台灣公立動物收容所動物福利概況(2008-2009)

Abstract

公立動物收容所提供社區內流浪動物或棄養動物暫時的收容空間，在環境、資源限制及人為操作不當的影響下，許多收容所動物面臨動物福利被妥協的情形。本研究分別從全年量化數據分析(2008/08/01-2009/07/31)及收容環境現場評估(2009/10/21-2009/12/09)來探討全台公立動物收容所的動物福利概況。 量化數據分析的結果顯示，在台灣，動物進入公立動物收容所的主要方式為政府捕捉；離開收容所的方式則以安樂死為主，並且各月份的安樂死數取決於各月份總進狗數的多寡。此外，本研究發現全台公立動物收容所的各狗收容天數主要落在七至十四天的範圍內。部分收容所的各狗收容天數短於本研究調查當時的法定收容期限(七天)且有過度執行安樂死的情形；另有部分收容所的各狗收容天數過長，同時出現狗舍使用率過高的情形。本研究亦發現收容天數與病死率有正相關(相關係數=0.592)。其它比率部分，全台公立動物收容所的年領養率及年領回率皆不高，動物進入收容所主要的下場是安樂死。而有些動物收容所的年病死數與安樂死數接近，其比值甚至小於1，顯示收容環境無法確保動物擁有免於疾病的自由，蘊含較差的動物福利。 收容環境現場評估的結果顯示全台公立動物收容所以室內飼養為主，並且其中有九成不提供戶外運動場，使動物生存於動物福利差的封閉環境中。此外，有些收容所將動物單隻飼養且無法與同類、人群有視覺的互動，致使動物無法從事社會行為並可能發展出不利被領養的異常行為。為解決犬舍密度過高的情形，全台公立動物收容所普遍設有高床，但多數的高床都欠缺功能，無法提升動物福利。 最後，本研究整理出全台公立動物收容所其它動物福利議題，包含：1. 領養區與健康評估區劃分不清；2. 犬舍老舊或設計不良；3. 交通易達性差；4. 無法按動物需求給予特殊照顧；5. 犬舍管理員缺乏照顧動物的知識及關愛動物的熱忱等。

Public animal shelters provide temporary husbandry and health care for stray or relinquished animals in the community. Under the circumstances of limited resources and poor environment, animal welfare in the shelters is inevitably compromised. This study attempts to depict the profile of animal welfare in Taiwan public animal shelters both quantitatively (shelter statistics study: 2008/08/01-2009/07/31) and qualitatively (field environment assessment: 2009/10/21-2009/12/09). According to shelter statistics study, in Taiwan, the influx of sheltered animals is chiefly by Animal Control Officer (ACO) capture. On the other hand, the efflux of sheltered animals is chiefly by euthanasia, and the amount of euthanized animals per month is determined by the influx of animals per month. Besides, turnover time in Taiwan public animal shelters is mostly between 7 to 14 days. Some shelters’ turnover time is shorter than mandatory holding period (7 days) with excessive euthanasia rate. Also, some other shelters’ turnover time is far longer than mandatory holding period with crowded space for sheltered animals. Moreover, positive correlation was found between turnover time and fatality rate (Spearman’s Rho=0.592). Other statistic results include low adoption rate and low redemption rate. In general, sheltered animals end up with euthanasia. A few shelters’ amount of fatality is approximate to the amount of euthanized animals or even lower than the amount of euthanized animals, suggesting sheltered animals are not free from disease, therefore poor animal welfare is implicated. Alternatively, field environment assessment illustrates that most public shelters in Taiwan don’t provide animals with outdoor access, and among these shelters, near 90% of them don’t provide playground for sheltered animals, making animals live in the restrictive condition. In addition, a few shelters keep animals in singly-housed condition with no visual contact with conspecifics and humans, preventing sheltered animals from social behavior and subsequently developing abnormal behavior. Also, in order to increase capacity, platform is very common in Taiwan public animal shelters; however, most of them are poorly designed and incapable of promoting animal welfare. In the end, this study integrates other animal welfare issues in Taiwan public shelters, including: 1. Isolation, quarantine, adoption areas are marked unclearly; 2. Facilities are antiquated or deteriorated; 3. Poor geographic accessibility for visitor.; 4. Poor intensive care for animals in need; 5. Shelter personnel is lacking in veterinary advise or lacking in enthusiasm about animals.