About this dataset

Do you want to help a dog in need? This dataset contains information on over 3,000 adoptable dogs across the United States. By understanding patterns of dog movement and relocation, we can help these animals find their forever homes.

The data includes information on the origin of each dog, as well as the state they are currently listed for adoption in. This can be used to understand patterns of dog movement across the country, and how different states rely on imported dogs for adoption.

There are several things to keep in mind when using this dataset: - The data represents a single day of data. It is possible that patterns have changed since then. - The data only includes adoptable dogs that were listed on PetFinder.com

How to use the dataset

This dataset of adoptable dogs in the US was collected to better understand how animals are relocated from state to state and imported from outside the US. The data includes information on over 3,000 dogs that were described as having originated in places different from where they were listed for adoption. The findings were published in a visual essay on The Pudding entitled Finding Forever Homes published in October 2019.

This dataset is a snapshot of data collected on a single day and does not include all adoptable dogs in the US. However, it provides valuable insights into the whereabouts of these animals and the journey they take to find their forever homes

So, how should you use it?

This dataset is a great resource for understanding how adoptable dogs are relocated from state to state and imported into the US. The data provides information on the origin of each dog, as well as the state they are currently listed for adoption in. This can be used to understand patterns of dog movement across the country, and how different states rely on imported dogs for adoption.

Research Ideas

• Finding out how many of each type and breed of dog are brought into shelters across the USA in a given year.
• Seeing which states have the most imports of dogs and what breeds/types those are.
• Determining if there are any trends in the types/breeds of dogs being brought into shelters (e.g. more pit bulls than golden retrievers)

Columns

File: dogTravel.csv | Column name | Description | |:------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------| | contact_city | The city where the animal is located. (String) | | contact_city | The city where the animal is located. (String) | | contact_state | The state where the animal is located. (String) | | contact_state | The state where the animal is located. (String) | | description | A description of the animal. (String) | | description | A description of the animal. (String) | | found | The date the animal was found. (Date) | | found | The date the animal was found. (Date) | | manual | A manual override for the animal's location. (String) | | manual | A manual override for the animal's location. (String) | | remove | The date the animal was removed from the dataset. (Date) | | remove | The date the animal was removed from the dataset. (Date) | | still_there | Whether or not the animal is still available for adoption. (Boolean) | | still_there | Whether or not the animal is still available for adoption. (Boolean) |

File: allDogDescriptions.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------| | contact_city | The city where the animal is located. (String) | | contact_city | The city where the animal is located. (String) | | contact_state | The state where the animal is located. (String) | | contact_state | The state where the animal is located. (String) | | description | A description of the animal. (String) | | description | A description of the animal. (String) | | url | The URL of the animal's profile on PetFinder. (String) | | url | The URL of the animal's profile on PetFinder. (String) | | type.x | The type of animal. (String) | | type.x | The type of animal. (String) | | species | The species of the animal. (S...

In March 2020, Americans began experiencing numerous lifestyle changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some reports have suggested that pet acquisition and ownership increased during this period, and some have suggested shelters and rescues will be overwhelmed once pandemic-related restrictions are lifted and lifestyles shift yet again. In May 2021, the ASPCA hired the global market research company Ipsos to conduct a general population survey that would provide a more comprehensive picture of pet ownership and acquisition during the pandemic. Although pet owners care for a number of species, the term pet owner in this study specifically refers to those who had dogs and/or cats. One goal of the survey was to determine whether data from a sample of adults residing in the United States would corroborate findings from national shelter databases indicating that animals were not being surrendered to shelters in large numbers. Furthermore, this survey gauged individuals' concerns related to the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, and analyses examined factors associated with pet owners indicating they were considering rehoming an animal within the next 3 months. The data showed that pet ownership did not increase during the pandemic and that pets may have been rehomed in greater numbers than occurs during more stable times. Importantly, rehomed animals were placed with friends, family members, and neighbors more frequently than they were relinquished to animal shelters and rescues. Findings associated with those who rehomed an animal during the pandemic, or were considering rehoming, suggest that animal welfare organizations have opportunities to increase pet retention by providing resources regarding pet-friendly housing and affordable veterinary options and by helping pet owners strategize how to incorporate their animals into their post-pandemic lifestyles.

