Other Perspectives on the Human–Animal Bond

Animal Welfare and the Human–Animal Bond:

Considerations for Veterinary Faculty, Students,
and Practitioners
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d

Sean P. Wensley

ABSTRACT
Consideration of the human–animal bond typically focuses on the benefits of companion animals to human health and well-
being, but it is essential that in realizing these benefits the welfare needs of the animals, both physical and mental, are also
met. Positive emotional relationships with animals are likely to increase recognition of animal sentience and so help create
positive attitudes toward animals at the societal level, but, at the individual level, the animals to which humans are bonded
should also benefit from the human–animal relationship. A strong human–animal bond may benefit animal welfare (e.g., by
motivating an owner to commit time and funds to necessary veterinary medical treatment), but may also be the source of
compromised welfare. Highly bonded owners may, for example, be reluctant to permit euthanasia on humane grounds, and
the anthropomorphic nature of many human–companion animal bonds can contribute to the development of problem
behaviors and obesity. The challenge for the veterinary profession is to ensure that widespread positive sentiment toward
animals, which the human–animal bond generates, is translated in to human behavior and actions that are conducive to
good animal welfare. This, it is suggested, can be achieved through adequate veterinary education in veterinary and animal
welfare science, ethics, and communication.

Key words: animal welfare, human–animal bond, problem behavior, obesity, anthropomorphism, veterinary education

INTRODUCTION ensuring the welfare of the animals that are committed to

People forge emotional bonds with a wide range of animal
species. Experience from working at a companion and
exotic animal veterinary practice in the United Kingdom
suggests that many people have a great desire or need to
form deep emotional attachments to animals, ranging from
cats and dogs to rats and tarantulas.
The affection that people have for their animals is
intimated by their behavior and language during veterinary
consultations, but the strength of the human–animal bond
(HAB) is probably never more clearly revealed than during
euthanasia consultations, when outward expressions of
owner distress are common. Such distress is seen in
response to the death of mammals, birds, reptiles, and
invertebrates.
Veterinarians, therefore, can be in no doubt that a very real
emotional bond can exist between humans and animals,
and of the importance that the bond can have for human
well-being. Many companion animal veterinarians, for
example, will be familiar with the difficult scenario of
having to recommend euthanasia of the pet belonging to
an elderly person. It is not uncommon in such cases for
a sympathetic conversation to reveal that the animal is a
much relied-upon source of loyal companionship and
provides a strong emotional link to a deceased spouse.
Conversely, when treatment options are available, such an
owner may express untold gratitude to the veterinary
practice team.
Despite being acutely aware of the importance of animals to
people, veterinarians also have a primary responsibility for
their care. Should the elderly person’s emotional reliance
upon their suffering animal, for example, be allowed to
override the most humane course of action for the animal
(i.e., euthanasia)? Recognition and appreciation of the
HAB is essential to effective communication and relations
with animal owners, but veterinary interventions aimed
at maintaining or restoring the HAB must strive to do so
in ways that are compatible with the animal’s good welfare.
There will be times when the expectations and demands
of highly bonded humans may be unrealistic or not place
the animal’s welfare interests at the heart of
considerations, and such cases can prove challenging for
veterinarians, requiring diplomacy and reasoned ethical
analyses. Animal owners are often clients of a private
veterinary practice that is a business. This can place
extra pressures on veterinarians, who must remain an
advocate for the animal while risking losing the client’s
custom and revenue.
At other times, and more commonly, ignorance may mean
that bonded owners are unaware that they are not providing
for all of their animal’s welfare needs. Wishing to do the
very best for an animal for which they have great affection,
many owners will be receptive to education provided by
their veterinarian, but again this must be approached
sensitively and with tact in order that the advising
veterinarian does not appear accusatory. This article
discusses some of the ways in which the HAB can impact
on animal welfare, and considers ways in which veterinar-
ians may provide for the mutual welfare needs of both
animals and people.

532 JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC

 IS THE HUMAN–ANIMAL BOND GOOD FOR ANIMALS?
Commenting on the HAB, Jones has written: ‘‘. . .pets
provide a therapeutic touch, which can result in helping to
lower blood pressure, helping owners survive heart attacks,
and helping humans cope with pain. In return, animals
enjoy our touch, caring, and love.’’1
Taken at face value, such a depiction of the HAB suggests a
truly symbiotic relationship whereby each party derives a
meaningful benefit from the other. The contributions that
animals make to human well-being are well documented,
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
and are reviewed elsewhere in this issue, but is it accurate to
claim that animals ‘‘enjoy our touch, caring, and love’’? This
question should probably be considered on a case-by-case
basis, but an important general point is that it is not caring
and love, per se, that are ‘‘enjoyed’’ by animals, but rather
how that caring and love manifests as behavior by owners
toward their animals. As Webster has noted: ‘‘What matters
to the animal is not what we think or feel but what we do.’’2
The challenge of converting caring and love into behavior
that results in good animal welfare will be discussed.
