Animal Welfare Professionals

This is great information. The copyright information is for 2025 but do you know when this article was published? I'd be interested in learning more. Thank you!

Hello! I wrote the article itself was written just a week ago, but the statistics are from various studies, including some from pre-covid times and some after. Is there a particular data point that you were interested in?

This is great information. The copyright information is for 2025 but do you know when this article was published? I'd be interested in learning more. Thank you!

Hello! I wrote the article itself was written just a week ago, but the statistics are from various studies, including some from pre-covid times and some after. Is there a particular data point that you were interested in?

This is great information. The copyright information is for 2025 but do you know when this article was published? I'd be interested in learning more. Thank you!

Hi David,

Thank you for the article and for taking time to gather and analyze the data. I am aware of the stats but still learn new things from the article. I am a trainer and my target clients are new adopters. The dogs are mosts vulnerable in this period. People expect too much of their dogs, and so many lack the ability to understand their dogs' needs through body language. People can spot a happy dog but many fail at detecting the first sign of stress which if unmet can escalate. Dog do what work. "Behavior problems" is a huge umbrella term in my opinion. They are often problems perceived from the humans. We study the rules of the road to get a driver license, why do we allow people who have little or zero ownership responsibility or understanding of dogs to have dogs. Many people claim they love their dogs but love is not enough. Understanding the dog in front of them would help people adjust their expectations. 

Hello! I wrote the article itself was written just a week ago, but the statistics are from various studies, including some from pre-covid times and some after. Is there a particular data point that you were interested in?

This is great information. The copyright information is for 2025 but do you know when this article was published? I'd be interested in learning more. Thank you!

Hi Julielani, you are absolutely right. I think in our current society, people tend to underestimate the difficulty of living with a dog. It is as if we think we have some natural power to communicate and understand our dogs without learning :) 

Another research that I summarized yesterday actually showed that adults and older kids (5 years+) are OK at understanding a dog's Conflict Escalating Signals (e.g. growling). But adults and children are both terrible at understanding the Conflict Avoiding Signals and Conflict Defusing Signals. This means that people most likely push a dog up the ladder of stress with them ignoring the early signals.  
(Here is the summary and link to the research, feel free to take a look at the table in the middle of the article: Understanding Dogs: New Research Reveals How Often Children Recognize Dog Distress Signals - The Dog Welfare Project) 

I will also be compilng if a list of 25 statistics on dogs and children in a couple weeks. I will keep you posted if you are interested. 

Hi David,

Thank you for the article and for taking time to gather and analyze the data. I am aware of the stats but still learn new things from the article. I am a trainer and my target clients are new adopters. The dogs are mosts vulnerable in this period. People expect too much of their dogs, and so many lack the ability to understand their dogs' needs through body language. People can spot a happy dog but many fail at detecting the first sign of stress which if unmet can escalate. Dog do what work. "Behavior problems" is a huge umbrella term in my opinion. They are often problems perceived from the humans. We study the rules of the road to get a driver license, why do we allow people who have little or zero ownership responsibility or understanding of dogs to have dogs. Many people claim they love their dogs but love is not enough. Understanding the dog in front of them would help people adjust their expectations. 

Hello! I wrote the article itself was written just a week ago, but the statistics are from various studies, including some from pre-covid times and some after. Is there a particular data point that you were interested in?

This is great information. The copyright information is for 2025 but do you know when this article was published? I'd be interested in learning more. Thank you!

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! I found it surprising that so many adopted dogs are returned within the first 8 - 30 days. 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! I found it surprising that so many adopted dogs are returned within the first 8 - 30 days. 

Deeann, yes, absolutely. That is why I think it's crucial that "dog training" begins from day 1 of adoption. And by that, I mean training the owner to understand what to expect, and giving them a person to lean on from the beginning so they can get past the first month or two. With your expertise, perhaps you could consider programs with your local shelter to help with that! 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! I found it surprising that so many adopted dogs are returned within the first 8 - 30 days. 

I would be curious as to the origins of the dogs and if there were any correlations to surrendering. IE: were purchased dogs less likely to be surrendered in general or more likely to be surrendered for breed related behavior issues? Were dogs that had been in another shelter system prior more likely to be surrendered? Were dogs that had been returned been returned previously and were the reasons for returning the same?

Deeann, yes, absolutely. That is why I think it's crucial that "dog training" begins from day 1 of adoption. And by that, I mean training the owner to understand what to expect, and giving them a person to lean on from the beginning so they can get past the first month or two. With your expertise, perhaps you could consider programs with your local shelter to help with that! 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! I found it surprising that so many adopted dogs are returned within the first 8 - 30 days. 

