Dog play порно рассказ

During lockdown. This increase in play/training opportunities reported by owners is encouraging, as training has been noted to provide dogs with important mental stimulation, social stimulation, and behavioural enrichment [as reviewed in [52]. In terms of dog welfare, and providing additional enrichment for dogs during lockdown, the greater tendency to increase the frequency of play/training opportunities involving human interaction, rather than providing toys for the dog to play with alone (or with other dogs), is preferable for two reasons. Firstly, not all dogs will have the company of another household dog and, secondly, although individual differences might exist research has shown that dogs tend to choose dog–human play rather than dog–dog play, and to be more interactive when playing with people than dogs [53]. Furthermore, although few studies have explored the extent to which pet dogs play with toys, studies of dogs kept in research establishments report conflicting results on the extent to which toys and chews are used by dogs from rarely [54] to 24% of their time [55] and dogs housed in rescue shelters may benefit little, if at all, from toys placed in their kennel without accompanying human interaction [56]. Hence, greater increase in social play/training is likely to have resulted in greater benefit to the dogs involved than would have a similar increase in provision of a toy, perhaps something appreciated by the owners involved (either consciously or subconsciously).Results from generalized linear models suggest that, compared to male owners, female owners had significantly greater odds of reporting that they provided their dog with toys and played games/trained their dogs more frequently during lockdown, compared with pre-lockdown. Similarly, younger owners (aged 18–34 years) had higher odds of increasing the provision of both types of enrichment (playing/training) for their dogs during lockdown. Owners aged 55 years or older had significantly lower odds of increasing the frequency of playing/training with their dogs during lockdown, compared to the reference category of 45–54 year-old owners. The reasons for the associations between owner gender and owner age on provision of both types of enrichment are unclear, but might be related to gender

Pre-lockdown; increased frequency of play/training with dog during lockdown, compared with pre-lockdown. Owner-reported frequency and duration of dog walks was used to calculate two binary variables indicating whether the frequency and duration of their dog’s walks had decreased or not. For both of these variables, 1 was recorded where the frequency/duration had decreased, regardless of magnitude (e.g., from “once per day” to “not walked”, or from “2+ h per day” to “Similar to walks, owner-reported frequency of toy provision and play/training with the dog was used to create two binary variables indicating whether the frequency with which dogs were provided with a toy (i.e., an opportunity for enrichment was provided that did not involve sustained dog–human interaction) or were engaged in play or training (i.e., interactions involving the dog and a person). For both these variables, 1 was recorded where the frequency increased, regardless of the magnitude (e.g., from ’less than once a week’ to ‘once a day’), and 0 for no change or a reduction in frequency. The associations between these variables and selected other variables were explored using multivariable logistic regression to identify potential risk factors for increased toy provision and play/training.In each case, initial multivariable models included respondent age group, respondent gender, number of dogs in household, age category of dog, sex of dog, area of residence (rural, city etc.), access to off lead walking (directly from the house, after walking on lead, only by car/public transport), number of adults currently in house, presence/absence of children, whether or not home has a garden/yard or communal garden, and whether or not an additional person was now walking the dog. Further information about these variables is available in the Supplementary Information. In addition, walk frequency and walk duration were considered for inclusion in the multivariable models for increased frequency of play/training and toy provision. However, both variables (walk frequency and walk duration) could not be included in the same model due to the correspondence of the category “Not walked”. Hence, two models were created for each outcome variable (increase in play/training and provision of toys), one with the variable

Were most likely to report increased frequency of play/training (Odds Ratio 1.6 compared to the reference area rural/remote). Compared to respondents aged “45–54 years”, all younger age categories were significantly more likely to report an increased frequency of play/training, while older age categories were significantly less likely to report this. Female respondents were also significantly more likely to report increased play/training, as were households in which a new adult was involved in dog walking.Three variables were associated with increased odds of providing toys for the dog to play with during lockdown (Table 9). Compared with male respondents, females had increased odds of increasing the provision of toys for their dogs to play with during lockdown. Compared to respondents aged “55–64 years”, younger age categories up to 44 years of age were significantly more likely to report an increased provision of toys, while the “45–54 years” category and older age categories were not significantly different. Those respondents reporting a decreased duration of walks were more likely to report an increased frequency of providing toys for their dogs, compared to those who reported no change in walk duration (based on the categorical responses available in the survey). The variable of “change in walk frequency” was not associated with the odds of increased frequency of providing toys in the final multivariable model. 4. DiscussionThis study provides novel insights into the impact that the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in the UK had on dogs and their owners, as a result of lifestyle changes that occurred during this period. Specifically, we hypothesised that impacts would include alteration to the daily routine of dogs, dog–dog and dog–human interactions (including time left alone), dog walking (frequency and duration), provision of enrichment (toys and play/training), and these are discussed further below.We found that over three-quarters of respondents reported their dog’s daily routine had changed since the commencement of lockdown. Collectively, there are implications to changing dog’s routines, which could result in anxiety or frustration due to expecting or anticipating events which were no longer occurring [19]. For example, if a usual morning walk does not occur then the dog

