People experiencing homelessness, victims of domestic violence and economically vulnerable people are at higher risk of social exclusion. For them, pets are an important source of emotional support.
A study by the Affinity Foundation Chair for Animals and Health of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and the FAADA Foundation, published in the Frontiers in Psychology journal, highlights the importance of this support from a multidimensional perspective, drawing on the experiences of 100 individuals in vulnerable situations.
The study, conducted with a diverse group of people ages 19–80, concludes that pets play a crucial role in the support networks of vulnerable individuals, who view them as family members—primarily because they provide companionship and emotional well-being. In 90% of cases, dogs and cats serve as the respondents’ sole source of support, as well as their only opportunity for physical contact and care. Ninety-one percent of participants said that when they are angry or sad, their pet is the one they most want to be with, and for 90%, the animal provides a reason to get up every morning. Furthermore, 71% believe their pet is the one who would remain by their side if everyone else were to abandon them.
According to Jaume Fatjó, a researcher in the UAB Department of Psychiatry and Legal Medicine, director of the UAB Affinity Foundation Chair in Animals and Health, and one of the study’s lead researchers, “cats and dogs play a central role in the lives of many vulnerable people.” Although they do not replace human relationships, “they provide forms of help, such as companionship and emotional comfort, that can be crucial when other sources of support are unavailable,” Fatjó said. “Protecting the bond between these individuals and their animals also means protecting their well-being.”
The study indicates that one of the most valued qualities of pets is their availability compared with that of people, as well as the fact that they offer unconditional, nonjudgmental love, something highly appreciated by vulnerable individuals, who often feel stigmatized.
Research shows that, rather than acting as substitutes for human relationships, companion animals serve as a complementary component of the social networks of vulnerable individuals. Noe Terrassa, head of the social department at FAADA—who was also involved in the research—said that “the study demonstrates that the bond between family animals and vulnerable people, far from replacing human ties, enriches them.”
This evidence “reinforces the need to promote comprehensive social support programs that prevent separating people from their animals. In this regard, collaboration between research and social action is key to providing more effective and inclusive solutions.”
Isabel Buil, director of the Affinity Foundation, said that “scientific knowledge takes on a particularly valuable dimension when it helps address social challenges.” This study “provides evidence that has already made it possible to improve social interventions and guide public policies that take into account the role of family pets in many people’s support networks.”
The research concludes that protecting the bond between vulnerable individuals and their pets is crucial because otherwise, a significant component of their already fragile social network would be lost.
Publication details
Mónica Boada et al, Dogs and cats as sources of companionship and emotional support in vulnerable animal caregivers, Frontiers in Psychology (2026). DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1831814
There are two kinds of homebuyers: those with pets and those without. And for pet owners, a home purchase can hinge on whether a listing works as well for their pet as it does for them, according to new data.
Getty Images
A new survey from Realtor.com® finds that buyers with pets often evaluate homes through an animal-first lens, prioritizing features like a secure outdoor space, durable interiors, and communities where pets are allowed.
It’s not surprising to the agents who regularly see these trade-offs play out in real time.
“I’ve never seen a child influence a house decision no matter what they’ve thought of it,” says Jeff Lichtenstein, a broker with more than 25 years of experience. “A pet, however, has much more influence.”
“I see pet needs influence decisions all the time,” echoes Miltiadis Kastanis, executive director of sales at Compass. “A buyer might really like a home, but if it does not feel right for their pet, whether it is the lack of outdoor space or the overall environment, they will walk away.”
The new research from Realtor.com backs them up. For many buyers, pets were not a side consideration but a real force in the home search—one strong enough to shape decisions and even justify paying more for the right features.
For all that variety, their answers pointed to a strikingly consistent definition of what makes a home truly pet-friendly: secure outdoor space, durable and easy-to-clean interiors, and neighborhoods or developments where pets are clearly allowed.
Outdoor space came up repeatedly, especially when it was enclosed.
“Pet friendly means having a good-sized backyard that is secured well with a fence or wall,” said Katey, a millennial first-time homebuyer.
Rhonda, a repeat buyer of the baby boomer generation, emphasized the same priority in pet terms, saying the yard needed to be large enough that her pets could “do zoomies without destroying furniture.”
Inside the home, respondents focused on surfaces and layouts that could hold up to everyday wear and tear.
“We looked for homes with larger yards, scratch resistant floors, and neighbors who embraced pets,” said Kate, a Gen X repeat buyer. Others called out finishes that were easier to clean, safer for animals, or better suited to senior animals.
Some buyers had an even more detailed checklist.
“A pet friendly home would have scratch resistant flooring, wall finishes that are easy to clean, built in nooks or feeding stations, and a mudroom and bathing station,” said Chi, a Gen X repeat buyer.
And for some, the issue was not the home itself but the rules around it. “Pet friendly to me means that pets are allowed in the development,” said Brigette, a baby boomer repeat buyer.
Pets actively influenced which home they chose
Their responses suggest that pet-friendly isn’t a throwaway listing term, but a concrete standard that shaped their home search. It’s something that Kastanis says he sees often, especially in the condo market.
“Pet policies are usually the first thing we look at before even setting up a showing, since restrictions can immediately rule out a property,” he says, adding that buyers are increasingly drawn to buildings that combine pet-friendly rules with practical conveniences, especially easy access to outdoor space.
