Pet Hayvanı Sahiplerinin Hayvan Refahı Tutumu: Türkiye'nin Orta ve Batısında Bir Araştırma

Öz

Günümüzde küresel pandemilerin başlamasıyla birlikte “Tek sağlık-Tek refah” kavramı hiç olmadığı kadar hayatın bir olgusu haline gelmektedir. Sorumlu sahiplik ve iyi bakım toplumsal yaşamın paydaşlarından birisi olan pet hayvanlarının sağlığı ve refahını etkilemektedir. Bu araştırmada pet hayvan sahiplerinin hayvan refahına yönelik tutumları incelenmiştir. Araştırma Türkiye’nin orta ve batısında yer alan İzmir, Ankara ve Afyonkarahisar’da yürütülmüştür. Araştırmaya gönüllü olarak katılan pet sahiplerine Hayvan Refahı Tutum Ölçeği (AWAS) uygulanmıştır. Hayvan refahı tutumunun bilişsel boyutunda elde edilen sonuçlara göre pet sahipleri hayvan refahının en çok barınma, besleme ve sağlık koşulları, en az hayvanların kesilmesi, kurban edilmesi veya onlara isim verilmesi ile etkilendiğini düşünmektedir. Davranışsal boyuta ilişkin bulgular pet sahiplerinin kendi hayvanlarına ve sokak hayvanlarına iyi davrandıklarını ancak hayvan hakları ve hayvan koruma konusunda faaliyet gösteren sivil toplum örgütleri (STK)’ni desteklemediklerini ve yüksek hayvan refahı standartlarında üretilen hayvansal gıdaları satın alma ve daha fazla ödemeye istekli olmadıklarını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca evcil hayvan sahiplerinin hayvanların hassas varlıklar olduğu ve insanlar gibi haklara sahip olduklarına inandıkları ancak hayvanların insanlar için yaratıldığı yargısına daha az katıldıkları görülmüştür. Pet hayvan sahiplerinin, hayvan refahını arttırmaya yönelik stratejileri destekleyebilecekleri ve pet hayvan sahiplerinin hayvanlar ve insanlar arasındaki ilişkiler, değerler ve normlar ile STK'larla ilgili bilgi ve farkındalığının artırılmasının Türkiye'de hayvan refahının artırılması için değerli fırsatlar sağlayabileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hayvan refahı, Tutum, Sahip, Pet hayvanı

Animal Welfare Attitudes of Pet Owners: An Investigation in Central and Western Parts of Turkey

Öz

Today with the start of global pandemics, the concept of “One health-One welfare” is becoming a fact of life as never before. Responsible ownership and good care duty do affect the health and welfare of pet animals, one of the stakeholders of social life. In this study, pet owners' attitudes towards animal welfare were examined. The research was carried out in İzmir, Ankara and Afyonkarahisar that are located in the Central and Western parts of Turkey. Animal Welfare Attitude Scale (AWAS) was applied to pet owners who voluntarily participated in the study. According to the results obtained in the cognitive dimension of the AWAS, pet owners think that animal welfare is affected mostly by housing, feeding and health conditions, and less by slaughter, sacrifice or naming of animals. Findings regarding the behavioral dimension demonstrated that pet owners treat their pets and street animals well but they do not support non-governmental organizations (NGO) working for animal rights and animal protection and they are not willing to purchase and pay more for foods produced under animal friendly standartds. Also, it has been observed that pet owners believe animals are sensitive beings and have rights like humans, but they agree little with the judgment that animals are created for humans. It was concluded that pet owners can support strategies to increase animal welfare and, increasing pet owners' knowledge and awareness relationships between animals and humans, values and norms as well as NGOs can provide valuable opportunities for increasing animal welfare in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Animal Welfare
• Attitudes
• Owner
• Pet animal

