Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:43:50.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epidemiological Evaluation of Dogs Rescued in the Fukushima Prefecture Following the Great East Japan Earthquakes of 2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2018

Aki Tanaka ,
Beatriz Martinez-Lopez  and
Philip Kass
Aki Tanaka*
Affiliation:
Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, Tokyo, Japan
Beatriz Martinez-Lopez
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CaliforniaUSA
Philip Kass
Affiliation:
University of California-Davis, Population Health and Reproduction, Davis, CaliforniaUSA
*
Correspondence: Aki Tanaka, DVM, MPVM, PhD Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University 1-7-1 Kyonancho, Musashinoshi Tokyo, 1800032, Japan E-mail: atanaka@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Dogs left behind in the restricted area by the Great East Japan Earthquakes of 2011 (Fukushima Prefecture, Japan) were initially rescued at a temporary first response shelter under chaotic conditions: poor housing and husbandry was maintained by unfamiliar/untrained staff, and lack of exercise was associated with deterioration of the mental and physical health of the impounded dogs. The objectives of this study were to report characteristics, disposition, and health status of dogs rescued in the Fukushima Prefecture, and to perform a retrospective epidemiological evaluation of factors associated with disposition and disease incidence at shelters.

Problems

The problems addressed in this study were shelter-related health issues at the first response shelter and reasons for retained adoption at the secondary shelter that caused delayed closure of the shelter.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed with all dogs that were rescued from the restricted area in the Fukushima Prefecture. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis was performed to estimate the median days to outcomes. A chi-square test of homogeneity was used to determine whether ownership status was associated with breed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between time-to-adoption with ownership status, age, sex, and breed, the association between time to onset of diarrhea with age and breed, and between duration of diarrheic symptoms with the number of antibiotics and the number of medications.

Results

Five-hundred and twenty-nine dogs were admitted to the Ihno and Miharu shelters (Fukushima Prefecture), including 179 that had detailed medical records. Seventy-six percent of dogs were mixed breed. Twenty-six percent of dogs had verified ownership, and almost 16% of dogs were reclaimed by their owners. Sixty-six percent of dogs developed diarrhea, and 17 different antibiotics were used to treat it. Using three or more different antibiotics was associated with prolonged signs of diarrhea. Dogs with verified ownership took longer for adoption than those without verified ownership. Breed and sex were not significantly associated with time to adoption. Age was associated with prolonged time to adoption.

Conclusion

To improve the welfare of dogs in disasters, responsible owner education, a well-organized registered volunteer training program for care of animals at shelters, proper disease management protocols, and enrichment strategies to prevent stress and disease in shelter setting are essential.

TanakaA, Martinez-LopezB, KassP.Epidemiological Evaluation of Dogs Rescued in the Fukushima Prefecture Following the Great East Japan Earthquakes of 2011. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(5):478–583.

Keywords

disasterdisease incidencedogsoutcome
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 478 - 483
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: none