The Influence of the Human–Animal Bond on Society’s
Attitudes Toward Animals
Approximately one in two households in the United
Kingdom owns a pet,3 and over 90% of pet owners regard
their pet as a valued family member.4 It is common to hear
people say that they love their animals, and the UK has a
reputation as ‘‘a nation of animal lovers.’’ Generally
speaking, this will inevitably have positive consequences
for animals. Emotions and beliefs influence people’s
behavior,5 so positive emotions and beliefs about animals
should result in positive attitudes and behaviors toward
animals. When people share their homes and lives with
animals, they become aware of the variety and complexity
of behavior and apparent emotions and ‘‘personalities’’ that
animals display. For the general public, these are primary
criteria for attributing sentience to animals,6 the prerequisite
for suffering and welfare concerns. Webster has identified
increased awareness of animal sentience as the single most
effective step toward increasing the sum of human
compassion, noting that children are motivated to love
their pets, which can be converted to motivation to care for
their pets, and from this point they can be motivated to
extend compassion to all sentient animals.7 At the societal
level, therefore, strong HABs arising from pet ownership are
likely to be good for animal welfare in general, as they help
to improve how a nation perceives and treats its animals.
Building Good Animal Welfare
Good animal welfare might be viewed as a house that
society must construct, built on a foundation of bricks that
represent recognition of animal sentience. In many devel-
oping countries, where human welfare problems such as
poverty and disease assume priority over the welfare
problems of non-human animals, it may be a greater
challenge to engender a culture of concern for the welfare
of animals. Motivating such concern, however, should not
conflict with the need to improve standards of human
welfare as, with over 1 billion people globally dependent
on animals for their livelihood,8 improving the health
and happiness of those animals frequently confers humani-
tarian benefits; for example, ensuring productivity or the
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
ability to work. Through projects and initiatives, the bricks
are gathered and the foundations gradually laid.
In many developed societies, by contrast, as described in the
previous section, there is widespread recognition of animal
sentience and concern about animal suffering. We might say,
therefore, that the necessary foundation has been laid and
we are ready to construct the house of good animal welfare.
That is to say, we must convert a groundswell of positive
sentiment toward animals into actions and ways of keeping
animals that are demonstrably good for welfare, and not just
assumed to be so. Widespread ‘‘love’’ for animals, the result
of strong HABs, can be meaningless if it results in treatment
that we (humans) think is good for animals, but from the
animals’ viewpoint is not so.
Increasingly, science is being used to establish what animals
need and want, from their own perspective. If veterinarians
are to assist with the construction of the house of good
welfare, there is increasing recognition that they must be
trained and competent in this science, the science of animal
welfare.9 Our aim, as veterinarians and as a society, is to
harness the positive sentiment that the HAB creates and use
it to motivate behavior that has positive welfare outcomes
for animals. When this is achieved, Jones’s depiction of the
HAB as a mutually beneficial partnership1 will take a step
closer to becoming reality.
HOW MIGHT THE HUMAN–ANIMAL BOND BE
DETRIMENTAL TO ANIMAL WELFARE?
Most bonds between owners and their pets appear to be
based on a perception of the pet as almost human,10 and the
social support that pets provide to their owners is
essentially indistinguishable from that provided by positive
relationships with other humans.11 As Serpell has noted,
‘‘Anthropomorphism—the ability. . .to attribute human
social motivations to nonhumans—is what ultimately
enables people to benefit socially, emotionally and physi-
cally from their relationships with companion animals.’’12
The ability to anthropomorphically relate to animals is
central to the ability of people to recognize their pets as
thinking, feeling beings, and results in widespread positive
attitudes toward animals. While this is good for animals at
the societal level, it may, however, be detrimental at the
individual animal level. While pet animals share many
physical and emotional characteristics with people they are,
nevertheless, individual species with their own species-
specific needs. If merely treated as ‘‘little human beings
in furry suits’’1 there is a danger that these needs will be
overlooked. This can negatively impact upon both the
physical and mental components of animal welfare.
Ways in which the HAB might contribute to welfare
problems in animals include the attribution of human
emotions to animals, the development of problem behav-
iors, and overfeeding and obesity.
