ) . Social pacing was also common at Wood Green (com-
parisons with other sites P < 0.01 ). Repetitive behaviour showed a slight ten-
dency to increase with age but not with duration in LSH (Pearson r=0.498,
P<0.05).

Social behaviour
Although a limited amount of social interaction was possible between pens
for LSH and single-housed shelter dogs, not surprisingly social behaviour was
seen most often in the group-housed dogs. Nonetheless, even amongst these
the amount of time spent in social activities was relatively small (all meas-
ures, excluding social pace, 4.54% at Wood Green, 9.79% in SCAMPS).
SCAMPS groups were well established compared to Wood Green, and the
dogs were also younger, which may have accounted for them spending the
most time playing with and sniffing other dogs (Fig. 6). They also spent far
more time in contact, usually while resting (SCAMPS vs. Wood Green
Group Housed Single Housed

12

t
E
10

m o
~'~ 8

," 6
e-.

c
@
~- 2
n

Wood Green SCAMPS Battersea LSH

Site

Fig. 6. Percentage of observed time spent in social behaviour with dogs and investigating the
ground (mean + SE). B, play with dog: [3, contact: r ~ sniff dog; ©, sniff ground.
DOG BEHAVIOUR IN K E N N E L S 379

E
II
¢g 0
~'N

C
0 ~
e,-

L.
Q.

Wood Green SCAMPS Battersea LSH

Site

Fig. 7. Percentage of observed time spent in alimentary behaviours ( mean _+SE ). , , eat; ff],
drink.

P < 0.001 ). Large differences were observed in investigatory behaviour (sniff

ground) with the highest values recorded in the group-housed dogs. (Fig. 6 ).
All comparisons were significant ( P < 0 . 0 5 or less) except for Wood Green
vs. LSH. Investigatory behaviour in both group and single housing was high-
est in the laboratory dogs, which may have been because these animals were
beagles, i.e. scent hounds. On the other hand, the small amount of investiga-
tory behaviour shown by the dogs at Battersea was accompanied by the high-
est allogrooming score; both these results may have been because the floors
were usually washed down following defaecation at this site.

Alimentary behaviour
Dogs in SCAMPS spent much longer feeding than at any of the other sites
( P < 0 . 0 0 1 ) (Fig. 7), which was almost certainly a result of the method of
feeding pellets from a hopper. The dogs tended to take small quantities, often
carrying pellets away from the hopper for chewing. Although the 2 h feeding
period was adequate for all dogs to eat their fill, there appeared to be interfer-
ence between dogs, so that those that were presumably subordinate had to
wait until the others had finished. Dogs spent least time drinking at Battersea
and in LSH, and most under SCAMPS ( P < 0 . 0 1 ) , although the differences
were small. As the food was dry in both LSH and SCAMPS, the higher
SCAMPS score was presumably associated with the extended feeding period.
380 R.C. HUBRECHT ET AL.

Barking
Barking was difficult to record accurately from group-housed dogs on video
tape. However, there was little difference between the scores from untaped
observations at the two shelter sites.

DISCUSSION

The results clearly show that the dogs at the different sites differ in behav-
iour. However, as the data were collected from institutions which were car-
rying on their normal business, it was not possible to standardise subjects or
data collection techniques to the degree that would be expected in an experi-
mental study. Apart from the differences in housing and husbandry, the dogs
at the different sites also differed in breed, age and past history. Caution,
therefore, needs to be exercised in deciding how much of the behavioural
variation should be attributed directly to the different housing regimens.
Nonetheless, we believe that analysis of similarities and differences in the
dogs' behaviour at the different sites can provide pointers for future experi-
mental work.
It is well known that lack of control over the environment can result in a
failure to cope (e.g. Seligman, 1975 ). Provision of social contacts allows some
such control, and Wolfle ( 1987, 1990) and Fox (1986) have emphasised the
importance of h u m a n contact for dogs. Indeed, Wolfle considers the value
greater than that of canine contact. Experimental evidence for this assertion
is sparse, but Campbell et al. (1988) found that the presence of people in-
creased dog activity, and Fox (1986) writes that withdrawal of regular con-
tact can result in dogs becoming people-shy. However, at all sites, the time
available for the dogs to interact with humans was very small (Wood Green
2.52% of time watched, Battersea 0.58%, SCAMPS 0.34%, LSH 0.24%). This
had obvious effects on the time dogs spent interacting with humans (Wood
Green 0.67%, Battersea 0.22%, SCAMPS 0.15%, LSH 0.036%). Moreover,
many of the normal husbandry activities of the staff, such as the use of brooms,
hoses and buckets of water to wash down pens, would have tended to discour-
age interactions and may have been threatening to the dogs. Withdrawal of
opportunities for socialisation with humans might be expected to be particu-
larly stressful to dogs used to h u m a n contact (Fox, 1986 ) and to dogs housed
in isolation, but further data are needed. Management at both shelter and
laboratory sites considered h u m a n contact to be beneficial but, unless de-
tailed records are kept, it is very easy to overestimate contact time. One so-
lution may be to employ staff whose duties specifically include socialising
with the dogs.
Housing the dogs in groups was associated with high activity, social behav-
iour and investigation, together with low levels of repetitive behaviour. Group
housing has two consequences: the dogs are provided with a complex social
DOG BEHAVIOUR IN KENNELS 381