Kaynakça

1. Referans
2. Aksulu M. Yeni toplumsal hareketler: Türkiye'de hayvan hakları savunuculuğu ve sosyal medya. Maltepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Radyo Sinema Televizyon Anabilim Dalı. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 2013; İstanbul.
3. American Pet Products Association (APPA). National pet owners survey, 2017-2018. American Pet Products Association, Inc. Greenwich, CT. 2018;(http://americanpetproducts.org/Uploads/MemServices/GPE2017_NPOS_Seminar.pdf. Erişim:16.08.2019).
4. Anonymous. Pet hayvanı sektörü, 2019(https://www.dunya.com/sirketler/2-milyar-dolarlik-pazarda-hektas-hamlesi-haberi-413047, Erişim:21.03.2019).
5. Aşar H. Hayvan haklarına yönelik temel görüşler ve yanılgıları. Kaygı, Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi. 2018; 30:239-251.
6. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior. 2007; 92:375–397.
7. Bozkurt Z, Koçak S, Kılıç İ, Çelikeloğlu K, Hacan Ö, Lenger ÖF, Tekerli M. Attitudes of staff regarding animal welfare: A description on poultry farms in Afyonkarahisar. Kocatepe Veteriner Dergisi, 2017; 10(4): 308-316.
8. Bozkurt Z, Sarıal Kubilay GS. Tek sağlık-Tek refah:Başlıca paydaş olarak pet hayvan sahiplerinin rolü.4th International Anatolian Agriculture, Food, Environment and Biology Congress, 20-22 April 2019, Afyonkarahisar. Congress Proceedings Book, pages;339-342.