Attribution of Human Emotions to Animals
Perhaps the greatest threat to animal welfare posed by the
anthropomorphic HAB is treating animals as though
they are people, including attributing human emotions
and intentions to animals. This is especially common
amongst companion animal owners. Bradshaw and Casey
533
 have outlined the simple but not necessarily accurate
analogy upon which this depends: I behave in a particular
way when I feel guilty; my dog behaves in a similar way in
equivalent circumstances; I know intuitively that my
behavior is motivated by guilt; therefore the behavior I see
in my dog is also accompanied by feelings of guilt.10
A recent study reported that almost three-quarters of dog
owners thought that their dogs could feel ‘‘guilt,’’ which is
classed as a self-conscious evaluative emotion.13 This, and
similar emotions such as jealousy, require self-awareness
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
and the ability to construct internalized rules that one’s
behavior can be compared against10; however, there is no
scientific evidence for such abilities in dogs or even in
chimpanzees.14 This negatively impacts upon animal
welfare when owners attribute intentionality (e.g., spiteful-
ness) to their pet’s behavior and then administer an
inappropriate punishment to the ‘‘spiteful,’’ ‘‘naughty,’’ or
‘‘guilty’’ animal. It is important to note that such owner
beliefs lie at the heart of many clinical behavior problems.10
The similar neuroanatomy of companion animals and
people lends support to the notion that the emotional lives
of those animals are likely to be similar to our own, which
can contribute to increased human concern for animal
welfare. However, extending this belief to include the
unfounded notion that companion animals can formulate
abstract rules and associations can lead to treatment that
may be psychologically harmful (e.g., inappropriate
punishment).
Problem Behavior
Euthanasia because of problem behavior is the number one
cause of death of companion dogs and cats in most Western
countries.15 In the United States, for example, problem
behavior results in the euthanasia of 13 million dogs and
cats per year, which is more than all infectious disease-
related deaths in small animals.16
Problem behavior is frequently normal behavior performed
in inappropriate circumstances, and thus becomes prob-
lematic for human carers. Examples include aggression in
dogs and indoor urine-spraying in cats. Behavior problems
can significantly impair the welfare of both animals and
their owners, and can result in a breakdown of the HAB. If
not treated or euthanized, animals with problem behavior
may be relinquished to re-homing centers, which can be a
further source of stress and impaired welfare.
Relating anthropomorphically to companion animals can
contribute to the development of some problem behaviors.
Certain types of aggression, for example, are seen more often
in dogs whose owners treat them as dependent children.17
Similarly, psittacines that are cared for by a single carer, who
may be highly bonded to the bird, can become aggressive to
other human family members who they perceive as
‘‘competitors’’ for their carer’s interest. This can be a
particular problem if the bird forms a sexual relationship
with the carer, which can occur if the carer acts in particular
ways; for example, stroking the bird in certain areas (e.g., all-
body stroking, back, and/or tail stroking), kissing the bird, or
offering the bird food from his/her mouth.
Separation-related problems are common in dogs and can
be a source of chronic anxiety and resultant immunosup-
pression.18 Dogs include the human family in their
534
social group and may become highly bonded to certain
family members. In the absence (or perceived absence)
of these family members, dogs may experience distress and
perform problem behaviors such as destruction, vocaliza-
tion, inappropriate elimination of urine or stools, or
drooling.19 As in parrots, such ‘‘hyper-attachment’’ can
occur partly as a result of the behavior of highly bonded
owners, such as allowing the dog to sit on the owner’s lap or
furniture, or feeding gratuitous tidbits.20 As Horwitz has
noted: ‘‘Many pet owners . . . cannot understand how what
they do may be contributing to the anxiety the pet
experiences while they are gone.’’18
A further example of how ‘‘love’’ for animals can result in
their poor welfare is when that love manifests as excessive
animal acquisition. Some people may, for example, acquire a
large number of cats, sometimes resulting in high popula-
tion densities that can contribute to problem behaviors
because of stress and inter-cat aggression. Indoor urine
spraying is more common in multi-cat households,21 and is
often a passive form of aggression where there is tension
between cohabiting cats.22
In more extreme cases, apparent ‘‘love’’ for animals can
result in animal hoarding, where animals are acquired to the
extent that serious hazards are posed to the health of
the hoarder, family members, and the animals involved.
Animal hoarders commonly claim to love animals and
their hoarding often begins as the well-intentioned ‘‘rescue’’
of unwanted animals. However, the Hoarding of Animals
Research Consortium denotes hoarding as a pathological
condition, considered to be potentially symptomatic of
various psychological disorders including dementia, addic-
tion, attachment disorder, and obsessive compulsive
disorder.23
Overfeeding and Obesity
Obesity is the most common nutritional disorder in
companion animals.24 It has many associated risk factors,
including the feeding of extra food as treats. One survey has
reported that 89% of all dogs attending a vaccination clinic
were fed snacks, treats, or table scraps.25 It is likely that
many treats are fed as an act of affection by pet owners
toward their pets, and these treats may be high in fat or salt
(treats that humans themselves would find palatable and
enjoyable). A recent study found that the proportion of
diabetic cats in the United Kingdom is now five times
higher than that recorded in a United States study 30 years
ago, with overweight cats risking a three times greater
chance of developing diabetes.26 The researchers noted that
cats ‘‘will overeat if they are offered too much tasty food’’
and that cats tend to mirror their owners’ lifestyles of
overeating and lack of exercise.27
The feeding of human snacks or treats gives another
example where love, or great fondness, for a companion
animal may not translate in to behavior that promotes good
animal welfare.