environment, and overall pen size tends to be larger. Both these factors may
have resulted in the greater a m o u n t of walking and smaller a m o u n t of repeti-
tive behaviour seen in group-housed dogs. On the other hand, large pen size
alone seemed to be responsible for the more energetic trotting and running at
Wood Green. Previous studies have indicated that increasing the size of cage
has little effect on exercise. Yet, in all these studies the initial cage sizes were
small, ranging from 0.5 m 2 to 3 m 2 (Hite et al., 1977; Campbell et al., 1988:
Hughes et al., 1989) and the increases in cage size were also small (1-1.16
m2). Similarly, in the present study, there were no differences in behaviour
in the LSH dogs housed in 4.13 m 2 pens compared with those in 6.83 m 2 pens.
Hence, the failure of these studies to find changes in behaviour could be due
to a statistical floor effect. Social pacing at Wood Green was apparently a
product of large pen size together with the lack of a visual partition between
neighbouring pens. However, this category differed from the other repetitive
behaviour categories recorded in that it involved a social interaction and, as
such, may not be indicative of poor housing. The SCAMPS dogs spent the
least time in repetitive behaviour and the most time in social interactions,
particularly play. This may have been because they were younger than at the
other sites (e.g. Markwell and Thornes, 1987 ), but an alternative explanation
may lie in stocking density. In the comparatively small SCAMPS pens the
dogs were m u c h more likely to interact with each other, resulting in more
frequent social contacts. Similarly, through physical interference, higher
stocking density could also have an inhibitory effect on the development of
repetitive locomotory patterns. While these outcomes of high stocking den-
sity may be thought valuable, the denial of space to run during exercise pe-
riods has u n k n o w n welfare implications for a species which is known to range
freely over areas of 0.26 km 2 under urban feral conditions (Beck, 1975 ) and
28.5 km 2 in a wildlife reserve (Nesbitt, 1975). In addition to direct social
interactions, housing in groups also increased the interest value of the envi-
ronment, as substantially more time was spent sniffing the ground, presum-
ably for olfactory traces from other dogs. The relationship between pen size,
n u m b e r of individuals and behaviour deserves further study, preferably un-
der carefully controlled experimental conditions.
Single housing was associated with more passive behaviour and non-social
repetitive behaviour. The impression given was that these dogs spent much
of their time trying to increase sensory input or, in other words, offset bore-
d o m (sensu Wemelsfelder, 1985). For example, at Battersea where visitors
and staff passed down a corridor at the front of the cages, many of the dogs
spent long periods with their muzzles pushed against the mesh at the front of
the pen, presumably either to see down the corridor or for olfactory purposes.
In contrast, at LSH there was little of interest in the central corridor and so
the dogs spent more of their time standing on hind legs to view neighbouring
pens and the door. The small pen sizes of single-housed dogs was associated
382 R.C. HUBRECHTETAL.

with circling rather than pacing behaviour. It is likely that this is essentially
the same behaviour modified by cage size. At Battersea Dogs Home, some of
these behaviour patterns could have developed before arrival at the shelter,
but once in the small Battersea pens there was little that the dogs could do,
apart from circle.
Our data support the assumption that housing in groups is generally pref-
erable to housing singly. Whether dogs are housed singly or in groups, cage,
room design and husbandry methods are all important. It is likely that pro-
vision of a kennel within a pen may give dogs more control over their social
and physical environment. Other measures may also be useful. Providing dry
food in a hopper could help increase foraging time. This sort of strategy has
been used with captive primates and other animals to offset boredom (e.g.
Anderson and Chamove, 1984). In summary, dog housing often provides lit-
tle in terms of stimulation or possibilities for control and it is clear that some
animals do develop behavioural abnormalities. Experimental studies are
therefore needed to find economical and practical ways of enriching this en-
vironment which take into account the dogs' needs and sensory modalities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by a grant from Universities Federation of Animal