With which dogs were given a toy to play with, played games with or participated in training with the owner. VariableBefore Lockdown(Early/Mid-February 2020)During Lockdown(The Last 7 Days)Relative Increasen%n%In a week, how often have you, or someone else in your household, played games with or done some training with (your dog)?(n = 4101 Stuart–Maxwell χ2 = 414.76, df = 7, p-value Less than once a week1182.91102.70.9Once or twice43710.73237.90.73–4 times69016.850012.20.75–6 times3348.13759.11.1Once a day77819.062715.30.8More than once a day157038.3198948.51.3N/A—(my dog) did not take part in any games or training1463.61613.91.1Don’t know/can’t remember280.7160.40.6In a week, how often was (your dog) given a toy to play with?(n = 4109, Stuart–Maxwell χ2 = 56.042, df = 7, p-Value = Less than once a week1383.41303.20.9Once or twice3227.82786.80.93–4 times3578.73288.00.95–6 times2706.62927.11.1Once a day48011.745811.11More than once a day225154.8233156.71N/A—(my dog) was not given a toy2425.92576.31.1Do not know/cannot remember491.2350.90.8 Table 9. Multivariable models for increased provision of toys and increased play/training with the dog during lockdown, compared with early/mid-February 2020. Table 9. Multivariable models for increased provision of toys and increased play/training with the dog during lockdown, compared with early/mid-February 2020. VariableOdds RatioLower ConfidenceLimitUpper ConfidenceLimitzp-ValueIncreased play/training (n = 3192)Area 0.006Rural/remoteReference Village or small town1.30.961.61.60.1Suburban1.61.22.13.30.001City or urban1.30.91.81.50.1Respondent gender 0.004MaleReference Female1.51.12.02.70.006Respondent age 18–24 years1.81.22.72.80.00425–34 years1.61.32.13.935–44 years1.41.11.82.50.0145–54 yearsReference 55–64 years0.70.50.8−3.30.00165–74 years0.60.40.8−3.575 years or older0.10.020.3−3.30.001Dog age 0.04Puppy (≤6 months)0.20.10.7−2.20.03Juvenile (7 months to 1.00.61.50.10.9Young adult (1 to Reference Mature adult (2–6 years)0.90.71.1−1.00.3Senior adult (7–11 years)0.80.61.1−1.60.1Geriatric (≥12 years)0.60.40.9−2.20.03Total duration of walks per day Reduced1.51.31.94.1No changeReference Increased2.41.92.98.0New/additional dog walker NoReference Yes1.61.22.13.40.001Increased provision of toys (n = 3783)Respondent gender 0.005MaleReference Female3.01.38.52.40.02Respondent age 0.0518–24 years2.91.26.72.40.0125–34 years2.11.14.02.30.0235–44 years2.91.13.72.20.0345–54 years1.60.93.01.60.155–64 yearsReference 65–74 years1.00.42.2−0.10.975 years or older0.60.032.9−0.50.6Total duration of walks per day 0.005Reduced2.11.33.23.20.001No changeReference Increased1.40.82.31.30.2 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Likely to be described as “quiet, with few people about” and/or “no dogs, or very rarely any dogs” or “other dogs, but almost always on leads”, when compared with pre-lockdown locations. Choosing walking locations to avoid meeting people, presumably to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission, thus also had implications for the number of dogs that owners and their dogs met on walks.The long-term impact of this period of decreased walking, with fewer opportunities to interact with other dogs remains unknown. To the author’s knowledge, there is no published evidence on whether short-term restrictions on dog interactions may have impacts on their behaviour when interactions can resume. However, it is reasonable to speculate that as more typical levels of dog–dog interactions resume, these could potentially lead to issues in resuming interactions with other dogs, such as increased levels of dog–dog reactivity. Longitudinal data, being collected as part of this study, will provide novel insights into how environmental changes may impact dog behaviour in the long-term. Socialisation opportunities will be particularly relevant to the long-term behavioural development of puppies and warrants further study. 4.3. Changes to Enrichment PracticesEnrichment can be used to enhance a dog’s quality of life through social, occupational, physical, cognitive/sensory, and nutritional stimulation [51] and can take place outside the house on walks or within the home. We have shown that lockdown resulted in decreased walking frequency and duration, and thus a decrease in opportunities for enrichment and cognitive stimulation also could have occurred, unless owners compensated by providing dogs with additional enrichment opportunities (play/training and/or provision of toys) within the house and/or garden.We found evidence for changes in the frequency of providing some forms of enrichment, but not others. There was a marked increase in the proportion of dogs that owners reported playing with, or training, more than once a day (38.1% pre-lockdown, 48.4% during lockdown). In contrast, the frequency with which dogs were given toys to play with varied little in comparison to pre-lockdown levels, although just over half of dogs were given a toy to play with more than once a day, both before and