The health and welfare of dogs belonging to homeless people

A significant number of homeless people own dogs, with these animals contributing to the well-being of their owners by providing emotional support and in many cases, a reason for living as well as acting as what might be termed a social catalyst, improving bonds between their owners. Yet many consider that homeless people should not be allowed, let alone encouraged to keep a dog. They consider that living with homeless people must have a negative impact on the dog’s health and welfare compared to that of a dog owned by people with a home. Here we sought to determine the health and welfare of dogs owned by homeless people, comparing 50 dogs owned by homeless people with 50 owned by people living in a home. In contradistinction to the negative view noted above, we found that dogs owned by homeless people were healthy animals, less likely to be obese, had fewer behaviour issues such as aggression to strangers and separation anxiety when compared to dogs owned by people living in a conventional home. We suggest that these findings should be taken into account when deciding whether a homeless person with a dog should be allowed into a hostel, and indeed the general attitude of the public to homeless people living with a dog by their side on the street. 1995; Bogard et al. 1999; Burt et al. 2001; Taylor et al. 2004). It is not just that homeless people lack the physical protection which a house affords; their predicament is a destructive experience leaving them without social and legal dimensions, roots and identity. They are often bereft of a sense of belonging and the emotional well-being which living in a home provides (Crisis, 2011, Homeless Link. 2009). The human-animal bond promotes the welfare of both parties (Davis and Balfour 1992, Russow 2002, Labreque and Walsh 2011) with the physical and emotional benefits of pet ownership being well documented (Edney1993; Serpell 1991; Wilson and Turner 1998; SCAS 1999; Staats et al. 1999). Dogs can act as a ‘social catalyst’ and provide the emotional support and social relationships often lacking in homelessness (Robinson 1997; Rew 2000). Dogs are the most popular pets belonging to the homeless, benefitting homeless people by facilitating communication with others (Menteith 2001; Kidd and Kidd 1994), combating the intense feelings of isolation that homelessness can give. Dog ownership can be a vital method in coping with suicidal thoughts (Rew 2000) and reducing drug use common amongst the homeless (Baker 2001) probably through fear of imprisonment which would necessitate relinquishing the dog (Taylor et al. 2004). Around one third of the homeless population turn to crime, with minor offences such as shoplifting being common (Ballintyne 1999). Dog ownership appears to reduce the likelihood of a homeless person committing a crime (Taylor et al. 2004) again potentially because imprisonment necessitates loss of the animal. Crucially, dogs give their owner a sense of responsibility; in 2000, Rew found that they inspired better decision making amongst young homeless people. Taylor, Williams and Gray (2004) found that homeless people are strongly attached to their pets and depend upon them for companionship, stability and security, and showed that the homeless were generally more empathetic towards animals than the general public. Having made all those positive comments, it is a sad fact that the majority of homelessness projects in the UK do not accept or admit dogs (Dogs Trust Project 2007) although a growing number are now allowing pets to be accommodated. Although they badly need the support of such services, many homeless people are unable to receive help simply because they own a dog (Singer 1995). Programme facilitators are often concerned about dogs’ potential behavioural problems, such as toileting and aggression and perceived health issues such as fleas and worms (Hope Project 2015). For the homeless, many of whom have experienced multiple forms of loss, being forced to give up their pet in order to access accommodation may cause further emotional trauma (Labrecque and Walsh 2011). The majority of homeless dog owners would rather remain homeless than accept accommodation that would not allow their pets (Hart and Zasloff 1995; Baker 2001). A dog, therefore, can be the limiting factor that keeps a homeless person on the streets permanently (Masters 1998; Menteith 2001). There is little information in the literature concerning homelessness and companion animals (Labrecque and Walsh 2011). Whilst the primary focus of such literature has rightly been the welfare and health of the owner, there is a lack of literature regarding the health or welfare of the dogs themselves. Here we present the results of a clinical health examination of 50 dogs owned by homeless people and 50 owned by settled individuals together with details of discussion with the owners on the health and welfare of their pets.