Welfare. We are grateful to the managements and staff of the Wood Green
King's Bush Animal Shelter, Battersea Dogs Home, and Pfizer Central Re-
search for provision of facilities and for permission to work at their sites. We
wish to thank Judy A. MacArthur of Pfizer for her help in initiating and sup-
porting the project and for comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Andersen, A.C. and Good, L.S., 1970. The Beagle as an Experimental Animal. Iowa State Uni-
versity Press, Ames.
Anderson, J.R. and Chamove, A.S., 1984. Allowing captive primates to forage. In: Standards in
Laboratory Animals Management. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar,
pp. 253-256.
Beck, A.M., 1975. The ecology of'feral' and free roving dogs in Baltimore. In: M.W. Fox (Edi-
tor), The Wild Canids, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 380-390.
Campbell, S.A., Hughes, H.C., Griffin, H.E., Landi, M.S. and Mallon, F.M., 1988. Some effects
of limited exercise on purpose-bred Beagles. Am. J. Vet. Res., 49:1298-1301.
Douglas, J.M. and Tweed, R.L., 1979. Analysing the pattern of a sequence of discrete behav-
ioural events. Anim. Behav., 27: 1236-1252.
Fox, M.W., 1965. Environmental factors influencing stereotyped and allelomimetic behaviour
in animals. Lab. Anim. Care., 15: 363-370.
Fox, M.W., 1971. Behavior of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canids. Jonathan Cape, London.
 DOG BEHAVIOURIN KENNELS 383

Fox, M.W., 1986. Laboratory Animal Husbandry. State University of New York Press, Albany,
NY.
Fraser, A.F. and Broom, D.M., 1990. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd edn. Baili6re
Tindall London.
Hite, H., Hanson, H.M., Bohidar, N.R., Conti, P.A. and Mattis, P.A., 1977. Effects of cage size
on patterns of activity and health of beagle dogs. Lab. Anim. Sci., 27: 60-64.
Hughes, C.H., Campbell, S. and Kenney, C., 1989. The effects of cage size and pair housing on
exercise of beagle dogs. Lab. Anim. Sci., 39: 302-305.
Markwell, P.J. and Thornes, C.J., 1987. Early behavioural development in dogs. J. Small Anim.
Pract., 28: 984-991.
Neamand, J., Sweeny, W.T., Creamer, A.A. and Conti, P.A., 1975. Cage activity in the labora-
tory beagle: a preliminary study to evaluate a method of comparing cage size to physical
activity. Lab. Anim. Sci., 25:180-183.
Nesbitt, W.H., 1975. Ecology of a feral dog pack on a wildlife refuge. In: M.W. Fox (Editor),
The Wild Canids. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 391-395.
Nowak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L., 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World, 4th edn. The Johns
Hopkins Press, London.
Pettijohn, T.F., Davis, K.L. and Scott, J.P., 1980. Influence of living area space on agonistic
interaction in telomian dogs. Behav. Neur. Biol., 28: 343-349.
Scott, J.P. and Fuller, J.L., 1965. Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Seligman, M.E.P., 1975. Helplessness: on depression, development and death. W.H. Freeman,
San Francisco.
Thompson, W.R., Melzack, R. and Scott, T.H., 1956. 'Whirling behaviour' in dogs as related to
early exposure. Science, 123: 939.
Wemelsfelder, F., 1985. Animal boredom: is a scientific study of subjective experiences of ani-
mals possible? In: M.W. Fox and L.D. Mickley (Editors), Advances in Animal Welfare Sci-
ence 1984. Maninus Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 115-154.
Wolfle, T.L., 1987. Control of stress using non-drug approaches. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 19 l:
1219-1221.
Wolfle, T.L., 1990. Policy, program and people: the three p's to well-being. In: J. A. Mench and
L. Krulisch (Editors), Canine Research Environment. Scientists Center for Animal Welfare,
Bethseda, pp. 41-47.

View publication stats