Context

I have taken this dataset from the NYC Open Data Website: https://data.cityofnewyork.us

I wanted to use the cleaned version of this dataset and I thought people might like to use this version. The original dataset was last updated on 10th September 2018.

Description: All dog owners residing in NYC are required by law to license their dogs. The data is sourced from the DOHMH Dog Licensing System (https://a816-healthpsi.nyc.gov/DogLicense), where owners can apply for and renew dog licenses. Each record represents a unique dog license that was active during the year, but not necessarily a unique record per dog, since a license that is renewed during the year results in a separate record of an active license period. Each record stands as a unique license period for the dog over the course of the yearlong time frame.

Content

The original dataset contained 122K rows and 15 columns. After cleaning the data, the count has reduced to 121862 rows.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the city of new york for collecting and providing this data! As well as the NYC Department of Health who acquired this data from owners who registered their dogs for the dog license.

Inspiration

I'll let you guys get creative and explore the dataset.

In 2021, a comprehensive dog demographic questionnaire combined with a KAP survey were conducted in the northern communal areas (NCAs) of Namibia with the aim of gaining a better understanding of dog populations, owner behaviour, and knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) relating to rabies. The survey of 3,726 households across the eight regions of the NCAs provided insights that will inform interventions in order to improve human rabies prevention and Namibia’s dog rabies control strategy. The results showed a relatively low average human/dog ratio (HDR) of 5.4:1 indicating a surprisingly high dog population of at least 272,000 dogs in the NCAs, 93% of which appear to be owned but are free-roaming. Data analysis revealed opportunities but also highlighted needs for improvements in rabies surveillance and mass dog vaccinations. Although knowledge, attitude, and practice scores towards epidemiologic and clinical aspects, human rabies prevention, and dog rabies vaccination were deemed to be acceptable, the survey nevertheless revealed deficiencies in certain aspects in some of the population. Interestingly, data seemed to indicate relatively high dog bite incidences per 100,000 people, ranging between 262 and 1,369 and a certain number of unreported human rabies cases. Despite the very high number of dogs, only 50% of dog-owning households reported having vaccinated their dogs. In order to address these issues, the planning, announcement, and implementation of mass dog vaccination campaigns needs to be adapted to achieve adequate vaccination coverage. Another focus needs to be on rabies awareness and education if Namibia is to be significantly contributing to the global goal of “Zero by 30”.

NYC Reported Dog Bites.

Section 11.03 of NYC Health Code requires all animals bites to be reported within 24 hours of the event.

Information reported assists the Health Department to determine if the biting dog is healthy ten days after the person was bitten in order to avoid having the person bitten receive unnecessary rabies shots. Data is collected from reports received online, mail, fax or by phone to 311 or NYC DOHMH Animal Bite Unit. Each record represents a single dog bite incident. Information on breed, age, gender and Spayed or Neutered status have not been verified by DOHMH and is listed only as reported to DOHMH. A blank space in the dataset means no data was available.

The oldest confirmed remains of domestic dogs in North America are from mid-continent archeological sites dated ~9,900 calibrated years before present (cal BP). Although this date suggests that dogs may not have arrived alongside the first Native Americans, the timing and routes for the entrance of New World dogs are unclear. Here, we present a complete mitochondrial genome of a dog from Southeast Alaska, dated to 10,150 ± 260 cal BP. We compared this high-coverage genome with data from modern dog breeds, historical Arctic dogs, and American precontact dogs (PCDs) from before European arrival. Our analyses demonstrate that the ancient dog shared a common ancestor with PCDs that lived ~14,500 years ago and diverged from Siberian dogs around 16,000 years ago, coinciding with the minimum suggested date for the opening of the North Pacific coastal (NPC) route along the Cordilleran Ice Sheet and genetic evidence for the initial peopling of the Americas. This ancient Southeast Alaskan dog occupies an early branching position within the PCD clade, indicating it represents a close relative of the earliest PCDs that were brought alongside people migrating from eastern Beringia southward along the NPC to the rest of the Americas. The stable isotope δ13C value of this early dog indicates a marine diet, different from the younger mid-continent PCDs’ terrestrial diet. Although PCDs were largely replaced by modern European dog breeds, our results indicate that their population decline started ~2,000 years BP, coinciding with the expansion of Inuit peoples, who are associated with traditional sled-dog culture. Our findings suggest that dogs formed part of the initial human habitation of the New World, and provide insights into their replacement by both Arctic and European lineages.