COMPANION ANIMAL WELFARE PROBLEMS THAT
EXIST DESPITE THE HUMAN–ANIMAL BOND
In contrast to the previous section, a number of companion
animal welfare problems persist in spite of the presence of a
strong HAB, and not because of it. Such problems, in the
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
 main, are the result of ignorance or the persistence of long-
established practices that have only recently begun to be
scrutinized for their welfare impacts. Given the willingness
of most bonded owners to treat their animals as well as
possible, and to devote time and money to achieve good
care, there is great potential to educate such owners so that
their devotion may be translated into care that is conducive
to good animal welfare. Some examples of welfare problems
that persist despite the best intentions of caring and loving
owners include malnutrition, disease and injury, and
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
behavioral deprivation.
Malnutrition
Seed diets remain the most widely available and most
commonly fed diets for pet birds, and yet it is well
recognized amongst avian veterinary that seed diets lack
nutrients and are high in fat.28,29 Many bird-food labels give
the impression that the diet is complete, when in fact the
food contains only minimum requirements.30 It has been
estimated that malnutrition is responsible for up to 90% of
all clinical conditions seen by avian veterinary
practitioners.28 Equally, inappropriate diet and consequent
malnutrition are also common causes of poor health and
welfare in rabbits and reptiles that are kept for
companionship.
Disease and Injury
Many companion animal species have been selectively
bred for aesthetically appealing morphological traits. In a
number of cases, such breeding has resulted in associated
health problems due to, for example, anatomical defects or a
high prevalence of inherited diseases. It could be argued
that it is the HAB that stimulates such breeding programs,
as the resulting animal types may be more appealing and so
make people more likely to become attracted and hence
bonded to them. On the other hand, many people may be
highly bonded to their anatomically defective companion
animals, and yet may never have questioned whether,
ethically, such animals should have been bred or if they
should be bred from. Examples of breeding-related health
problems in companion animals include brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome in bulldogs31 and glaucoma in
Siamese cats.32
Inadequate and even hazardous accessories and equipment
are still on the market for pet animals, including running
wheels for rodents with broad spaces between rods (which
can cause leg injuries), inadequate perches for birds
(e.g., plastic, dowel of uniform diameter, or sandpaper-
covered, all of which can cause impaired pedal health), and
goldfish bowls (which have an insufficient surface area
to allow adequate diffusion of atmospheric oxygen into the
water).32
Behavioral Deprivation
Many companion animals are kept in boxes or cages that are
too small or have insufficient hiding places, and social
animals such as guinea pigs and pet birds are still frequently
housed alone.33 Guinea pigs are often housed with rabbits,
but this does not fulfill their social needs; preference tests
have demonstrated that guinea pigs prefer conspecifics
rather than dwarf rabbits as social partners.34 The preferred
husbandry requirements for rabbits have been well defined,
and yet it is still common practice for pet rabbits to be
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
housed in relatively small hutches with no social contact
with other rabbits and minimal contact with humans.35
A variety of stereotypical behaviors are seen in companion
animal species, due in whole or in part to inadequate
living environments, including: crib biting, weaving,
and box walking in horses36; route tracing and spot-picking
in canaries37 and zebra finches38; repetitive flying from
perch to perch in budgerigars39; oral and locomotor
stereotypies in Amazon parrots40; stereotypic digging
in gerbils41,42; and repetitive bar-gnawing in gerbils43 and
golden hamsters.43–46 Stereotypical behaviors are often
performed by animals housed in barren environments, or
by animals that are socially isolated; they often develop
from attempts to perform specific behaviors, suggesting
frustration47; and they are often linked with other signs of
stress, such as increased corticosteroid levels.48 They are
therefore considered to be indicators of poor welfare on
account of the psychological distress they may reflect.
OTHER HUMAN–ANIMAL INTERACTIONS
The HAB is typically considered in relation to companion
animals, but HABs formed in other areas of animal use can
also have implications for animal welfare. The United
Kingdom’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), for
example, considers stockmanship to be the single most
important influence on farm animal welfare,49 and proposes
that ‘‘personal qualities’’—defined as affinity and empathy
with animals, dedication, and patience—should be consid-
ered as one of the ‘‘Three Essentials of Stockmanship.’’49
In laboratories, it has become accepted that the development
of bonds between animals and their human carers has a
positive effect on welfare and can, as a result, reduce
handler-related variability in studies.50 The use of names
for individual animals is considered to facilitate the
development of positive relationships,51 encouraging more
empathetic handling and increasing the motivation to
provide environmental enrichment and other welfare-
enhancing modifications to protocols.52 Positive interactions
with animals also increase staff morale, which might also
enhance animal well-being.53
THE ROLE OF VETERINARIANS
There can be no doubt about the real and meaningful
emotional bond that can exist between humans and animals,
and the human health benefits, both physical and psycho-
logical, that the bond can confer. However, a survey
published in 1988 found that veterinarians in the United
States tended to underestimate their clients’ attachments to
their pets.54 Without further research it is not possible to say
whether this would be the case today, but it is imperative
that veterinarians understand the importance of animals to
people, and the benefits that the HAB can confer upon
human society.