One such example is Vestra, a luxury apartment complex in Las Vegas where developers prioritized communal dog runs, a resort-style dog park, and professional grooming facilities for its four-legged residents.
All residents at the Vestra complex have access to luxury grooming facilities for their furry friends. Photos courtesy of Matter Real Estate.
“You can walk out the front door and take your dog for a walk and run into neighbors or friends,” Jim Stuart, part of the team behind the project, told Realtor.com last year.
The survey responses suggest those considerations can be decisive features for pet owners.
“I definitely looked for outdoor space where my cat would be able to go outside but be protected by a fence or screen. Also windows he could sit in or see out. I was drawn to open loft space so he could look down,” said Tara, a Gen X first-time homebuyer.
Stacei, a Gen X repeat buyer, was even more explicit about how much her pets narrowed the field: “My pets had a large impact on the selection of my current home. I honestly wouldn’t have even looked at a place if it didn’t have a decent sized yard and enough space for my pets to run around comfortably.”
Buyers are willing to pay up for their pets
And when buyers find those features, some are willing to pay more for them, the research found—a reality that agents say mirrors what they see in home searches every day.
“Buyers are willing to pay more for homes that already work for their pets,” says Kastanis. “A house with a fenced yard or a layout that does not require changes can make a big difference, especially when inventory is tight and buyers want something that feels move-in ready.”
But the strongest premium appears to be attached to practical features that reduce friction from day one.
“I would pay more for a property that had a fenced in backyard and decent sized backyard,” said Paul, a Gen X repeat buyer.
In some ways, it echoes what’s long been known about buying and selling a home: Some features fetch you more than others.
Research from the National Association of Realtors® found that homeowners most valued remodeling outcomes tied to improved functionality and livability (28%) and durable, long-lasting materials and appliances (23%)—the same practical qualities many pet-friendly buyers were prioritizing here.
Luxury vinyl plank, or LVP, is one example. Designed to mimic the look of hardwood while holding up better to scratches, messes, and daily wear, it came up repeatedly in the survey as a pet-friendly flooring choice.
“The LVP has been a game changer. So easy to maintain and a nonnegotiable going forward,” said Lori, a Gen X repeat buyer.
And that demand didn’t stop at closing. The survey found that while many buyers didn’t make major pet-related changes after move-in, others invested in upgrades that made the home more durable, convenient, or comfortable for their animals.
“We had the entire home re-floored with scratch resistant flooring to keep our home beautiful and our dog out of trouble,” said Chi. Cory, a millennial first-time buyer said, “I put in a dog door so they can go outside at their convenience.”
Even then, some buyers were still imagining what else a truly pet-centered home could include—touches like a catio (a cat patio), pet-cleaning stations, and other spaces tailored to their animal’s needs. It’s a reminder that for some, a home isn’t only about function—it’s also about creating a little luxury for their pets, too.
…because the habit of narrating your inner life to a creature who can’t judge you turns out to be surprisingly good practice for the kind of honesty that actual relationships require
Talking to your pets like people isn’t just cute, it’s quietly training you to be more honest and emotionally available in your human relationships too
I’ll admit something that might sound ridiculous. Yesterday morning, while making my oat milk latte, I caught myself explaining to my neighbor’s cat why I was running late. Not in that quick, throwaway “hey buddy” kind of way. I mean a full, detailed account of how my alarm didn’t go off, how I’d stayed up too late reading about cognitive biases, and how the whole morning had spiraled from there.
The cat blinked at me. Slowly. Twice.
And somehow, that felt like enough.
If you’ve ever narrated your grocery list to a dog or debriefed your workday to a parrot, you already know what I’m talking about. There’s something about talking to an animal that feels different from talking to a person. Safer, maybe. Less performative. And as it turns out, that feeling isn’t just in your head. Research suggests that people who regularly talk to their pets like they’re human tend to develop communication habits that actually make them better at connecting with other humans too.
Here’s why that matters more than you think.
The real reason you talk to your cat like a roommate
Psychologists have a word for what we do when we chat with our pets as though they understand every syllable. It’s called anthropomorphism, and it’s the tendency to attribute human characteristics, emotions, and mental states to non-human entities. Your dog isn’t actually judging your outfit. Your cat doesn’t really have opinions about your ex. But your brain treats them as if they do.
Nicholas Epley, a behavioral scientist at the University of Chicago and one of the leading researchers on anthropomorphism, has argued that this tendency isn’t a sign of immaturity or delusion. It’s actually a byproduct of the same cognitive machinery that makes us good at reading other people. The same mental tools we use to infer what a friend is thinking or what a colleague really meant by that email are the tools we activate when we imagine our dog is sulking because we left for work.
In other words, talking to your pet isn’t a weird quirk. It’s your social brain doing reps.
A rehearsal space with no stakes
Here’s what I find most interesting about this whole thing, and I’ve mentioned this before but it keeps proving true: the environments where we practice being honest matter just as much as the honesty itself.
Think about the last time you wanted to say something vulnerable to someone you care about. Maybe you needed to admit you were struggling, or that something they did hurt you, or that you didn’t have it all figured out. Chances are, you rehearsed it. In the shower. In the car. In your head while pretending to listen to a podcast.