BackgroundRabies virus (RABV; species Lyssavirus rabies) is causing one of the oldest zoonotic diseases known to mankind, leading to fatal encephalomyelitis in animals and humans. Despite the existence of safe and effective vaccines to prevent the disease, an estimated 99% of human rabies deaths worldwide are caused by dog-mediated rabies with children at the highest risk of infection. Rabies has been endemic in Madagascar for over a century, yet there has been little research evaluating local knowledge and practices impacting on the rabies control and prevention. Thus, this study was undertaken to better understand the dog ecology including canine vaccine coverage and to assess knowledge and practices of dog owners and veterinarians.MethodologyA cross-sectional study was conducted among 123 dog-owning households in thirteen fokontanys in Mahajanga from July 4 to September 13, 2016. Single and multi-member dog-owning households in the study area on the day of the interview were eligible for inclusion and purposively selected with the support of a local guide. The survey included a household questionnaire capturing information on the dog’s demographics, husbandry practices, knowledge and practices towards rabies and its control measures; the dog ecology questionnaire collected dog characteristics, vaccination status and husbandry practices. All households that reported a dog bite incident, were invited to participate in a dog bite questionnaire. In addition, direct observations of roaming dogs were conducted to assess dog population demographics and to document behavioural characteristics. Two veterinarians were purposively selected and took part in an interview during the survey period, providing information on rabies control activities, including dog-care practices in the area. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were performed using Epi Info version 7.1.5.0 (CDC Atlanta, USA).ResultsWe recorded a total of 400 dogs, of which 338 (84.5%) were owned amongst 123 households. More than half (67.8%) of owned dogs were between 1 to 5 years old and 95.6% were kept for guarding purposes. 45% of the surveyed dogs had free access to roam outside the premises. The majority (85.4%) of dog owners were knowledgeable that a dog bite could potentially transmit RABV to humans. 19 dog bites were reported and of these 73.6% were caused by the owner’s or a neighbour’s dog. In 6 of the 19 cases, children between 7 and 15 years of age were the victims. Dog vaccination coverage against rabies was 34% among owned dogs. Of the participants aware of a veterinarian, the majority (55/82) indicated that they accessed veterinarian services at irregular intervals. The main obstacles to vaccinations cited by dog owners were limited financial resources and difficulty accessing veterinary care.ConclusionThis study contributes to enhanced understanding of the dog ecology including canine vaccine coverage as well as knowledge and practices of dog owners in Madagascar. Most dogs in the study area were accessible for preventive vaccination through their owners, however only one third of the investigated canine population was vaccinated against rabies. Concerted national efforts towards rabies prevention and control should aim to address financial challenges and access to veterinary services.

Over the past decade, Lyme and other tick-borne diseases have expanded into urban areas, including Staten Island, New York. While Lyme disease is often researched with a focus on human risk, domestic pets are also at risk of contracting the disease. The present study aims to describe differences in tick exposure, knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) between pet owners and non-owners, and to understand preventive strategies practiced by pet owners for themselves and their pets. We conducted KAP surveys via phone in 2020 and via face-to-face interviews in 2021, and we analyzed unique responses from 364 households on Staten Island. Pet owners were more likely to have ever found a tick on themselves or their household members (63%) than non-owners (46%) (p

Characteristics of dog or cat ownership in relation to tick-bite prevention attitudes and actions from a sample of at-risk Staten Island residents.