This is important from the point of view of being able to
empathize and communicate effectively with clients who
are emotionally bonded to their animals, and is also likely
to add value to society’s perception of the veterinary
profession. This is worth considering. For example, a
recent posting on an online veterinary discussion group
suggested that ‘‘We must remember the relative imperative
535
 nature of human health care compared with what could
now be viewed as the largely luxury health service we
[veterinary surgeons] provide.’’ A full discussion of this
proposition is beyond the scope of this paper, but such
a view threatens to detract from the perceived worth of
the veterinary profession, where, in fact, tangible human
worth can be demonstrated in areas such as public health
protection, delivery of high standards of animal welfare
(which society increasingly wants55), and maintenance and
restoration of the HAB.
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
This said, the real challenge for the veterinary profession is
how to promote good welfare amongst those animals to
which our clients are bonded. First, we must consider what
this means. The veterinary profession has received criticism
for equating good welfare with good physical health,9 but
this has begun to be recognized and is being addressed. The
British Veterinary Association Ethics and Welfare Group, for
example, has recently agreed on a working definition of
welfare that includes both physical and psychological
aspects: ‘‘Animal welfare relates to both the physical
health and mental well-being of the animal.’’56
This means that we must not only treat and prevent disease
in our patients, but must also ensure that we offer advice on
other areas that can impact upon welfare such as behavior,
living environments, and social groupings. A useful frame-
work for ensuring that all areas, both physical and mental,
are considered is the ‘‘Five Freedoms.’’57 This will be
familiar to most veterinarians as the welfare-assessment
framework devised by the FAWC, and that is now widely
used for many species across different types of animal use.
The Five Freedoms are:
. freedom from hunger and thirst
. freedom from discomfort
. freedom to express normal behavior
. freedom from fear and distress
. freedom from pain, injury, or disease
There has been some criticism of the Five Freedoms for
focusing on the negative aspects of welfare to the exclusion
of positive welfare indicators,58 but they are, nevertheless,
widely considered to be a useful starting point for welfare
assessment.
It is not always possible to achieve all of the Five Freedoms
all of the time, but in attempting to fulfill their responsibility
to ensure, wherever possible, the welfare of animals,
veterinarians should be trained to question whether the
Five Freedoms are being met and not just whether animals
are physically healthy. It should be noted that with regard to
‘‘freedom to express normal behavior,’’ it is the prevention
of highly motivated behaviors (so-called behavioral needs)
that is considered to cause significant animal suffering.
While it is desirable to provide animals with what they want
(assuming this is not detrimental in the long-term), it is not
necessary, from a welfare standpoint, for animals to perform
all behavior patterns that they would in the natural state. It
is important that as these behavioral needs are elucidated by
animal welfare scientists using techniques based on, for
example, ‘‘consumer demand theory,’’59 there is an
exchange of information between animal welfare scientists
and veterinarians.
536
The United Kingdom’s Animal Welfare Act 2006 (and
similar legislation abroad) places an extra imperative
on training veterinarians in this manner, as the Act places
a legal duty of care on animal owners. This means that those
with responsibility for animals are legally bound to provide
for the following needs60:
. a suitable environment
. a suitable diet
. to exhibit normal behavior patterns
. to be housed with or apart from other animals
. to be protected from pain, suffering, injury, and
disease
Failure to provide for some or all of these needs could result
in the prosecution of an owner who, it has been suggested,61
could sue a veterinarian for negligence if the failure had not
been identified and addressed during a previous veterinary
consultation. It is therefore now essential, both ethically and
legally, to ensure that all of the welfare needs of animals are
met.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VETERINARY
UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING
This paper has considered some specific examples of how
strong HABs might not automatically result in good animal
welfare. Recommendations for how some of the cited
problems might be addressed during veterinary training,
if this is not already being done, are given below:
. Dedicated teaching should be given on the HAB, and
its importance for human and animal welfare.
Graduating veterinarians should be in no doubt about
the presence of meaningful attachments between
people and their animals, should not belittle or
dismiss the importance of the HAB, and should be
aware of the evidence that demonstrates the impor-
tance of these bonds to human emotional and physical
well-being. Such teaching might logically extend to
incorporate basic bereavement counseling for when
these bonds are terminated in the veterinary practice
environment.