This is a good resource! None of the stats are surprising to me and are in keeping with what I see in our shelter.

One issue that is not addressed (perhaps by choice) is the influence on returns of making responsible decisions regarding the adoptability of shelter pets, based on the shelter's responsibility to their community, the pet's QOL, and the available adopter base. Dogs with serious medical or behavioral issues that are not manageable for the "average" adopter should generally not be adopted out, particularly after multiple "failed" adoptions and prolonged LOS. Too many organizations base their adoptability criteria on the hope for a unicorn adopter with a "home in the country" or that "works from home", resulting in heartbreaking and dangerous situations that may sour owners on the idea of adopting shelter pets. 

Many progressive organizations and shelter veterinarians are moving away from the absolute prioritization of live outcome and, instead, emphasizing RIGHT outcome. The No-Kill movement is a nice idea, but one consequence is that many shelters and veterinarians have become afraid of making appropriate euthanasia decisions and then being demonized, threatened or losing their "no-kill" status. We need to de-stigmatize responsible shelter euthanasia and acknowledge that sometimes that is the right outcome, no matter how difficult the decision is.  Of course, avoiding intake/providing resources to owners of poor adoption candidates, RTO after assessment with honest conversation about options/QOL, transfer to breed-specific rescue (if available and appropriate), etc. are also options that may be exhausted prior to euthanasia, within an organization's resources.

I say this coming from a shelter that has a 90%+ live outcome rate, multiple municipal and county contracts, and a return rate for adopted dogs of ~10%  (substantially lower than the average you quoted).

Also, would be helpful if you included citations in your document. I know that many stats are "hyperlinked" to sources of one kind or another, but a more formal list of peer-reviewed studies and surveys cited would make it easier to understand where the data are coming from and verify that they are reliable sources of data.

Hi Rachel, thanks for chiming in. I completely agree with you on the challenges that a strict no-kill policy can present.

One point I'd like to add is that for no-kill to truly work ethically and effectively, we need a feasible third option beyond just adoption or euthanasia. For instance, in Germany, where euthanasia is outlawed, they have a specialized sanctuary for dogs that are harder to adopt, such as senior dogs or those from severe hoarding situations, allowing them to live out their lives comfortably. Sadly, these types of sanctuaries are rare, especially in the US.

On a more philosophical note, and perhaps this is just my perspective, isn't there a fundamental unfairness in humans deciding to euthanize a dog solely because it might pose a risk to people? Without this crucial third path of long-term sanctuary care, we are often left with having to make this incredibly difficult decision.

p.s. point well-taken that having citations on the page is useful, and will happily add those. Any other thoughts and comments are very welcomed! 

This is a good resource! None of the stats are surprising to me and are in keeping with what I see in our shelter.

One issue that is not addressed (perhaps by choice) is the influence on returns of making responsible decisions regarding the adoptability of shelter pets, based on the shelter's responsibility to their community, the pet's QOL, and the available adopter base. Dogs with serious medical or behavioral issues that are not manageable for the "average" adopter should generally not be adopted out, particularly after multiple "failed" adoptions and prolonged LOS. Too many organizations base their adoptability criteria on the hope for a unicorn adopter with a "home in the country" or that "works from home", resulting in heartbreaking and dangerous situations that may sour owners on the idea of adopting shelter pets. 

Many progressive organizations and shelter veterinarians are moving away from the absolute prioritization of live outcome and, instead, emphasizing RIGHT outcome. The No-Kill movement is a nice idea, but one consequence is that many shelters and veterinarians have become afraid of making appropriate euthanasia decisions and then being demonized, threatened or losing their "no-kill" status. We need to de-stigmatize responsible shelter euthanasia and acknowledge that sometimes that is the right outcome, no matter how difficult the decision is.  Of course, avoiding intake/providing resources to owners of poor adoption candidates, RTO after assessment with honest conversation about options/QOL, transfer to breed-specific rescue (if available and appropriate), etc. are also options that may be exhausted prior to euthanasia, within an organization's resources.

I say this coming from a shelter that has a 90%+ live outcome rate, multiple municipal and county contracts, and a return rate for adopted dogs of ~10%  (substantially lower than the average you quoted).

Also, would be helpful if you included citations in your document. I know that many stats are "hyperlinked" to sources of one kind or another, but a more formal list of peer-reviewed studies and surveys cited would make it easier to understand where the data are coming from and verify that they are reliable sources of data.