BackgroundRabies virus (RABV; species Lyssavirus rabies) is causing one of the oldest zoonotic diseases known to mankind, leading to fatal encephalomyelitis in animals and humans. Despite the existence of safe and effective vaccines to prevent the disease, an estimated 99% of human rabies deaths worldwide are caused by dog-mediated rabies with children at the highest risk of infection. Rabies has been endemic in Madagascar for over a century, yet there has been little research evaluating local knowledge and practices impacting on the rabies control and prevention. Thus, this study was undertaken to better understand the dog ecology including canine vaccine coverage and to assess knowledge and practices of dog owners and veterinarians.MethodologyA cross-sectional study was conducted among 123 dog-owning households in thirteen fokontanys in Mahajanga from July 4 to September 13, 2016. Single and multi-member dog-owning households in the study area on the day of the interview were eligible for inclusion and purposively selected with the support of a local guide. The survey included a household questionnaire capturing information on the dog’s demographics, husbandry practices, knowledge and practices towards rabies and its control measures; the dog ecology questionnaire collected dog characteristics, vaccination status and husbandry practices. All households that reported a dog bite incident, were invited to participate in a dog bite questionnaire. In addition, direct observations of roaming dogs were conducted to assess dog population demographics and to document behavioural characteristics. Two veterinarians were purposively selected and took part in an interview during the survey period, providing information on rabies control activities, including dog-care practices in the area. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were performed using Epi Info version 7.1.5.0 (CDC Atlanta, USA).ResultsWe recorded a total of 400 dogs, of which 338 (84.5%) were owned amongst 123 households. More than half (67.8%) of owned dogs were between 1 to 5 years old and 95.6% were kept for guarding purposes. 45% of the surveyed dogs had free access to roam outside the premises. The majority (85.4%) of dog owners were knowledgeable that a dog bite could potentially transmit RABV to humans. 19 dog bites were reported and of these 73.6% were caused by the owner’s or a neighbour’s dog. In 6 of the 19 cases, children between 7 and 15 years of age were the victims. Dog vaccination coverage against rabies was 34% among owned dogs. Of the participants aware of a veterinarian, the majority (55/82) indicated that they accessed veterinarian services at irregular intervals. The main obstacles to vaccinations cited by dog owners were limited financial resources and difficulty accessing veterinary care.ConclusionThis study contributes to enhanced understanding of the dog ecology including canine vaccine coverage as well as knowledge and practices of dog owners in Madagascar. Most dogs in the study area were accessible for preventive vaccination through their owners, however only one third of the investigated canine population was vaccinated against rabies. Concerted national efforts towards rabies prevention and control should aim to address financial challenges and access to veterinary services.

Control of dog-mediated rabies relies on raising awareness, access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and mass dog vaccination. To assess rabies awareness in Moramanga district, Madagascar, where rabies is endemic, two complementary quantitative and qualitative approaches were carried out in 2018. In the quantitative approach, a standardized questionnaire was administered to 334 randomized participants living in 170 households located less than 5 km from the anti-rabies treatment center (ARTC) located in Moramanga city (thereafter called the central area), and in 164 households located more than 15 km away from the ARTC in two rural communes (thereafter called the remote area). Logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors influencing knowledge and practice scores. The qualitative approach consisted in semi-structured interviews conducted with 28 bite victims who had consulted the ARTC, three owners of biting dogs, three ARTC staff and two local authorities.Overall, 15.6% (52/334) of households owned at least one dog. The dog-to-human ratio was 1:17.6. The central area had a significantly higher dog bite incidence (0.53 per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 0.31–0.85) compared to the remote area (0.22 per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 0.09–0.43) (p = 0.03). The care pathway following a bite depended on wound severity, how the dog was perceived and its owner’s willingness to cover costs. Rabies vaccination coverage in dogs in the remote area was extremely low (2.4%). Respondents knew that vaccination prevented animal rabies but owners considered that their own dogs were harmless and cited access and cost of vaccine as main barriers. Most respondents were not aware of the existence of the ARTC (85.3%), did not know the importance of timely access to PEP (92.2%) or that biting dogs should be isolated (89.5%) and monitored. Good knowledge scores were significantly associated with having a higher socio-economic status (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.33–3.26) and living in central area (OR = 1.91, CI = 1.22–3.00). Good practice scores were significantly associated with living in central area (OR = 4.78, CI = 2.98–7.77) and being aware of the ARTC’s existence (OR = 2.29, CI = 1.14–4.80).In Madagascar, knowledge on rabies was disparate with important gaps on PEP and animal management. Awareness campaigns should inform communities (i) on the importance of seeking PEP as soon as possible after an exposure, whatever the severity of the wound and the type of biting dog who caused it, and (ii) on the existence and location of ARTCs where free-of-charge PEP is available. They should also encourage owners to isolate and monitor the health of biting dogs. Above all, awareness and dog vaccination campaigns should be designed so as to reach the more vulnerable remote rural populations as knowledge, good practices and vaccination coverage were lower in these areas. They should also target households with a lower socio-economic status. If awareness campaigns are likely to succeed in improving access to ARTCs in Madagascar, their impact on prompting dog owners to vaccinate their own dogs seems more uncertain given the financial and access barriers. Therefore, to reach the 70% dog vaccination coverage goal targeted in rabies elimination programs, awareness campaigns must be combined with free-of-charge mass dog vaccination.