Talking to a pet is a version of that rehearsal, except it happens out loud. And out loud matters.
When you tell your dog about your terrible day, you’re not just venting into the void. You’re practicing the act of putting internal experience into words. You’re narrating feelings that might otherwise stay tangled up in your chest. And you’re doing it in front of a living creature who won’t interrupt, won’t argue, and won’t make you feel stupid for saying it.
According to Psychology Today, people who anthropomorphize tend to show stronger social bonds and richer empathy. The habit of imagining an inner world for another being, even an animal, exercises the same perspective-taking muscles we rely on in human relationships.
What your pet can’t do is exactly the point
Your cat can’t validate you. Your dog can’t offer advice. Your goldfish isn’t going to text you back with a thoughtful response at 2 a.m.
And that’s precisely what makes these conversations so useful.
When I lived through my aggressive vegan phase years ago, I learned something painful about communication. I spent three years armed with statistics and moral arguments, convinced that if I just said the right thing in the right way, people would change. My friend Sarah’s birthday dinner became a lecture. Family gatherings turned into debates. I was so focused on being right that I forgot how to actually connect with anyone.
What finally broke the pattern wasn’t a better argument. It was learning to talk without needing a specific response. Learning to say things honestly, without controlling the outcome.
That’s what talking to a pet teaches you. You learn to express yourself for the sake of expression, not for the sake of winning. There’s no scoreboard. No defense mechanism on the other end. Just you, saying what’s true, and a creature who receives it without judgment.
Research on self-disclosure consistently shows that the act of sharing personal information, even when the listener can’t fully understand it, builds our capacity for vulnerability. It trains us to tolerate the discomfort of being seen. And that tolerance is one of the most important ingredients in any meaningful relationship.
The biology backing all of this up
It’s not just a psychological phenomenon either. There’s a biological layer to this that I find genuinely fascinating.
A comprehensive review published in Frontiers in Psychology examined dozens of studies on human-animal interaction and found that positive contact with pets is linked to the release of oxytocin, the same hormone involved in bonding between parents and children, and between romantic partners. The review also found evidence that these interactions can reduce cortisol levels, lower blood pressure, and even increase trust toward other people.
So when you’re sitting on the couch telling your dog about your annoying coworker, your body is doing more than just relaxing. It’s chemically priming you for better human connection. The oxytocin system doesn’t distinguish between species when it comes to bonding. A warm, safe interaction is a warm, safe interaction, whether it’s with your partner or your Labrador.
This is something I think about a lot during my photography walks around Venice Beach. You’ll see dozens of people on any given morning having full-blown conversations with their dogs. Asking them questions. Narrating the scenery. Explaining why they chose to walk left instead of right. From the outside, it looks eccentric. From the inside, it’s probably the most emotionally honest those people will be all day.
From pet talk to pillow talk
The real payoff of this habit isn’t in the conversations you have with your pet. It’s in how those conversations change the ones you have with people.
I’ve been with my partner for five years now. We have very different lifestyles in a lot of ways, including what we eat and how we think about food. Early on, I could have easily fallen into old patterns of trying to convince and convert. Instead, I’d learned (the hard way, through years of burned bridges) that real communication isn’t about persuasion. It’s about honesty without agenda.
And honestly? I think some of that skill got sharpened in the smallest, most ridiculous moments. Explaining my feelings to a stray cat on my balcony. Talking through a tough decision while a friend’s dog stared at me from across the room. Those moments taught me to hear my own voice saying difficult things without flinching.
As Psych Central notes, anthropomorphism may help people better understand others and connect with the world around them. The same mental habit that lets you imagine your pet has feelings also sharpens your ability to consider what the humans in your life might be going through.
If you’ve ever had a partner tell you that you’re a good listener, or a friend say they feel safe talking to you, part of that might trace back to the hundreds of tiny, unwitnessed conversations you’ve had with animals who couldn’t talk back. You were building a muscle you didn’t even know you were training.
Why this isn’t just a quirky personality trait
It’s tempting to file “talks to pets” under the same category as “collects too many houseplants” or “names their car.” Harmless. Cute. A little weird.
But the research suggests it’s more than that.
People who regularly engage in anthropomorphic behavior tend to score higher in empathy. They’re more likely to consider perspectives beyond their own. They show patterns of emotional regulation, using a calm, gentle tone with their pet, that carry over into stressful human interactions. They practice repair quickly, softening after a raised voice, returning to warmth without being asked.
My grandmother, who raised four kids on a teacher’s salary and still volunteers at the food bank every Saturday, has always talked to animals like they’re old friends. I used to think it was just her personality. Now I think it might be part of why she’s one of the most emotionally intelligent people I know. She never needed a psychology textbook to understand that practicing kindness in small, invisible moments makes you better at kindness in the moments that count.
The bottom line
If you talk to your pets like they’re people, you’re not being silly. You’re rehearsing honesty in a space where it costs you nothing, and building emotional skills that pay off everywhere else.
The habit of narrating your inner life, out loud, to a creature who can’t judge you, turns out to be surprisingly good training for the kind of vulnerability that actual relationships require. It lowers your defenses. It teaches you to express without performing. And it keeps your empathy muscles in shape for when the stakes are real.
