A conceptual framework for holistic goal setting for companion animal populations: a balanced cat population case study

1 Introduction

Companion animals are a ubiquitous part of society, found in more than half of households in many countries where data are available (PDSA, 2024 [cats, dogs and rabbits]; Animal Medicines Australia, 2025 [including exotic pets]). Although there is no agreed number, estimates of the global population of companion cats and dogs are close to or exceeding one billion (Hughes and Macdonald, 2013; Knight, 2023). While understanding of companion animal welfare has generally improved with advancements in research and legislation, challenges remain diverse and uneven across communities. Additionally, with growth in popularity, as well changes to the landscape of pet ownership, comes increased and new welfare challenges, such as systemic barriers to timely veterinary care, an increase in importation and a demand for breeding aesthetic traits in animals over their innate health to name a few. Many of these challenges will have reciprocal effects on humans, other animals and the environment. The complexity of the companion animal system can make priority-setting challenging. Consequently, management decisions are often ad hoc, consisting of unconnected interventions and/or assessed poorly (Smith et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2020; Papavasili et al., 2024). Additionally, the sustainability of improvements to companion animal welfare and ultimately the feasibility of any management depends on the wider context within communities. While animal charities will consider the welfare of their target species as their main goal, decision-making should also consider the circumstances and interests of all in the community. However, there is a lack of consensus about which values should guide decisions.

Although not a standardised term, discussion of population “balance” in wild animal populations dates back at least to the 1930s (Nicholson, 1933). Much focus has been on demographic rates, such as the numbers moving in (e.g. reproductive rate and immigration) and out (e.g. mortality and emigration) of a population (Vasconcelos et al., 2014; Hemeon et al., 2023). Definitions of population balance have been considered in areas where population persistence is desirable such as introduced (Bellows, 2001) or reintroduced (Gorman, 2007) species, harvesting of animals for food such as fish (Jacobsen et al., 2014) and maintaining biodiversity (Verma, 2017). Consequently, goal setting for wild animal populations typically focuses on a numbers-based approach (e.g. Sanderson, 2006; Callaghan et al, 2024). To our knowledge, a discussion of population balance applied to companion animals has not yet been published.

For companion animals, although the negative influence on people, other animals and communities of large numbers of unowned populations remains undisputed, it is unclear what population size or situation is ideal. Crucially, the welfare of the animals involved is rarely considered in wild animal frameworks (Harrington et al., 2013). It must be acknowledged that welfare is not linear with population size as it can be influenced by other social and environmental factors (Albery et al., 2025). For example, all species will affect and be affected by humans, resources and environmental interactions (Figure 1). These factors are also connected to, and influenced by, population factors. Figure 1 represents these connections in cats, showing how humans, resources, environments and cats are interlinked. For example, human behaviour, both purposeful and indirect, can impact cat health, cat demographics and available resources. Humans also impact the environment in which cats live, for example by having multi-cat households or allowing outdoor access. Similarly, population attributes of cats, including population dynamics and cat numbers, can influence human factors such as their perceptions of cats and their knowledge about cats and their needs. Therefore, while balance needs to result in positive animal welfare, exactly what this looks like and the feasibility of achieving balance needs to consider the context that animals inhabit.

This paper proposes moving from traditional numbers-focussed approaches of population balance, towards a framework that considers welfare of the target species as well as other animal species – including humans, domestic animals and wildlife. It also incorporates wider environmental sustainability. It explores the concept of balance using the UK cat population as an example. Factors that contribute to a balanced population of cats are presented, alongside lenses through which these factors can be viewed. This framework is intended to be a practical tool to guide discussions on balanced population in localised areas, leading to a more nuanced approach to population management for cats in the UK. Adopting this concept could guide decision-making to improve companion animal welfare and mitigate against community-level detrimental effects, while acknowledging the positive impact companion animals can have in society.

2 A balanced population of cats: a UK case study

2.1 Natural history of cats

Domestic cats (Felis catus) have been part of human society for around 10,000 years (Vigne et al., 2004). Although descended from a solitary living African wildcat ancestor Felis sylvestris lybica (Driscoll et al., 2007), domestic cats have shown an ability to form social groups both free-living and in confined living spaces such as human homes (for a review see Crowell-Davis et al, 2004). Cats are obligate carnivores and have maintained their drive for hunting behaviour (Cecchetti et al, 2021). In the UK, most cats are dependent on resources provided by humans, whether these resources are provided intentionally or otherwise, such as through refuse.

