Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T15:26:24.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current use of and attitudes towards identification in cats and dogs in veterinary clinics in Oklahoma City, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MR Slater ,
E Weiss  and
LK Lord
MR Slater*
Affiliation:
Shelter Research and Development, Community Outreach, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 50 Stone Ridge Drive, Northampton, MA 01602, USA
E Weiss
Affiliation:
Shelter Research and Development, Community Outreach, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2672 SW Indianola, Benton, KS 67017, USA
LK Lord
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Personalised identification (ID) tags that contain the contact information of pet owners can help ensure a pet gets home quickly. Recent research found that even though ID tags can help get pets home, the majority of pet owners do not consistently provide ID tags. The objectives of this study were to identify the number of animals at our study site wearing an ID tag as well as the owners’ reasons for not having them do so and to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of owners towards pet identification. Pet owners were surveyed when visiting one of five veterinary hospitals and a low cost spay/neuter clinic in Oklahoma City, USA. Out of the 291 pets in the survey, only 59 (20.3%) were currently wearing an ID tag with correct information. When asked how important it was for pets to wear identification, 79.6% of the surveyed pet owners reported it was very or extremely important with only 0.7% reporting that ID tags were not at all important. The most common reason for not placing a tag on their pet was that their pet was ‘indoor only’ (35.3%), with another 10% reporting their pet did not wear ID because the pet was uncomfortable wearing a collar. The results of this research suggest that a high percentage of pets do not have ID tags and that a programme to place ID tags directly onto the pets has a good potential for success, as there is a positive attitude toward tagging among pet owners.

Keywords

animal welfareidentification taglost catlost dogstray catstray dog
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Dohoo, IR, Martin, SW and Stryhn, H 2009 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. VER Inc: Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Humane Society of the United States 2009 http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/overpopulation_estimates.html. (Accessed 20 December, 2010)Google Scholar
Lord, LK 2008 Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 232: 1159–1167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, LK, Griffin, B, Slater, MR and Levy, JK 2010 Evaluation of collars and microchips for visual and permanent idenfication of pet cats. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 237: 387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, LK, Wittum, TE, Ferketich, AK, Funk, JA and Rajala-Schultz, P 2007a Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost cat. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 230: 217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, LK, Wittum, TE, Ferketich, AK, Funk, JA and Rajala-Schultz, P 2007b Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost dog. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 230: 211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, LK, Wittum, TE, Ferketich, AK, Funk, JA and Rajala-Schultz, PJ 2007c Search methods that people use to find owners of lost pets. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 230: 1835–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, R and Yan, T 2007 Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin 133: 859–883CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, E, Slater, MR and Lord, LK 2011 Retention of provided identification for dogs and cats in veterinary clinics and adopted from shelters in Oklahoma City, OK, USA. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 101: 265–269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Census Bureau, American FactFinder 2000 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-geo_id=16000US4055000. (Accessed 12 September 2010)Google Scholar
US Census Bureau, QuickFacts 2000 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html. (Accessed 12 September 2010)Google Scholar
US Pet Ownership 2007 US Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL, USAGoogle Scholar