So the next time someone catches you explaining your day to a cat, don’t apologize.
Lost in the noise of the 2025 holiday season was a story that should have attracted more attention. A New York woman, Amanda Reynolds, is taking the Internal Revenue Service (USA) to court stating that her Golden Retriever, Finnegan, is a dependent for all intents and purposes and should be a tax deduction like any human child would be.
This case goes to the heart of how households and family life are changing. The nuclear family is long gone and more adults are opting to care for pets as opposed to human children. Dogs are sentient and entirely dependent upon us – so why aren’t they considered a dependent for taxes? They require feeding and medical care – much the same as any human child.
In New Zealand, for example, under 13 year old children receive free medical care. Not so for the under 13 canines..
There will be issues of traceability if this case – facing huge hurdles – succeeds. A child is given a Social Security Number and can be tracked through school records, for example. It’s harder to track the legitimate existence of a dog and one who is properly cared for.
I look forward to seeing how this case develops…
______________
Americans love their pets. Dogs sleep at the foot of the bed, cats rule entire households, and pet photos and videos draw millions of likes on social media. It’s no surprise, then, that nearly all U.S. pet owners (97%) say their pets are part of their family.
While millions of U.S. households (about 94 million families) own one or more pets, pets are not considered part of the family for tax purposes. A recently filed case in district court aims to change that. Amanda Reynolds, an attorney licensed in New York and Utah who focuses largely on civil litigation insurance defense, recently filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York, together with Finnegan Mary Reynolds. The catch? Finnegan is Amanda’s dog.
Amanda Reynolds says that her dog, Finnegan, is more like a daughter—and wants the courts to agree. Amanda Reynolds
Background and Facts
Reynolds says that Finnegan, her eight-year-old golden retriever, is entirely dependent on her for food, shelter, medical care, training, transportation, and daily living. Finnegan has no independent income, resides exclusively with her, and has annual expenses exceeding $5,000. That means, Reynolds argues, that Finnegan satisfies every meaningful element of dependency recognized under section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code—except for being human. As a result, Reynolds has asked the court to determine whether pets can be recognized as non-human dependents under federal tax law.
According to the complaint, while dogs are legally classified as property, that does not fully reflect their role within families and households. Reynolds says that Finnegan’s care responsibilities mirror, and sometimes surpass, those of human dependents. Reynolds writes that “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent’.”
Despite this, Reynolds notes, the tax code doesn’t allow relief for taxpayers who shoulder the financial burden of companion animals, even though it provides various credits and deductions—such as the Child Tax Credit, Dependent Care Credit, and Earned Income Tax Credit—for human dependents.
Reynolds claims this results in an arbitrary and unfair tax burden since taxpayers who provide financial support for human dependents get the benefit of tax breaks, while dog owners who provide similar levels of care receive none. This unequal treatment, she says, lacks a rational basis, especially considering the IRS’s own recognition that some animals—specifically, service dogs—may qualify for tax advantages. Reynolds argues that, from a financial standpoint, there is no real difference between service animals and companion animals.
The lawsuit alleges that the current tax law violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the Takings Clause. The Equal Protection Clause is part of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and says that a government must apply its laws fairly and cannot treat people differently without a valid reason. The Takings Clause is part of the 5th Amendment and requires just compensation for private property.
Treating similarly situated taxpayers differently solely based on whether their dependents are human, Reynolds says, is discrimination. And, she claims that denying a tax break for the support of pets constitutes a wrongful taking because the lack of an available deduction results in a higher tax bill. Taking all of that into consideration, Reynolds says, justifies recognizing dogs as “quasi-citizens entitled to limited civil recognition, including dependency status for tax purposes.”
It may sound far-fetched, but Reynolds argues “this case is not frivolous or meritless” and warrants serious consideration by the court.
Procedural Issues
The court does not appear inclined to take up the matter. Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks granted a motion to stay discovery pending the IRS’s anticipated motion to dismiss. (Magistrate judges are appointed by the district judges of the court. In most districts, they handle pretrial motions and hearings in civil and criminal cases. While most civil cases are tried by district judges, magistrate judges may also preside over civil trials if all parties agree.)
A motion to stay discovery is a formal request to pause the discovery process in a lawsuit. Discovery happens early on in a lawsuit. As part of discovery, the parties exchange information and evidence, including document requests and depositions. It can be time-consuming and expensive, which is why a defendant may ask the court to stay discovery when a motion to dismiss is pending or anticipated (as here) and there are threshold legal issues that could end the case entirely (also as here).
The goal of a stay of discovery is to avoid unnecessary costs and effort while the court determines whether a case can or should move forward. It does not decide the case’s merits but simply pauses information gathering until the fundamental legal questions are resolved.
The Ruling So Far
Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, discovery can be stayed for “good cause,” but simply filing—or planning to file—a motion to dismiss does not automatically qualify. Courts usually consider at least three factors: whether the defendant has shown that the claims are likely without merit, whether discovery would be extensive or burdensome, and whether a stay would unfairly prejudice the non-moving party.