2.2 Cat populations in the UK

It is estimated there are between 11–12 million domestic cats (Felis catus) in the UK (Table 1). Most (10–11 million) of these cats are owned and many have outdoor access (Cats Protection, 2024). Additionally, there are almost a million cats estimated to be unowned (Table 1). These populations are interconnected, with cats able to transition between the different subpopulations, as shown in Figure 2. Owned cats may become unowned through abandonment, straying or relinquishment to a shelter. Cats housed in shelters can become owned through rehoming, but it is highly unlikely that cats will move from shelters to free-living, except after temporary housing as part of a trap-neuter-return (TNR) programme. Free-living, unowned cats may move to shelters, or transition to owned without going through the shelter system by being taken directly into a home.

Table 1. Estimates of key cat subpopulations in the UK.

*Simple calculation for modelling purposes.

Consequently, it is important to look holistically at cat populations and recognise that management decisions in one subpopulation can impact on the others. For example, population modelling has demonstrated that a reduction in neutering of owned cats results in an increase in both shelter and free-living, unowned cats (McDonald et al., 2023). While recognising ambiguity in terminology and acknowledging that cats do not conform to neat definitions, for the purpose of this paper three types of cats are considered: owned, free-living unowned and shelter (Glossary).

Few population studies or studies of cat welfare have considered information across subpopulations (e.g. Cecchetti and Nelli, 2025); the majority focus on populations or individuals in isolation (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2013; Ireland and Neilan, 2016). While this may be appropriate at a localised level, particularly when populations of one cat type live separate from other populations (for example, feral cats living in wilderness areas away from human habitation), this is typically not applicable to most UK situations.

High numbers of unowned free-living cats are undesirable for reasons including their own welfare, as well as nuisance concerns (Gunther et al., 2015), Overpopulation is therefore a key welfare consideration. The desirable numbers and situation of unowned cats depends on their welfare, the availability of resources to support them and their acceptability in the community from a human and environmental perspective. Actions for unowned free-living cats could include supporting the population in place or complete removal from an area, but the ideal outcome for this population will be context specific.

Shelter cats represent a small fraction of the overall cat population (Table 1), so efforts to maximise shelter capacity offer limited population-level benefit. Additionally, life in a shelter has the potential to negatively impact cat welfare. Overcrowding can increase stress, disease (Möstl et al., 2013) and length of stay, which all slow rehoming rates (Wagner et al., 2018; Karsten et al., 2017). Conversely, maintaining shelter populations at or below capacity supports cat welfare and improves long-term outcomes (Janke et al., 2017). While shelter populations are not ideal due to the difficulties in providing for the needs of cats (Vojtkovská et al., 2021; Eagan et al., 2021), shelters remain essential in cases of relinquishment or abandonment that may occur due to issues arising from changing socio-political climates, for example the cost of living crisis in recent years. Shelters play a crucial role in mediating the movement of cats between the unowned and owned subpopulations and where appropriate, adoption can be used as part of a TNR programme to help reduce the free-roaming cat population (Junqueira and Galera, 2024). Shelters also impact on the demographics of owned cats, through neutering and euthanasia policies (e.g. Sparkes et al., 2013). Although the aspirational goal may be zero shelter cats, a more realistic approach is to strive for population balance that reflects optimising welfare where possible and considering capacity for care, in terms of available resources and rehoming rates.

Although the situational context for unowned cats free-living and in shelters may seem more overtly concerning, the magnitude of welfare concerns could arguably be much greater for the owned cats that make up the majority of the UK cat population (Table 1). This population is most influential in terms of overpopulation of unowned cats (McDonald et al., 2023). Modern trends in husbandry and/or treatment approaches have the potential for far-reaching negative impacts if cat welfare is not at the forefront of decision-making. While our understanding of cat welfare is improving, emerging trends happen quickly and research on their impact on welfare lags behind. Examples include extreme traits in purebred cats (Roberts et al., 2025), increased use of new technology (Garcia and Chebly, 2024) or accessories such as lead walking (Elford et al., 2025) and a move towards indoor-only lifestyles (Cats Protection, 2024). Additionally, owned cats are most intertwined with people and other companion animals, and have the greatest potential impact in terms of sustainability and the environment due to their sheer numbers (Table 1). Consequently, population balance must consider the welfare of owned cats.