References

1. Ito, N, Natsuhori, M, Kawamata, J, et al. Study on the Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Animals. Japan: The Center of Education and Research for Agomedicine, Kitasato University; 2013. ISBN: 978-1-934785-05-8.Google Scholar
2. Heath, SE, Chomel, BB. Risk factors, prevention and prophylaxis of dog bites for disaster response personnel in the United States. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1998;13(2-4):58-62.Google Scholar
3. Scott Warner, G. Increased incidence of domestic animal bites following a disaster due to natural hazards. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(2):187-190.Google Scholar
4. Hennessy, MB, Davis, HN, Williams, MT, Mellott, C, Douglas, CW. Plasma cortisol levels of dogs at a county animal shelter. Physiol Behav. 1997;62(3):485-490.Google Scholar
5. Hennessy, MB, Voith, VL, Mazzei, SJ, Buttram, J, Miller, DD, Linden, F. Behavior and cortisol levels of dogs in a public animal shelter, and an exploration of the ability of these measures to predict problem behavior after adoption. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2001;73(3):217-233.Google Scholar
6. Hennessy, MB, Williams, MT, Miller, DD, Douglas, CW, Voith, VL. Influence of male and female petters on plasma cortisol and behavior: can human interaction reduce the stress of dogs in a public animal shelter? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998;61(1):63-77.Google Scholar
7. Coppola, CL, Grandin, T, Enns, RM. Human interaction and cortisol: can human contact reduce stress for shelter dogs? Physiol Behav. 2006;87(3):537-541.Google Scholar
8. Bergamasco, L, Osella, MC, Savarino, P, et al. Heart rate variability and saliva cortisol assessment in shelter dog: Human–animal interaction effects. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2010;125(1):56-68.Google Scholar
9. Mondelli, F, Prato Previde, E, Verga, M, Levi, D, Magistrelli, S, Valsecchi, P. The bond that never developed: adoption and relinquishment of dogs in a rescue shelter. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2004;7(4):253-266.Google Scholar
10. Salman, M, New, J, John, G, Scarlett, JM, Kass, PH, Ruch-Gallie, R, Hetts, S. Human and animal factors related to relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 1998;1(3):207-226.Google Scholar
11. New, JC Jr, Salman, M, King, M, Scarlett, JM, Kass, PH, Hutchison, JM. Characteristics of shelter-relinquished animals and their owners compared with animals and their owners in US pet-owning households. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2000;3(3):179-201.Google Scholar
12. Patronek, GJ, Glickman, LT, Moyer, MR. Population dynamics and the risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös. 1995;8(1):31-43.Google Scholar
13. Heath, SE, Beck, AM, Kass, PH, Glickman, LT. Risk factors for pet evacuation failure after a slow-onset disaster. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;218(12):1905-1910.Google Scholar
14. Patronek, GJ, Glickman, LT, Beck, AM, McCabe, GP, Ecker, C. Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996;209(3):572-581.Google Scholar
15. Simpson, JW. Diet and large intestinal disease in dogs and cats. J Nutr. 1998;128(12):2717S-2722S.Google Scholar
16. Bhatia, V, Tandon, RK. Stress and the gastrointestinal tract. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;20(3):332-339.Google Scholar
17. Greene, CE. Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.Google Scholar
18. Tupler, T, Levy, JK, Sabshin, SJ, Tucker, SJ, Greiner, EC, Leutenegger, CM. Enteropathogens identified in dogs entering a Florida animal shelter with normal feces or diarrhea. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012;241(3):338-343.Google Scholar
19. Sokolow, SH, Rand, C, Marks, SL, Drazenovich, NL, Kather, EJ, Foley, JE. Epidemiologic evaluation of diarrhea in dogs in an animal shelter. Am J Vet Res. 2005;66(6):1018-1024.Google Scholar
20. Barlough, J. Canine giardiasis: a review. J Small Anim Pract. 1979;20(10):613-623.Google Scholar
21. Marks, S, Rankin, S, Byrne, B, Weese, J. Enteropathogenic bacteria in dogs and cats: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment, and control. J Vet Intern Med. 2011;25(6):1195-1208.Google Scholar
22. Weese, JS. Bacterial enteritis in dogs and cats: diagnosis, therapy, and zoonotic potential. Veterinary Clinics of North America. J Small Anim Pract. 2011;41(2):287-309.Google Scholar
23. Wright, JG, Tengelsen, LA, Smith, KE, et al. Multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium in four animal facilities. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(8):1235.Google Scholar
24. Foley, JE, Rand, C, Bannasch, MJ, Norris, CR, Milan, J. Molecular epidemiology of feline bordetellosis in two animal shelters in California, USA. Prev Vet Med. 2002;54(2):141-156.Google Scholar
25. Wells, D, Hepper, P. Prevalence of disease in dogs purchased from an animal rescue shelter. Vet Rec. 1999;144(2):35-38.Google Scholar
26. Beerda, B, Schilder, MB, Van Hooff, JA, De Vries, HW, Mol, JA. Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. I. Behavioral responses. Physiol Behav. 1999;66(2):233-242.Google Scholar
27. Beerda, B, Schilder, MB, Bernadina, W, Van Hooff, JA, De Vries, HW, Mol, JA. Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. II. Hormonal and immunological responses. Physiol Behav. 1999;66(2):243-254.Google Scholar
28. Rooney, NJ, Gaines, SA, Bradshaw, JW. Behavioral and glucocorticoid responses of dogs (Canis familiaris) to kenneling: investigating mitigation of stress by prior habituation. Physiol Behav. 2007;92(5):847-854.Google Scholar
29. Stephen, JM, Ledger, RA. A longitudinal evaluation of urinary cortisol in kenneled dogs, Canis familiaris. Physiol Behav. 2006;87(5):911-916.Google Scholar
30. Hennessy, MB, Voith, VL, Young, TL, et al. Exploring human interaction and diet effects on the behavior of dogs in a public animal shelter. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2002;5(4):253-273.Google Scholar