Applying those principles here, Wicks concluded that a stay is warranted. Specifically, Wicks found that the IRS made a substantial showing that the original complaint is unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss. In a detailed pre-motion conference letter, the feds outlined several defects in the complaint, including lack of standing, improper service, and failure to state a claim as a matter of law. (Reynolds did not oppose or respond to that letter, according to court documents.)
Lack Of Standing
Standing is a legal term that refers to your right to bring a lawsuit or have a court hear your case—to be heard, you typically have to show that another party has harmed you and that the only fix for that harm can be found in court. The idea is to ensure that matters that end up in court aren’t frivolous and are raised by the right parties.
In her lawsuit, Reynolds does not allege that she actually attempted to claim her dog as a dependent or suffered an actual injury. That raises a standing problem. There are other issues with the complaint, Wick found, that impact standing, including that the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act generally bar challenges to tax assessments and collections. Notably, the Anti-Injunction Act prevents courts from hearing suits brought “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax,” while the Declaratory Judgment Act bars federal courts from issuing any declaratory relief “with respect to federal taxes.”
Improper Service
The IRS also claims improper service. In a lawsuit, service (or service of process) refers to the formal delivery of legal documents, like the summons and complaint, to the defendant. The goal of proper service is to give the defendant notice that they are being sued and to allow them an opportunity to defend themselves. Lawsuits against federal agencies, like the IRS, require strict compliance with federal rules when it comes to service, which the IRS argues did not occur here.
No Constitutional Claims
Finally, complaints aren’t allowed to proceed when “the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” While Wicks didn’t officially rule on the merits of the case, he did note that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to federal agencies and that the Fifth Amendment takings claim is unlikely to succeed (the mere payment of taxes does not constitute a compensable taking). And, he notes that the laws and tax court precedent make clear that animals cannot qualify as dependents under section 152 of the tax code.
What Are Dependents?
Under the federal tax code, dependents are persons that you can claim on your tax return. There are two kinds of dependents: a qualifying child and a qualifying relative.
A qualifying child must be related to you (typically, your child, stepchild, foster child, sibling, or descendant), live with you for more than half the year, meet age requirements (generally under 19, under 24 if a full-time student, or permanently and totally disabled at any age), and not provide more than half of their own financial support. The child also cannot file a joint tax return with someone else (except under very limited circumstances).
A qualifying relative, despite the name, need not be related by blood—they must be a person who is related to you or lives as a member of your household for the entire year. They must receive more than half of their support from you and have gross income below an annually adjusted threshold. There is no age limit, so your elderly parent could qualify. However, your spouse is never your dependent.
The statute specifically uses the term “individual” which courts and the IRS have consistently interpreted to mean human beings. As a result, pets—no matter how much they might feel like a member of your family—don’t meet the criteria.
As for those tax benefits? Reynolds is right that claiming a dependent can result in tax-favored credits and deductions. These include the Child Tax Credit (and Additional Child Tax Credit), the Credit for Other Dependents, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Dependents may also qualify for a favorable head-of-household filing status, which offers lower tax rates and a higher standard deduction. But there isn’t any language in case law or statutes that would allow pet owners to claim those tax breaks.
(It’s worth noting that the definition of a dependent can narrow, especially as it relates to age, depending on the specific deduction or credit you’re claiming.)
The Care Of Animals Can Be Deducted In Limited Instances
While pets can’t be claimed as dependents, the tax code permits some limited deductions for animals. For instance, expenses for service animals may qualify as medical deductions, animals used in a trade or business may generate deductible expenses (such as guard dogs), and the care of foster animals may lead to a charitable deduction.
Outside of these narrow categories, however, pet-related costs for food, veterinary care, grooming, and housing are considered personal expenses, and therefore, not deductible.
Next Steps
The case has not yet been dismissed, although it appears from the recent ruling that it will be. (The Department of Justice declined to comment on the matter.)
Reynolds, however, remains optimistic. In a statement provided to Forbes, she noted, in part, “I commenced this case out of a labor-of-love as a dog owner and pup-mom to a golden retriever whom I esteem as my own daughter, having raised her by myself while my friends got married and had children. She has been in daycare while I am at work, I have paid for her medical visits, hospital visits, food, shelter and all other facets attendant to dog ownership.”
She added that she expects the litigation to be largely paper-oriented. She’s expecting the motion to dismiss shortly and says she “will address their arguments in opposition at that time.”
For now, however, don’t expect to see dogs like Finnegan listed on Form 1040.
A new UK survey conducted on behalf of Purina has revealed what previous studies have shown, that the human-animal bond is important and that society benefits from our supportive relationship with animals.
Over two-thirds of pet owners feel a stronger bond with their pets than their family and friends.
Top ten ways the human-pet bond helps people feel better
10. Coping with Break-Ups For 32% of pet owners, the bond with their pets has been instrumental in helping them navigate the emotional turmoil of a break-up.
9. Support Through Health Conditions Approximately 42% of pet owners have found emotional support through their pets while dealing with health challenges.
8. Navigating Interpersonal Conflicts Pets serve as a source of comfort during interpersonal conflicts, helping 44% of owners cope with emotional stress.
7. Snuggling for Comfort 46% find comfort in snuggling with their pets, providing emotional warmth and support.
6. Bringing Smiles 49% reported that their pets bring joy into their lives and make them smile.
5. Alleviating Loneliness For 52% of pet owners, the presence of their pets significantly reduces feelings of loneliness, providing companionship and love.