Across cat populations, goals for balance are meaningless without considering the context they are living; their health and welfare, people and their views and behaviours, interactions cats have with their surroundings and resource provision. Consequently, desirable outcomes for cats are highly context-specific and will depend on the ultimate goals for cats across the UK and in localised communities.

2.3 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework for a balanced population links welfare goals with wider interactions and contexts in which cats exist. The framework presents three perspectives, or lenses, through which a balanced cat population can be viewed, as shown in Figure 3. The three central lenses include one for the target companion animal, in this case cats. The other lenses pertain to people and other animals and also environmental sustainability. In this regard the framework is akin to One Health and Welfare; an integrated approach that recognises the need to balance the perspectives of different stakeholders to achieve population balance (Pinillos et al., 2016; Tarazona et al., 2019). The three lenses are explained in more detail below. When using the framework, it is important to consider the context in which the cat population is sitting and this is represented as three layers of wider context; the localised context and its physical attributes, the socio-cultural and political views of people and society and wider ecosystems. This is also explained further below. The central overlap in Figure 3 indicates the point at which a population may be considered balanced by all stakeholders, demonstrating that balance can be extremely complex to achieve.

Temporal variability is also key to this framework. Balance is continuously impacted by external forces, meaning interventions may need adjusting or amending in response to changing societal conditions (Figure 3). It is not reasonable to assume that a single, sustained intervention will be continuously appropriate in maintaining a balanced population. Additionally, interventions themselves may cause changes within the cat population resulting in a feedback loop, meaning interventions must be adjusted in response to continue to achieve the desired outcome. This is shown in Figure 4 – the process of intervening in a cat population involves first identifying the priorities, then designing and implementing an appropriate intervention. The cat population should be monitored for any changes, being mindful that either changes to the cat population itself or external circumstances may cause priorities to shift, restarting the process (Figure 4). Therefore, the purpose of this manuscript is not to provide a singular definition of balance but a framework that can be applied in different settings and throughout time.

2.3.1 Cat lens

Ensuring positive welfare for cats, both physically and emotionally, is crucial in discussions around their balanced population. In the UK, legislation is in place through the Animal Welfare Acts to ensure that cats experience good welfare. These include a legal requirement to provide for the five welfare needs: a suitable environment, a suitable diet, to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, to be housed with, or apart from, other animals and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

It is important to note that health and welfare can be considered at both an individual and population level, although there is no singular accepted definition of either. Measurement standards may also vary due to resource availability and practical considerations. Individual health, for example, can range from a veterinary examination for an owned cat through to distance evaluation for a free-living unowned cat. Population health for cats includes disease prevalence, including feline diseases such as Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV), but also zoonotic diseases that can spread to humans and other animals. Both population and individual health for cats should also include measures of psychological wellness, including behavioural indicators.

The relationship between individual and population health is relative and dynamic, with population dynamics, disease and genetic diversity important properties of individuals and groups (Figure 5). Consequently, population insights can overlook substantial variation among individuals and between groups. For example, neutering prevalence at a population level may mask geographic differences, while estimates of genetic diversity in owned cats may conceal genetic issues within specific breeds. Equally, some individuals and groups may contribute disproportionately to the population outcomes, for example, population dynamics are most sensitive to owned cat populations (McDonald et al., 2025). Understanding how individual and subgroup variation contribute to population-level outcomes is therefore essential for effective goal setting. These concepts can complement one another in terms of intervention planning; for example, neutering cats benefits the individual (Kessler and Vonbomhard, 1997; Overley et al., 2005; O’Neill et al., 2015) and is valuable for population control (McDonald et al., 2025). However, tensions may arise when decisions that benefit individual welfare harm population welfare and vice versa, or when deciding whether resources would be better directed at an individual or population level. Furthermore, when meeting individual needs, caregivers may use resources that could otherwise go to interventions that benefit both individuals and populations. Additionally, population-level processes often focus on the typical needs of a domestic cat and may not recognise that individual needs may differ from the perceived average (Richter and Hintze, 2019). Finally, population health is sometimes only considered for cats seen within the free-living community, or those present in shelters, rather than considering the interconnected nature of all cat populations.