. Veterinary training should provide veterinarians with
the means to competently and scientifically assess
animal welfare. Without training in animal welfare
science, veterinarians may lack the scientific
knowledge necessary to understand the needs of
animals, as viewed from the animals’ viewpoints.
Such knowledge is necessary for veterinarians to
advise on housing and living environments that allow
for the expression of behavioral needs and satisfac-
tory mental well-being.
. Veterinary training should provide adequate coverage
of ethics and ethical reasoning. Together with formal
animal welfare training, this should be integrated
throughout the veterinary undergraduate degree
course. Studies have found that veterinary students
do not attain the highest levels of ethical reasoning
and moral development.62 This may decrease the
likelihood of veterinarians challenging long-standing
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
 or traditional practices that do not provide for good
animal welfare.
. At the undergraduate level, there should be consid-
eration of the role that veterinarians, as animal
welfare advocates, should play in addressing intrinsic
welfare problems. In an earlier section, inadequate
seed diets for pet birds, labeled as ‘‘complete’’ foods,
were cited as a welfare problem. In this example,
should the veterinary profession concern itself only
with treating the resulting diseases of malnutrition, or
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
does it also have a role to play in calling for less
misleading labeling of bird foods? Similarly, should
veterinarians only concern themselves with the
treatment of breed-related conditions such as entro-
pion and skin-fold dermatitis in breeds such as the
Shar Pei, or do we also have an obligation to call for
selective breeding to take quality of life into con-
sideration rather than just arbitrary aesthetic traits?
It is reasonable for society to expect the veterinary
profession to demonstrate leadership on broader
animal welfare issues such as these. For further
consideration of such questions, readers are referred
to Hewson.63
. Given that euthanasia due to behavior problems is the
number one cause of death of companion dogs and
cats in most Western countries, and given the
imperative to address both the physical and mental
(including behavioral) aspects of animal welfare, it is
important that the undergraduate curriculum does
not place exclusive emphasis on physical health, but
also allocates adequate time and resources to ethology
and veterinary behavioral medicine.
Incorporating teaching in animal welfare science and
ethics in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum
was the subject of one of a number of relevant papers64
in a themed issue of the present journal, which focused
on animal welfare. The reader is referred to this
themed issue for further information on animal welfare
teaching.
CONCLUSION
Consideration of the HAB typically focuses on the benefits
of companion animals to human health and well-being,
but it is essential that in realizing these benefits the welfare
needs of the animals, both physical and mental, are
also met.
Through adequate training, veterinarians must be capable of
scientifically assessing whether welfare needs are being met,
and must also be in no doubt about the presence and
importance of emotionally meaningful HABs. There must be
recognition that such bonds do not automatically result in
good animal welfare, and in some cases can be the source of
poor welfare. Veterinarians are uniquely placed to directly
communicate with animal owners, and their opinions are
highly respected.65–67 Veterinarians therefore have excep-
tional potential—via robust training in veterinary and
animal welfare science, ethics, and communication—to
play a key role in nurturing HABs that are beneficial to
both humans and animals alike.
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
REFERENCES
1 Jones WE. Experience the human–animal bond. J Equine
Vet Sci 22:283, 2002.
2 Webster J. Animal Welfare A Cool Eye Towards Eden.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994 p7.
3 Pet Population Figures <http://www.pfma.org.uk/
overall/pet-population-figures-2.htm>. Accessed
12/08/07. Pet Food Manufacturers Association, London,
UK, 2008.
4 McNicholas J, Gilbey A, Rennie A, Ahmedzai S, Dono J,
Ormerod E. Pet ownership and human health: a brief
review of evidence and issues. Brit Med J 331:1252–1254,
2005.
5 Paul ES, Podberscek AL. Veterinary education and
students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Vet Rec
146:269–272, 2000.
6 Wemelsfelder F. How animals communicate quality of
life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Anim Welf
16(S):25–31, 2007.
7 Webster J. Animal Welfare Limping Towards Eden, 2nd ed.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005 p268.
8 Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare
<http://www.animalsmatter.org/code/the_campaign.
asp>. Accessed 10/31/08. World Society for the Protection
of Animals, n.d.
9 Anon. ‘Insufficient’ welfare training for vets. Vet Rec
160(26):890, 2007.
10 Bradshaw JWS, Casey RA. Anthropomorphism and
anthropocentrism as influences in the quality of life of
companion animals. Anim Welf 16(S):149–154, 2007.
11 Bonas S, McNicholas J, Collis GM. Pets in the network
of family relationships: an empirical study.
In Podberscek AL, Paul ES, Serpell JA, eds. Companion
Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and
Pets. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
2000:209–236.
12 Serpell JA. People in disguise: anthropomorphism and
the human–pet relationship. In Daston L, Mitmann G, eds.