4. Joyful Greetings A warm greeting at the door from a pet can bring joy, as experienced by 52% of pet owners.
3. Distraction from Worries Pets help their owners take their minds off things, with 54% of pet owners benefiting from this comforting distraction.
2. Uplifting Spirits When Feeling Low The companionship of pets provides comfort for 59% of owners when they are feeling low, helping to brighten their mood.
1. Support During Sadness and Life Changes 61% of pet owners asked find solace in their pets during moments of sadness or significant life changes, including after a tough day at work.
A new study from Trinity College Dublin suggests that older adults who regularly walk their dogs show improved balance and fewer falls compared to their peers.
The research, published in the Journals of Gerontology, examined data from over 4,000 community-dwelling adults aged 60 and older, finding that 15% were regular dog walkers, defined as walking their dogs four or more times per week.
“Regular dog walking was associated with better mobility, with a 1.4 second faster Timed-Up-and-Go test on average,” the study noted. “Regular dog walkers also had a 40% lower likelihood of unexplained falls over the last 2 years and a 20% lower likelihood of current fear of falling in fully-adjusted regression models.”
The research also found that simply owning a dog without regularly walking it did not provide the same benefits. Dog owners who didn’t regularly walk their pets showed no reduction in mobility problems or falls, suggesting the physical activity of dog walking, rather than pet ownership alone, drives the improvements.
Regular dog walkers in the study tended to be younger, used fewer medications, and had lower rates of heart disease. They were also more likely to have never smoked, suggesting an overall healthier lifestyle profile.
The study observed that almost 13% of participants owned dogs but didn’t walk them regularly. This group showed higher rates of mobility concerns and fear of falling compared to regular dog walkers, further emphasizing the importance of consistent dog walking activity.
The findings add to growing evidence that dog walking can serve as a consistent form of physical activity that helps maintain mobility and reduce fall risk among older adults.
Sox has three special teddies. They are (from left to right):
Cuddle Teddy
Play Teddy
Chewing Teddy
Cuddle Teddy is special. I found him in a giveaway box at a local op shop shortly after adopting Sox. Sox had plenty of toys, but all were hand-me-downs from previous dogs. I felt he needed his own teddy. Since then, Sox will gently mouth Cuddle Teddy and sleeps with him on the couch. He has never shown any inclination to tear or rip Cuddle Teddy and, when Cuddle Teddy gets grey from all the saliva and mouthing, I will give him a wash. This upsets Sox very much and he will throw Cuddle Teddy around in the hope of getting him to smell better.
Chewing Teddy, as the name suggests, is the teddy that is the target of Sox’s hunting skills. Chewing Teddy has been re-stuffed and gutted many times. Always a favourite, although he looks worse for wear.
Which brings me to Play Teddy. As Chewing Teddy was getting very worn, I decided it might be time to head to the op shop for a new toy. Play Teddy’s nose was ripped off immediately but, unlike Chewing Teddy, Play Teddy is largely staying in one piece. He gets played with most nights after dinner.
What makes Sox choose one toy over another? Why is Cuddle Teddy so precious? I have pondered these questions for some time.
Remembering that dogs have the sentience of a two-year old child, I think Cuddle Teddy came at a particularly important time in Sox’s life as a pet. A toy that did not smell of previous dogs and which he could make his own.
I read once that ‘familiarity brings security.’ When a nervous child starts school, for example, they may take a favoured toy with them for security. My working theory is that Cuddle Teddy is Sox’s version of a security blanket. (Although I will keep washing teddy when he is ‘ripe’ as he looks much better on the sofa without his fur sticking together and with a dingy grey colour.)
What’s the future for Chewing Teddy and Play Teddy? Who knows? That is for Sox to decide. The degree of control that we give our dogs is something called agency – and sentient creatures deserve the opportunity to have choice.
Sox continues to mature as a pet since being adopted in March 2022; but judging by the last 2+ years, Cuddle Teddy seems almost certain to go the distance.
Kathleen Crisley, Fear-Free certified professional and specialist in dog massage, rehabilitation and canine fitness, The Balanced Dog, Christchurch, New Zealand.
What if reducing your dementia risk could be as simple as owning a dog? Several observational studies published last year suggest pet ownership could meaningfully reduce your risk among proving other emotional and physical benefits. Sixty-six percent of households in the United States own a pet, with dogs being the most popular companion. Pets can bring us joy, help alleviate stress, offer companionship, and even help us lead a more active lifestyle.
Researchers have now found an added benefit of being a pet owner — pets could stave off brain aging in humans. People who own pets are less lonely — a major risk factor for dementia. Now, scientists are interested in seeing whether people who owned cats or dogs had a lower risk of cognitive decline or dementia.
Owning a dog or cat could meaningfully reduce your risk of developing dementia, several observational studies published last year found, especially if you’re over the age of 50.
What does the science say about dementia, dogs and cats?
In 2023, Japanese researchers published a study that looked at 11,194 older adults to see whether owning dogs or cats provided a protective effect against dementia.