The demographics of cats, including survival and reproductive rates, are not representative of welfare in isolation, but can have downstream consequences for the individual. For example, an increase in longevity in the absence of understanding health and welfare might result in suffering due to delayed euthanasia and over-treatment. Additionally, increasing longevity without considering reproductive control can result in overpopulation. Both welfare and demographics are therefore important considerations (Table 2).

Table 2. Factors within each of the lenses and layers of context that make up a balanced population framework and which may be relevant for application of the framework to a specific population.

2.3.2 Other animals, including humans lens

People in local areas and wider communities must be considered, especially given people are crucial in facilitating desired change and outcomes for cats. This includes positive and negative perceptions towards and interactions with cats. Considerations might include the impact of cats on human health and welfare, for example the benefits of cat ownership on physical (Headey, 1999; Siegel, 1990) and mental (Brooks et al., 2018; Hawkins et al., 2021; Janssens et al., 2020) health and concerns relating to public health such as zoonotic diseases. It is also important to consider how people’s attitudes and behaviours towards cats, shaped by social and cultural factors, could affect cat populations both positively and negatively. For example, substantial negativity towards cats that cannot be overcome through community engagement may pose a risk to free-living unowned cats.

There is great variation in the ways in which the lives of non-human animals may intersect with cats. Multispecies households are perhaps the most common way in which cats encounter other animals, with UK figures suggesting around 39% of cats cohabit with dogs (Cats Protection, 2023). Cats who have outdoor access, whether owned or unowned, may also interact with dogs in the outdoor space. Thus, the impact of cat-dog interactions on cat welfare and vice versa should be considered. It is unknown how many cats are interacting with other animals such as rabbits within the home, or the welfare impact of cats on these animals. For prey species, this impact may be particularly pertinent. Consideration must also be given to production animals, both in “backyard” and industrial settings, given the potential spread of zoonoses (also an important consideration for human health) as well as cats’ requirement for a meat-based diet.

2.3.3 Sustainability and the environment lens

In this context, sustainability refers to environmental sustainability, including waste production, carbon footprint, water and land use, pollution and wildlife. Sustainability is increasingly important for organisations to consider, both as a vital component and a result of public demand. Ensuring interventions and outcomes are as environmentally sustainable as possible is likely to reflect positively on organisations. While the environmental impact of companion animals cannot be completely mitigated, there is an increased desire to consider more environmentally friendly approaches to their management where possible. This may include direct effects on wildlife such as predation. Although cats exhibit individual variation in hunting behaviour, they are reported to kill large numbers of wild animals (Woods et al., 2003) and have been implicated in a number of species declines globally (Doherty et al., 2016). The scale and significance of the impact of cats on wildlife is dependent on many interacting factors, such as cat density, food provisioning, hunting behaviour, local habitat, wildlife populations and other drivers of wildlife decline. Additionally, the relative impact of cats living different lifestyles is unclear, as owned cats may predate less due to being fed compared to cats that are unowned and free-living, but may pose a greater threat due to their higher densities in more localised areas (Kays et al., 2020). Despite mixed evidence on population-level impacts of cat predation in the UK (Palmer, 2022), there are likely to be areas or species where cats represent a substantial risk to wildlife (Loss et al., 2022), such as habitat for ground nesting birds, or where there are concerns around environmental accumulation of faeces and water pollution (Wells and Collins, 2022; Dabritz and Conrad, 2010). Consequently, even though the direct effects of cats on wildlife are often unclear, it is an important consideration, especially in areas of high conservation concern and/or with high concerns from local stakeholders. The consideration of environment and sustainability for cats may also include indirect effects, such as the carbon footprint produced by the manufacturing of cat food (Knight, 2023; Martens et al., 2019).

2.3.4 Outer layers – the specific context

Local, socio-political and ecosystem complexities need to be considered when defining and implementing a balanced population approach. These are represented by the three outer layers in Figure 3. Additionally, Table 2 provides more detail on examples of the underpinning factors within these contexts. Each outer layer has the ability to influence cats, other animals (including people) and sustainability. These layers may also impact the feasibility of addressing population issues and may sometimes be outside the realm of control of animal welfare advocates. For example, legislation that would improve cat welfare may not be in place, or may not be enforceable. Here, the commitment of broader political, organisational or individual societies will be necessary to enact change. Social inequalities, global health events, climate change and food security are all complex and unpredictable. However, these are vital considerations as they will impact the ability of communities, individuals and organisations to care for cats.