Assistance dogs' roles have diversified to support people with various disabilities, especially in the U.S. Data presented here are from the U.S. and Canada non-profit facilities (including both accredited and candidate members that fulfilled partial requirements: all here termed “accredited”) of Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), and from non-accredited U.S. assistance dog training facilities, on the numbers and types of dogs they placed in 2013 and 2014 with persons who have disabilities. ADI categories of assistance dogs are for guide, hearing, and service (including for assistance with mobility, autism, psychiatric, diabetes, seizure disabilities). Accredited facilities in 28 states and 3 provinces responded; accredited non-responding facilities were in 22 states and 1 province (some in states/provinces with responding accredited facilities). Non-accredited facilities in 16 states responded. U.S./Canada responding accredited facilities (55 of 96: 57%) placed 2,374 dogs; non-accredited U.S. facilities (22 of 133: 16.5%) placed 797 dogs. Accredited facilities placed similar numbers of dogs for guiding (n = 918) or mobility (n = 943), but many more facilities placed mobility service dogs than guide dogs. Autism service dogs were third most for accredited (n = 205 placements) and U.S. non-accredited (n = 72) facilities. Psychiatric service dogs were fourth most common in accredited placements (n = 119) and accounted for most placements (n = 526) in non-accredited facilities. Other accredited placements were for: hearing (n = 109); diabetic alert (n = 69), and seizure response (n = 11). Responding non-accredited facilities placed 17 hearing dogs, 30 diabetic alert dogs, and 18 seizure response dogs. Non-accredited facilities placed many dogs for psychiatric assistance, often for veterans, but ADI accreditation is required for veterans to have financial reimbursement. Twenty states and several provinces had no responding facilities; 17 of these states had no accredited facilities. In regions lacking facilities, some people with disabilities may find it inconvenient living far from any supportive facility, even if travel costs are provided. Despite accelerated U.S./Canada placements, access to well-trained assistance dogs continues to be limited and inconvenient for many people with disabilities, and the numerous sources of expensive, poorly trained dogs add confusion for potential handlers.

Summary of Dog: Human ratios From Studies Conducted in the Philippines.

Socio-demographic Characteristics of Households That Participated in the Study.

Service dogs, trained to assist people with disabilities, are known to impact their human partners’ social experiences. While service dogs can act as a “social bridge,” facilitating greater social connection under certain circumstances, many service dog partners also encounter challenges in social settings because of the presence of their service dog – despite legal protections. Among the most common challenges reported are experiences of stigma, discrimination, and access or service denials. This preregistered integrative review sought to synthesize empirical, theoretical, and legal literature to understand better the social experiences reported by service dog partners in the United States, including (1) civil rights experiences; (2) experiences of stigma and discrimination; and (3) broader social experiences. Following database searches and article screening, a total of N = 43 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Analyses were conducted in two stages: first, synthesizing quantitative and qualitative findings to explore the magnitude of social experiences reported by empirical articles and second, narrative synthesis to integrate findings across all article types. Analyses identified three themes: Adverse Social Experiences, Contributing Factors, and Proposed Solutions. Overall, we found consistent reports of stigma, discrimination, and access denials for service dog handlers. Additionally, these adverse experiences may be more common for service dog partners with disabilities not externally visible (i.e., invisible disabilities such as diabetes or substantially limiting mental health conditions). This integrative review highlights a pattern of social marginalization and stigmatization for some service dog partners, exacerbated by inadequate legal protection and widespread service dog fraud. These findings have implications for the individual well-being of people with disabilities partnered with service dogs and highlight a need for collective efforts to increase inclusion and access. Effective solutions likely require a multi-component approach operating at various socio-ecological levels.

Tick-bite preventive measures taken on dogs from a sample of at-risk Staten Island residents.

Socio-demographic characteristics and dog ownership of respondents.

Comparison of practices towards rabies in the remote and central areas.