Philip,

Important to note, pet euthanasia is not illegal in Germany, it is just heavily regulated. A veterinarian must judge that an animal's suffering (including the mental anguish that severe "behavior" cases may experience) warrants euthanasia. Which is still in keeping with the policies of most shelters in the U.S., except for the ones who are forced to euthanize for space. No shelter chooses euthanasia for space in an existential sense and it is soul-killing for the staff forced to do it.

In general, I think we must be careful about comparing the U.S. to most, if not all, European countries. Rates of pet ownership are much lower in European countries and is far more heavily regulated regarding licensing, breeding, housing, even basic husbandry. Did you know that in Sweden there is literally a law that dogs must be walked every day...

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.8cd5a1b19362fb4fc2340d/1732539020220/Animal%20Welfare%20Regulations%20-%20Dog.pdf

While we may wish the same kind of laws existed in the U.S., I think we can all agree that Americans would never submit to this level of government regulation, for better or worse!

I would love to hash out the philosophical questions, preferably with an adult beverage in hand! But when it comes to policy-making we must deal in the reality of the world we are living in now, not what we wish or aspire to. The reality is that shelters, rescues and animal control agencies do have an important role and responsibility when it comes to public safety and public health. And while we consider the needs and options for each individual animal (hopefully), in the shelter world we also must consider responsible use of available resources and shelter population health/management. Sanctuaries are lovely but fill up quickly and then can't help any more animals until there is a vacancy. Is it better to leave animals with no care/intervention/at-risk in order to permanently house an unadoptable animal? Kind of illustrative that the entire country of Germany only needs 1 of those sanctuaries....the U.S. would need hundreds or thousands of them to meet the need!

Hi Rachel, thanks for chiming in. I completely agree with you on the challenges that a strict no-kill policy can present.

One point I'd like to add is that for no-kill to truly work ethically and effectively, we need a feasible third option beyond just adoption or euthanasia. For instance, in Germany, where euthanasia is outlawed, they have a specialized sanctuary for dogs that are harder to adopt, such as senior dogs or those from severe hoarding situations, allowing them to live out their lives comfortably. Sadly, these types of sanctuaries are rare, especially in the US.

On a more philosophical note, and perhaps this is just my perspective, isn't there a fundamental unfairness in humans deciding to euthanize a dog solely because it might pose a risk to people? Without this crucial third path of long-term sanctuary care, we are often left with having to make this incredibly difficult decision.

p.s. point well-taken that having citations on the page is useful, and will happily add those. Any other thoughts and comments are very welcomed! 

This is a good resource! None of the stats are surprising to me and are in keeping with what I see in our shelter.

One issue that is not addressed (perhaps by choice) is the influence on returns of making responsible decisions regarding the adoptability of shelter pets, based on the shelter's responsibility to their community, the pet's QOL, and the available adopter base. Dogs with serious medical or behavioral issues that are not manageable for the "average" adopter should generally not be adopted out, particularly after multiple "failed" adoptions and prolonged LOS. Too many organizations base their adoptability criteria on the hope for a unicorn adopter with a "home in the country" or that "works from home", resulting in heartbreaking and dangerous situations that may sour owners on the idea of adopting shelter pets. 

Many progressive organizations and shelter veterinarians are moving away from the absolute prioritization of live outcome and, instead, emphasizing RIGHT outcome. The No-Kill movement is a nice idea, but one consequence is that many shelters and veterinarians have become afraid of making appropriate euthanasia decisions and then being demonized, threatened or losing their "no-kill" status. We need to de-stigmatize responsible shelter euthanasia and acknowledge that sometimes that is the right outcome, no matter how difficult the decision is.  Of course, avoiding intake/providing resources to owners of poor adoption candidates, RTO after assessment with honest conversation about options/QOL, transfer to breed-specific rescue (if available and appropriate), etc. are also options that may be exhausted prior to euthanasia, within an organization's resources.

I say this coming from a shelter that has a 90%+ live outcome rate, multiple municipal and county contracts, and a return rate for adopted dogs of ~10%  (substantially lower than the average you quoted).

Also, would be helpful if you included citations in your document. I know that many stats are "hyperlinked" to sources of one kind or another, but a more formal list of peer-reviewed studies and surveys cited would make it easier to understand where the data are coming from and verify that they are reliable sources of data.

You are absolutely right Rachel, especially on how some of the regulations have helped Europe. As far as the realities on the ground, it is between a rock and a hard place right now. And it's terrible, because, as you said, having to make these euthanasia decisions cannot be helpful for dealing with compassion fatigue. 