Thinking With Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropo-
morphism. New York: Columbia University Press,
2005:121–136.
13 Morris PH, Doe C, Godsell E. Secondary emotions
in non-primate species? Behavioural reports and
subjective claims by animal owners. Cogn Emot 21(1):3–20,
2007.
14 Mitchell SD. Anthropomorphism and cross-species
modelling. In Daston L, Mitmann G, eds. Thinking With
Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2005:100–117.
15 Hunthausen W, Seksel K. Preventive behavioural
medicine. In Horwitz D, Mills D, Heath S, eds. BSAVA
Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. Quedgeley,
UK: British Small Animal Veterinary Association,
2002:49–60.
16 O’Rourke K. Veterinary research needs study begins.
J Am Vet Med Assoc 225:14–15, 2004.
537
 17 O’Farrell V. Manual of Canine Behaviour, 2nd ed.
Quedgeley, UK: British Small Animal Veterinary
Association, 1992.
18 Horwitz DF. Separation-related problems in dogs.
In Horwitz D, Mills D, Heath S, eds. BSAVA Manual of Canine
and Feline Behavioural Medicine. Gloucester, UK: British Small
Animal Veterinary Association, 2002:154–163.
19 McCrave EA. Diagnostic criteria for separation anxiety
in the dog. Vet Clin N Am–Small 21:247–255, 1991.
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
20 Podberscek AL, Hsu Y, Serpell JA. Evaluation of
clomipramine as an adjunct to behavioural therapy in the
treatment of separation-related problems in dogs. Vet Rec
145:365–369, 1999.
21 O’Farrell V. Behaviour problems. In Dunn J. Textbook of
Small Animal Medicine. Edinburgh, UK: Harcourt Publishers,
2000:1029–1042 p1040.
22 Heath S. Feline and Canine Behavioural Medicine.
Peterborough, UK: Henston Ltd, 2002 p48.
23 Kuehn BM. Animal hoarding: a public health problem
veterinarians can take a lead role in solving. J Am Vet Med
Assoc 221:1087–1089, 2002.
24 German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs
and cats. J Nutr 136:1940S–1946S, 2006.
25 Colliard L, Ancel J, Benet JJ, Paragon BM, Blanchard G.
Risk factors for obesity in dogs in France. J Nutr
136:1951S–1954S, 2006.
26 McCann TM, Simpson KE, Shaw DJ, Butt JA,
Gunn-Moore DA. Feline diabetes mellitus in the UK: the
prevalence within an insured cat population and a
questionnaire-based putative risk factor analysis. J Feline
Med Surg 9:289–299, 2007.
27 Anon. Feline diabetes on the increase. Vet Rec
161(6):180, 2007.
28 Harrison GJ. Twenty years of progress in pet bird
nutrition. J Am Vet Med Assoc 212:1226–1230, 1998.
29 Reid BR, Perlberg W. Emerging trends in pet bird diets.
J Am Vet Med Assoc 21:1236–1238, 1998.
30 Engebretson M. The welfare and suitability of parrots
as companion animals: a review. Anim Welf 15:263–276,
2006.
31 Lorinson D, Bright RM, White RAS. Brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome—a review of 118 cases. Canine
Pract 22:18–21, 1997.
32 Gough A, Thomas A. Breed Dispositions to Disease in
Dogs and Cats. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
33 Steiger A. Pet animals: housing, breeding and welfare.
In Animal Welfare (Ethical Eye). Belgium: Council of Europe
Publishing, 2006:111–136.
34 Sachser N. Was bringen Praferenztests? KTBL-Bericht 29:
Int Tagung Angewandte Ethologie 1997. Freiburg, 1998:9–20.
35 Mullan SM, Main DCJ. Survey of the husbandry, health
and welfare of 102 pet rabbits. Vet Rec 159:103–109, 2006.
36 Waters AJ, Nicol CJ, French NP. Factors influencing the
development of stereotypic and redirected behaviours in
538
young horses: findings of a four year prospective epide-
miological study. Equine Vet J 34:572–579, 2002.
37 Keiper RR. Studies of stereotypy function in the canary
(Serinus canarius). Anim Behav 18:353–357, 1970.
38 Wensley SP, Nevison CM, Stockley P. The behaviour
and welfare of zebra finches under typical pet shop
conditions. In Garner JP, Mench JA, Heekin SP, eds.
Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of the ISAE.
California, USA: Center for Animal Welfare at UC Davis,
2001:115.
39 Gebhardt-Henrich SG, Steiger A. Effects of aviary
and box sizes on body mass and behaviour of domesticated
budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Anim Welf 15:353–358,
2006.
40 Garner JP, Meehan CL, Mench JA. Stereotypies in caged
parrots, schizophrenia and autism: evidence for a common
mechanism. Behav Brain Res 145:125–134, 2003.