2.4 Application to cats

Potential considerations for a balanced cat population across the UK were identified through a combination of scientific and grey literature searches and discussions. Further development was gained through report presentation and feedback to peers within a cat welfare organisation. From these activities an overarching definition of cat population balance applicable to a UK context was developed, based on several interconnected pillars (Box 1). Further work is now required to distil this information into priority population issues for cats and communities that are feasible to address.

Definition of a balanced population of cats and key underlying pillars

Definition

A balanced cat population is one that supports all cats in accordance with their needs, while acknowledging they are part of a wider community of cats, people and other animals, living in different environments. Consequently, the appropriate balance of cats considers their health and wellbeing, their interactions within their environment and their interlinks with people and other animals, which will vary across localities.

Where “all cats” refers to domestic cats Felis catus of all subpopulations and “health” incorporates both physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Key underlying and interconnected pillars

Circular infographic showing seven components of balanced cat population: cat health, cat genetics, cats and people, cats and domestic animals, cats and wildlife, cat husbandry, and acquiring a cat.

3 The pillars of a balanced population of cats

To make up the conceptual framework, seven key pillars are proposed as important considerations for understanding and managing cat populations. These are (in no particular order): 1. cat acquisition, 2. cat health, 3. cat genetics, 4. cats and people, 5. cats and domestic animals, 6. cats and wildlife and 7. cat husbandry. The pillars are not mutually exclusive, instead being strongly connected (Box 1). Using the three lenses and external factors from Figure 3 to discuss each pillar results in demographics and downstream effects becoming key considerations rather than an ultimate goal. This approach also accepts that the desired goal or state of the cat population is likely to vary across between different areas. The relative importance of each lens will vary, dependent on the local context and the outer layers of the framework. Consequently, desired population outcomes can be guided by local trends and issues within these pillars (see Table 3 for examples).

Table 3. Seven interlinked pillars to consider for a balanced cat population, with rationale, example considerations and how this may translate to questioning within communities and desirable goals.

These examples are for illustrative purposes only.

Cat population dynamics are shaped by multiple interconnected aspects. Acquisition methods influence both welfare and population size. Trends that may impact acquisition include an increase in the purchasing of purebred cats and importation, which raises welfare (Roberts et al., 2025) and biosecurity (Riley, 2019) concerns. Cat health is affected by many things such as population density, access to veterinary care, cost of living and cat demographics. Broader issues, such as zoonoses, require a “One Health” approach (Bidaisee and Macpherson, 2014). Genetic factors are particularly associated with purebred and hybrid cats but also include inbreeding among free-living cats. This brings specific welfare and longevity challenges for individual welfare that must be balanced within the wider cat population (Roberts et al., 2025). Cat-human interactions confer benefits and stress for both cats (Gourkow et al., 2014; Henning et al., 2023; Amat et al., 2016) and caregivers (Brooks et al., 2018; Hawkins et al., 2021; Janssens et al., 2020; Ravenscroft et al, 2021; Spitznagel et al, 2023; Polachek and Wallace, 2018), highlighting the importance of understanding cat behaviour and the emotional strain of caregiving. Interactions with other cats and animals are influenced by socialisation, environment and management, and may affect welfare and relinquishment rates (Kisley et al., 2024). Interactions with wildlife vary geographically, with localised ecological impacts requiring nuanced, context-specific management or mitigation (e.g. Leong et al., 2025; Dunford et al., 2024). Finally, husbandry practices, includes provisions, enrichment and management, including the degree of indoor-outdoor access. These are fundamental considerations for cat welfare but are also dependent on owner understanding and access to reliable information. Overall, while each factor plays a crucial role in shaping cat welfare and population management, their significance and the most appropriate interventions will differ across regions, communities and management contexts.

Although not a comprehensive list, the examples given for these pillars represent potential targets for interventions (Table 3). When all pillars are factored into management decisions, the population moves towards “balance”. Decisions and goals will still need to be context-dependent, with the framework applied to reflect realistic targets at specific sites.

4 Discussion

Companion animals are intertwined with their environment and the lives of people. Their situations therefore vary substantially between different populations, areas and over time. The conceptual framework presented here recognises the components important to companion animal populations and attempts to organise these considerations, drawing from a wide range of disciplines. The aim is to enable holistic discussions for companion animal populations, and encourage better decision-making around which components should be addressed for specific populations.