Still hopeful that at some point in the future the situation would become better, and we may have a few (many?) of these sanctuaries around to create an alternative. Until then, it will be a lot more work on spay/neuter and keeping pets together with their people. 

Philip,

Important to note, pet euthanasia is not illegal in Germany, it is just heavily regulated. A veterinarian must judge that an animal's suffering (including the mental anguish that severe "behavior" cases may experience) warrants euthanasia. Which is still in keeping with the policies of most shelters in the U.S., except for the ones who are forced to euthanize for space. No shelter chooses euthanasia for space in an existential sense and it is soul-killing for the staff forced to do it.

In general, I think we must be careful about comparing the U.S. to most, if not all, European countries. Rates of pet ownership are much lower in European countries and is far more heavily regulated regarding licensing, breeding, housing, even basic husbandry. Did you know that in Sweden there is literally a law that dogs must be walked every day...

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.8cd5a1b19362fb4fc2340d/1732539020220/Animal%20Welfare%20Regulations%20-%20Dog.pdf

While we may wish the same kind of laws existed in the U.S., I think we can all agree that Americans would never submit to this level of government regulation, for better or worse!

I would love to hash out the philosophical questions, preferably with an adult beverage in hand! But when it comes to policy-making we must deal in the reality of the world we are living in now, not what we wish or aspire to. The reality is that shelters, rescues and animal control agencies do have an important role and responsibility when it comes to public safety and public health. And while we consider the needs and options for each individual animal (hopefully), in the shelter world we also must consider responsible use of available resources and shelter population health/management. Sanctuaries are lovely but fill up quickly and then can't help any more animals until there is a vacancy. Is it better to leave animals with no care/intervention/at-risk in order to permanently house an unadoptable animal? Kind of illustrative that the entire country of Germany only needs 1 of those sanctuaries....the U.S. would need hundreds or thousands of them to meet the need!

Hi Rachel, thanks for chiming in. I completely agree with you on the challenges that a strict no-kill policy can present.

One point I'd like to add is that for no-kill to truly work ethically and effectively, we need a feasible third option beyond just adoption or euthanasia. For instance, in Germany, where euthanasia is outlawed, they have a specialized sanctuary for dogs that are harder to adopt, such as senior dogs or those from severe hoarding situations, allowing them to live out their lives comfortably. Sadly, these types of sanctuaries are rare, especially in the US.

On a more philosophical note, and perhaps this is just my perspective, isn't there a fundamental unfairness in humans deciding to euthanize a dog solely because it might pose a risk to people? Without this crucial third path of long-term sanctuary care, we are often left with having to make this incredibly difficult decision.

p.s. point well-taken that having citations on the page is useful, and will happily add those. Any other thoughts and comments are very welcomed! 

This is a good resource! None of the stats are surprising to me and are in keeping with what I see in our shelter.

One issue that is not addressed (perhaps by choice) is the influence on returns of making responsible decisions regarding the adoptability of shelter pets, based on the shelter's responsibility to their community, the pet's QOL, and the available adopter base. Dogs with serious medical or behavioral issues that are not manageable for the "average" adopter should generally not be adopted out, particularly after multiple "failed" adoptions and prolonged LOS. Too many organizations base their adoptability criteria on the hope for a unicorn adopter with a "home in the country" or that "works from home", resulting in heartbreaking and dangerous situations that may sour owners on the idea of adopting shelter pets. 

Many progressive organizations and shelter veterinarians are moving away from the absolute prioritization of live outcome and, instead, emphasizing RIGHT outcome. The No-Kill movement is a nice idea, but one consequence is that many shelters and veterinarians have become afraid of making appropriate euthanasia decisions and then being demonized, threatened or losing their "no-kill" status. We need to de-stigmatize responsible shelter euthanasia and acknowledge that sometimes that is the right outcome, no matter how difficult the decision is.  Of course, avoiding intake/providing resources to owners of poor adoption candidates, RTO after assessment with honest conversation about options/QOL, transfer to breed-specific rescue (if available and appropriate), etc. are also options that may be exhausted prior to euthanasia, within an organization's resources.

I say this coming from a shelter that has a 90%+ live outcome rate, multiple municipal and county contracts, and a return rate for adopted dogs of ~10%  (substantially lower than the average you quoted).

Also, would be helpful if you included citations in your document. I know that many stats are "hyperlinked" to sources of one kind or another, but a more formal list of peer-reviewed studies and surveys cited would make it easier to understand where the data are coming from and verify that they are reliable sources of data.

Interesting info on this and other topics on the site.  

Thanks for sharing!