41 Wiedenmayer C. Stereotypies resulting from a devia-
tion in the ontogenetic development of gerbils. Behav Process
39:215–221, 1997.
42 Waiblinger E, Konig B. Refinement of gerbil housing
and husbandry in the laboratory. Anim Welf 13(S1):229–235,
2004.
43 Wiedenmayer C. Causation of the ontogenetic devel-
opment of stereotypic digging in gerbils. Anim Behav
53:461–470, 1997.
44 Arnold CE, Estep DQ. Laboratory caging preferences in
golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Lab Anim 28:232–238,
1993.
45 Hauzenberger AR, Gebhardt-Henrich SG, Steiger A.
The influence of bedding depth on behaviour in golden
hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Appl Anim Behav Sci
100:280–294, 2006.
46 Fischer K, Gebhardt-Henrich SG, Steiger A. Behaviour
of golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) kept in four
different cage sizes. Anim Welf 16:85–93, 2007.
47 Rushen J, Lawrence AB, Terlouw EMC. The motiva-
tional basis of stereotypies. In Lawrence AB, Rushen J, eds.
Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Application to
Animal Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International,
1993:41–64.
48 Mason GJ, Latham NR. Can’t stop, won’t stop: is
stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Anim Welf
13(S1):57–69, 2004.
49 Farm Animal Welfare Council. FAWC Report on
Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare. London, UK: FAWC,
2007 p1–7.
50 Rennie AE, Buchanan-Smith HM. Refinement of the use
of non-human primates in scientific research. Part 1: the
influence of humans. Anim Welf 15:203–213, 2006.
51 Bayne K. Development of the human–research animal
bond and its impact on animal well-being. ILAR J 43:4–9,
2002.
52 Chang FT, Hart LH. Human–animal bonds in the
laboratory: how animal behavior affects the perspective of
caregivers. ILAR J 43:10–18, 2002.
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
 53 Waitt C, Buchanan-Smith HM, Morris K. The effects of
caretaker–primate relationships on primates in the labora-
tory. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 5:309–319, 2002.
54 Cantanzaro TG. A survey on the question of how
well veterinarians are prepared to predict their client’s
human–animal bond. J Am Vet Med Assoc 192:1707–1711,
1988.
55 Broom DM. Introduction—concepts of animal protec-
tion and welfare including obligations and rights. In Animal
https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.35.4.532 - Monday, August 15, 2022 3:10:43 PM - IP Address:2803:2a80:8f0:4463:e0bc:a540:85e6:fe5d
Welfare (Ethical Eye). Belgium: Council of Europe Publishing,
2006:13–28.
56 Anon. BVA Council News in Brief. Vet Rec 161(2):44,
2007.
57 Farm Animal Welfare Council. Second Report on
Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare.
London, UK: DEFRA 2007.
58 Main DCJ. Promoting quality of life discussions
between the veterinary profession and the pet-owning
public. Anim Welf 16(S):159–163, 2007.
59 Dawkins MS. Battery hens name their price: consumer
demand theory and the measurement of ethological
‘‘needs.’’ Anim Behav 31:1195–1205, 1983.
60 The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Commencement No. 1)
(England) Order 2007. London, UK: The Stationery Office
Limited, 2006.
61 Anon. Tackling obesity in pets. Vet Rec 162:292–293,
2008.
JVME 35(4) ß 2008 AAVMC
62 Self DJ, Schrader DE, DeWitt CB, Root SK,
Wolinsky FD, Shadduck JA. Study of the influence of
veterinary medical education on the moral development of
veterinary students. J Am Vet Med Assoc 198:782–787, 1991.
63 Hewson CJ. How might veterinarians do more for
animal welfare? Can Vet J 44:1000–1004, 2003.
64 Main DCJ, Thornton P, Kerr K. Teaching animal welfare
science, ethics, and law to veterinary students in the United
Kingdom. J Vet Med Educ 32:505–508, 2005.
65 Anon. The role of vets. In Animal Health and Welfare
Strategy for Great Britain. London, UK: DEFRA, 2004:27.
66 de Boo J, Knight A. ‘‘Concepts in animal welfare’’: a
syllabus in animal welfare science and ethics for veterinary
schools. J Vet Med Educ 32:451–453, 2005.
67 Main DCJ. Offering the best to patients: ethical issues
associated with the provision of veterinary services. Vet Rec
158:62, 2006.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Sean P. Wensley, BVSc, MSc, MRCVS, is a Senior Veterinary
Surgeon at the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), a
British veterinary charity. He is a committee member of the
Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Veterinary Association
and a Trustee of the British Veterinary Association Animal
Welfare Foundation, 7 Mansfield Street, London W1G 9NQ UK.
E-mail: seanwensley@hotmail.com. He holds a master’s degree
in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare.
539