Compared to those without pets, dog owners were 40 percent less likely to develop dementia over a four year period. Additionally, dog owners who were social or exercised regularly experienced an extra 20 percent decrease in dementia risk. The study didn’t find evidence that owning cats had a similar effect.
Chinese researchers published a similar study last year, also looking at the link between pet ownership and cognitive decline. The study’s participants received psychological tests to assess their memory, verbal fluency, and thinking eight years apart. The cohort was composed of 7,495 adults over the age of 50 living in the UK.
Among individuals who were living alone, owning a cat or dog was associated with a slower rate of cognitive decline. However, older adults living with other people saw no significant benefit, which suggests that companionship from dogs or cats could offset some of the negative effects of living alone.
This field of research is still very new, and for people who have already developed Alzheimer’s or dementia, there isn’t a lot of research yet on how interactions with pets or trained therapy animals affect further cognitive decline.
Despite the lack of concrete research on cognitive decline, many long-term care facilities have also started implementing animal-assisted therapy for their residents facilitated by certified handlers and trained dogs. Dogs can still improve their quality of life and have been shown to offer stress-reducing benefits. Spending time with a furry friend could ease agitation, aggression, depression, and even help residents cope with sundowning, emotional and behavioral issues that worsen as daytime fades.
While more research is needed to determine whether adopting pets can have a protective effect on the brains of isolated older adults, pet ownership can offer many benefits to your emotional and physical health.
It’s not often the dog but the person holding the leash who creates the conditions, often by neglect or abuse, for a dog to attack.
***This is a wonderful opinion piece by Marcela Garcia of The Boston Globe. The words are hers, but I agree entirely***
Supporters of the XL bully dog breed held placards during a protest against the UK government’s plans for the breed, in central London on Oct. 7.HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP via Getty Images
“They’re not dangerous if you raise them right. Neither are the dogs.”
Those lines are from a sign carried by one of the hundreds of demonstrators who recently took to the streets in London to protest Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s proposed ban on the American XL bully.
Sunak’s measure came after a string of biting incidents, at least two of them fatal, involving canines believed to be American bully XL dogs, a relatively new breed. In one short but horrific incident caught on camera in Birmingham, England, an 11-year-old girl is attacked and bit by a dog.
But such a policy ignores the real cause behind aggressive and dangerous dogs. It’s not often the dog but the person holding the leash who creates the conditions, often by neglect or abuse, for a dog to attack. While it’s true that the American bully XL has a history of being used in dogfighting, the boxer, the shar-pei, the Boston terrier, and the English bull terrier also all have histories of fighting.
Kara Holmquist, director of advocacy at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said in an interview that there are many factors that can come into play and compel a dog to bite — “how the dog is socialized, how the dog is managed, and whether it’s spayed or neutered plays a role. So when places enact policies that just look at breed, not only is it not fair, but it’s just not effective.” It’s making a blanket judgment on what a dog breed is perceived to be, she said. Nowadays it has become very difficult “to look at a dog and know or make a guess as to what type of breed it is.”
That’s why the MSPCA, Holmquist said, helped push for a law, passed in 2012, that prevents cities and towns from enacting dog breed bans. It was around the time that there was hysteria around pit bulls and Dobermans. But discrimination against certain dog breeds still occurs in some spaces, and the MSPCA is working to remove dog breed bans in housing policies.
“Responsible Massachusetts dog owners are often not welcome in certain housing markets, particularly if they own medium or large dogs, or certain dog breeds (or a dog that looks like one of these breeds),” read testimony presented jointly by animal rights advocates, including the MSPCA, during a hearing last month on a bill that would prevent some housing providers, such as condo associations and public housing, “from arbitrarily refusing responsible dog owners as tenants.” The organizations also noted that this “discrimination occurs in some publicly-funded housing, making this a particularly pernicious practice.” It makes it a housing equity issue, as well.
Massachusetts’ cities and towns do have the power to police specific dogs through the dangerous dog law, the purview of the animal control officer. “If there is a dog that is of concern that’s demonstrated some behavior that’s outlined in the law, there’s a process for addressing that through a dangerous dog hearing,” Holmquist said.
Meanwhile, it’s looking like there will be no such dog hearings for the American bully XL in England. Prime Minister Sunak has pledged to ban the dogs but, thankfully, existing ones will receive amnesty. The dogs, which can weigh over 130 pounds, have risen in popularity since the COVID-19 lockdowns, which saw dog ownership rise. Under Sunak’s plan, owners of those existing dogs will have to register them, as well as muzzle them in public places. They will also be required to neuter them in an attempt to eradicate the dog type within a decade.
What’s baffling is that the UK has evidence that banning breeds does not make the public safer. The country has in place a Dangerous Dogs Act, which was enacted more than three decades ago. It bans four breeds: the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasileiro. Despite that, the number of dog bite incidents has gone up in the UK.
The English dog-owning community is not taking the proposal lying down, but it seems clear the British government has the authority to deem a breed dangerous and ban it. In the case of the American bully XL, it still isn’t officially recognized as a breed by the UK’s Kennel Club. So the breed needs to be declared a breed before it can be banned.
I’m still waiting for a ban on bad dog owners, because when you follow the trail leading to a terrible dog incident, often the owner’s treatment of the dog is to blame. The American bully XL may become extinct in Britain, but you can bet the country’s bad dog owners eventually will find another breed to mistreat. And sadly it, too, will be banned.