9. Broom DM. Animal welfare in the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament Policy Department, Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Study for the PETI Committee. 2017; pp. 24¬27.
10. Chou Y. The Changing of Social Meanings of Pets and Their Alternative Futures. (Master’s Thesis). Tamkang University Graduate Institute of Futures Studies. 2016. (http://www.metafuture.org/pdf/chouthesis.pdf. Erişim:11.05.2019).
11. Çelik B, Bozkurt Z. The attitudes and perceptions towards animal welfare of staff employed in the care and handling of animals during animal transport in muş province. Kocatepe Vet J 2016; 9(4): 294-303.
12. De la Fuente MF, Souto A, Caselli C, Schiel N. People’s perception on animal welfare: why does it matter?. Ethnobiology and conservation. 2017;6.
13. Dodd SA, Cave NJ, Adolphe JL, Shoveller AK, Verbrugghe A. Plant-based (vegan) diets for pets: A survey of pet owner attitudes and feeding practices. PloS one. 2019; 14(1):e0210806.
14. Erten Ö, Öztürk Y, Yılmaz, O. Türkiye’de pet hayvan sahiplerinin sosyo-demografik yapıları ve pet hayvancılığına bakışları; Alanya-Mardin örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi. 2019; 4(2), 76-83.
15. European Dog&Cat Alliance. The welfare of dogs and cats involved in commercial practices:a review of the legislation across EU countries; 2019. (https://www.ispca.ie/uploads/Welfare-EU-dogs-cats.pdf, Erişim: 02.01.2019).
16. Foer JS. Eating animals. 2010; Penguin UK.
17. Franklin A. Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity.1999; London, UK: Sage Publications.
18. Glanville CR, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ. Conceptualising dog owner motivations: The pet care competency model and role of'duty of care'.Animal Welfare.2020; 29(3), 271-284.
19. Guzman Z. Owning a pet can cost you $42,000, or 7 times as much as you expect. 2017; (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/27/how-much-does-it-cost-to-own-a-dog-7-times-more-than-you-expect.html.).
20. Haldeman P. The secret price of pets. The New York Times. 2018;(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/style/how-to-pamper-your-pet.html).
21. Holbrook MB, Woodside AG. Animal companions, consumption experiences, and the marketing of pets: Transcending boundaries in the animal–human distinction. 2008.
22. Jacobson KC, Chang L. Associations between pet ownership and attitudes toward pets with youth socioemotional outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9, 2304.
23. Johnson J. Dogs, Cats, and Their People: The Place of the Family Pet and Attitudes about Pet Keeping. (A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Public Issues Anthropology. 2009; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. (https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/4379/Johnson_Jill.pdf;sequence=1).
24. Kılıç İ, Bozkurt Z. Assessment of Turkish consumer attitudes using an Animal Welfare Attitude Scale (AWAS). Veterinaria México OA. 2020; 7(1).
25. Kılıç İ, Bozkurt Z. The relationship between farmers' perceptions and animal welfare standards in sheep farms. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013; 26 ( 9) : 1329-1338.
26. Kienzle E, Bergler R, Mandernach AA. comparison of the feeding behavior and the human-animal relationship in owners of normal and obese dogs. The Journal of Nutrition. 1998; 128:2779S–2782S.
27. Kirk CP. Dogs have masters, cats have staff: Consumers' psychological ownership and their economic valuation of pets. Journal of Business Research. 2019;99:306-318.
28. Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner-pet and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008; 232(4): 531-540.
29. Mariti C, Gazzano A, Moore JL, Baragli P, Chelli L, Sighieri C. Perception of dogs’ stress by their owners. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. 2012; 7(4): 213-219.
30. McMichael AJ. Globalization, climate change, and human health. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013; 368(14):1335-1343.
31. Michel KE, Willoughby KN, Abood SK, Fascetti AJ, Fleeman LM, Freeman LM, Laflamme DP, Bauer C, Kemp BLE, Van Doren JR. Attitudes of pet owners toward pet foods and feeding management of cats and dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008; 233(11):1699-1703.
32. Morris P, Knight S, Lesley S. Belief in animal mind: does familiarity with animals influence beliefs about animal emotions?. Society & Animals.2012; 20(3):211-224.
33. Odendaal JSJ. Die veearts en diereregte (the veterinarian and animal rights). J. S. Afr. vet. Assoc.1988; 59 (2):87-97.
34. Odendaal JSJ. Demographics of companion animals in South Africa. J. S. Afr. vet. Assoc.1994; 65(2): 67-72.
35. Paul ES, Serpell JA. Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood. Animal Welfare. 1993; 2(4): 321–337.
36. Prato-Previde E, Fallani G, Valsecchi P. Gender differences in owners interacting with pet dogs: an observational study. Ethology. 2006; 112(1):64-73.
37. Preylo BD, Arikawa H. Comparison of vegetarians and non-vegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös. 2008; 21(4): 387-395.
38. Reevy GM, Delgado MM. Are emotionally attached companion animal caregivers conscientious and neurotic? Factors that affect the human–companion animal relationship. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2015;18(3):239-258.
39. Rohlf VI, Bennett PC, Toukhsati S, Coleman G. Why do even committed dog owners fail to comply with some responsible ownership practices?. Anthrozoös. 2010; 23(2):143-155.
40. Roudebush P, Schoenherr WD, Delaney SJ. An evidence-based review of the use of therapeutic foods, owner education, exercise, and drugs for the management of obese and overweight pets. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008; 233:717–725.
41. Sanderson S, Finco D, Pogrelis A, Stacy L, Unger C. Owner impressions of three premium diets fed to healthy adult dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005;227:1931–6.
42. Scott P. What are companion animals? The Companion Animal Welfare Council. 2004;( www.awselva.co.uk/cawc.pdf. Erişim: 19.07.2019).
43. Selby L, Rhoades A, John D. Attitudes of the public towards dogs and cats as companion animals. Journal of Small Animal Practice.1981; 22.3: 129-137.
44. Slater MR, Weiss E, Lord LK. Current use of and attitudes towards identification in cats and dogs in veterinary clinics in Oklahoma City, USA. Animal Welfare-The UFAW Journal. 2012; 21(1): 51.
45. Stamps J, Groothuis TGG. The development of animal personality: Relevance, concepts and perspectives. Biol. Rev. 2010; 85:301–325.
46. Talas, M. Sivil toplum kuruluşları ve Türkiye perspektifi. Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, 2011;29: 387-401.
47. Taylor N, Signal TD. Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös. 2005;18(1):18-27.
48. Tekvar SO. HAYTAP’ın hayvan hakları mücadelesinde çatışmayönetimi: Hayvan hakları savunucularının kendi aralarında uzlaşması mümkün mü?. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2017; 10(2):181-204.
49. Wrye J. Beyond pets: Exploring relational perspectives of petness. The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.2009; 34:1033-1063.