Implementing this approach to companion animal populations provides a framework for discussions across different sectors, to enable an informed approach to identify and manage priority population issues. The framework has an added benefit of drawing across disciplines and setting cross-boundary working as a standard, reminding sectors to work together. This includes recognising local contexts and understanding the experiences and behaviour of people in those areas. Population management needs to be more inclusive and based on participatory processes, with collaboration between different stakeholders. This includes bringing in local communities and organisations with different knowledge, perceptions and behaviour across different socio-cultural contexts. This framework reinforces that as a specific consideration.

The inclusive and interdisciplinary nature of this framework means accepting some vagueness in definitions to ensure suitably overarching concepts. For example, whether animal welfare is best understood as changes in individual, group or population level factors will depend on the perspectives of those managing the population. Additionally, socio-economic factors consider broad changes in society, like the cost-of-living crisis. This approach encompasses these narrower considerations under umbrella concepts, and ultimately its application will depend on the context and the human values placed on these components.

This paper starts to consider the wider context in which companion animals live when determining goals for specific areas. The application to cat populations in the UK identifies some key themes that are both linked and overlapping. These include how cats are acquired, their health and husbandry, how they impact and be impacted by other animals in their environment (including humans) and their genetics. The proposed definition of population balance for companion animals in the UK is a work in progress. This framework and the associated pillars of a balanced cat population can help users clarify what aspects may need to be considered for cat populations, and consequently what the intended goals of a management intervention may look like. However, it cannot prioritise issues within a population. Further work is required to determine which issues are current priorities for cats and communities and how feasible these are to address. This would require wide-ranging stakeholder engagement to ensure views are balanced across fields and utilise informed experiences of stakeholders from across different industries.

Since this framework is designed to be used on a specific target species, it is likely that the welfare of said species takes precedence over other factors, in this case cats. However, by incorporating the lenses of other animals and people, the framework is designed to ensure that perspectives of those other than the target species are considered. The similarity of this framework to the One Health framework is that it fosters interdisciplinary thinking, linking different overarching concepts. However, whereas in the One Health approach the health of humans, animals and ecosystems are interdependent, although sometimes arguably anthropocentric (Kamenshchikova et al., 2021), this framework necessitates being companion animal centric, or cat centric in this example. By including interactions between cats and humans, wildlife and other animals as three of the seven pillars, and the local environment and ecosystems as wider contexts, the framework ensures that any management interventions or goals are viewed within the context that the target species lives to mitigate any potential conflict.

Ultimately, the success of translating this theory into practice will require creating feasible management plans. For these, human behaviour change will be a critical yet challenging component. There will be a need to understand and acknowledge barriers to change, which will benefit from the application of behaviour change frameworks such as the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW; Michie et al., 2011). The BCW guides systematic intervention design by using the COM-B model to diagnose behavioural barriers. It considers capability, opportunity and motivation, which can be influenced by various intervention functions (e.g., education, training, incentivisation) and policy categories (Michie et al., 2011). Despite its broad application, the COM-B model has seen limited use in companion animal contexts, although it has been applied in the context of cat population management (McDonald et al., 2018). More generally, human behaviour change studies involving companion animals are often focused on wider public health concerns, with fewer studies targeting companion animal welfare (Glanville et al, 2020). Intervention design needs to be embedded within an understanding of human behaviour change to impact not only people’s knowledge, but their values and perceptions and ultimately their behaviours towards companion animals.

5 Conclusion

This conceptual framework is a first integrated step which will benefit companion animal research and management through enabling a more holistic understanding of what influences whether a population is balanced. Rather than prescribing specific interventions, it provides a tool for identifying context-specific goals that is adaptable to localised areas and can be reapplied through time. Although the framework offers a foundation for more holistic discussions and decision-making around companion animal populations, further work is needed to apply these to decision-making tools with associated interventions. As companion animal populations continue to be a mainstay of our society, animal welfare managers are encouraged to shift their goals from reactionary to visionary with regards to desirable outcomes for the entire population.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Daniel Mota-Rojas, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico

Reviewed by: Fabiola Torres-Bernal, Private Consulting Service in Farm and Wildlife Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Mexico

Jacklyn Ellis, Toronto Humane Society, Canada