“Where we live and who we interact with has a really strong effect on our health and well-being,” said Noah Snyder-Mackler, who is lead author of the study and an associate professor at Arizona State University’s school of life sciences and its center for evolution and medicine. “This link between our social environments and our health extends to many social animals. Animals with stronger social relationships live longer, healthier lives.”
Social companionship helps with healthy aging for dogs, a study says. (Katherine Frey/The Washington Post)
The research, published in Evolution, Medicine & Public Health, surveyed the human parents of more than 21,000 dogs and found that social companionship — with both people and other animals — had the largest influence on healthier aging among dogs. The effect was five times greater than anything else they looked at, such as family finances, household children or the pet parent’s age.
Improving dog and human health
The study is part of the Dog Aging Project, a large community-science research effort started in 2018 and funded by the National Institute on Aging and private donations. It’s led by the University of Washington and Texas A&M schools of medicine and includes more than a dozen institutions, including Arizona State University.
Its goal is to learn how genes, lifestyle and the environment influence aging and disease among dogs. Researchers also hope the insights can help human health.
“Dogs are often considered our closest animal companions and share many aspects of our daily lives,” said Brianah McCoy, an ASU doctoral student and a co-author of the paper. “By studying how the social environment affects dog health, we can gain insights that may also be relevant to human health.”
More than 45,000 dogs overall are enrolled in the aging project. A subset, about 1,000 dogs, are part of a more focused cohort from whom Snyder-Mackler and his collaborators are collecting blood and other biological samples over many years to uncover additional clues.
Having furry friends is linked to better health
The researchers used statistical tools to analyze factors in the dogs’ social environments obtained from surveys completed by dog parents. The questionnaires asked about, among other things, physical activity, environment, dog behavior, diet, medications and preventive medications, health status and owner demographics.
The scientists narrowed their analysis to five key factors — neighborhood stability, total household income, social time with children, social time with animals and owner age — that together might explain how the social environment could affect a dog’s well-being.
They found poorer health among dogs who lived in households with financial difficulties and other stressors, and better health among dogs who experienced more social companionship, such as living with other dogs.
The researchers, however, did not quantify life span, although they plan to do so in the future. “While we can’t say ‘having another dog in the house adds X years to your dog’s life,’ we were able to compare the strengths of the effect of different environmental factors on health,” Snyder-Mackler said.
The researchers cautioned that the results don’t mean that pet parents need to add more dogs to the family or rush their pets to dog parks or doggy day-care.
“We don’t know if the environmental factors we measured caused the health outcomes, so we don’t want to make any strong statements about what owners should or shouldn’t do,” Snyder-Mackler said. “The study just looked at whether you had other animal companions in the house. But it does suggest that having more furry friends is linked to better health outcomes.”
Some dogs may not benefit from social interactions
Scientists not involved in the study pointed out that not all dogs respond similarly.
“Some dogs may find social interactions stressful,” said Clara Wilson, a postdoctoral researcher in the Penn Vet Working Dog Center at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, “and it may not be in the dog’s best interests to force these interactions.”
Courtney Sexton, postdoctoral researcher at Virginia-Maryland College of Vet Med — and who contributes other research to the Dog Aging Project — said her dog would rather play with a ball than with other dogs, and it’s the pet parents’ “job to pay attention to the signals dogs give us.”
Surprising findings
Several findings were surprising, the study authors said.
Having children in the household had a negative impact on a dog’s health.
Dogs in wealthier households were diagnosed with more diseases than those in less affluent homes.
Dogs seemed to be healthier when they lived with older humans, and this effect was stronger in younger dogs.
Children may be detrimental to the health of dogs because of resource allocation, the researchers suggested. “It’s not that kids hurt the dogs or directly affect their health,” said Layla Brassington, a doctoral student at Vanderbilt University, who worked on the study as a master’s student at Arizona State University. “The more children or time that owners dedicate to their children likely leads to less time and effort they can dedicate to their furry children.”
The authors theorize that wealthier households have better access to medical care, and pet parents might seek veterinary services more frequently, which leads to identifying more diseases.
The ages of the dogs also affected the findings, with younger dogs seeming to be “more tuned into the age of their owner and how it impacts their well-being,” McCoy said.
Could dogs benefit from a cat companion?
The researchers did not specifically look at the effect of breeds — they did not have enough detail on individual breeds — or exercise, Snyder-Mackler said. (The Dog Aging Project recently released a study that found physical activity is associated with a better cognitive outcome in dogs.) “What we did see was that the strength of the relationship between the environment and health was similar when we looked separately at mixed-breed versus purebred dogs,” he said.
They also acknowledged one study limitation — the sample consisted of mostly high-income dog parents. A more diverse set could help “unravel the true magnitude of certain variables’ influence on canine well-being,” McCoy said. “It is possible that the effects we found in this study would be even stronger if we had a more varied and inclusive population.”
Most of the pets in the multi-animal households were dogs, and the scientists said there was insufficient data to distinguish between the effects of having additional dogs vs. other species.
“It could be that having other pets — even cats — provides health benefits through companionship,” Snyder-Mackler said.
DoggyMom.com 