http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/press-statement.

php

The aim of this web-site is to provide the media and members of the public with more information about the behaviour of dogs, the possible consequences of using aversive training techniques, and where to go for appropriate advice on training and behaviour issues. Some theories about the way in which dogs behave, and the kinds of techniques needed to alter behaviour, are almost cultural in Western societies, and it can be difficult for people to change the way they think about dogs. However the scientific understanding of dog behaviour has moved forward a great deal in the past 20 years. Many of the theories on which training and behaviour modification approaches were based in the past have been superseded by more modern approaches. Information on this web-site explains why using training techniques that rely on inducing pain and fear in dogs, based on the belief that dogs try to assert dominance or achieve status, is a concept that is no longer regarded as a useful way of understanding dogs, but which is also potentially harmful. We also explain the current approach to understanding social behaviour in dogs, and introduce how undesired behaviour such as aggression can develop. The reasons why the use of training based on punishment can potentially create behaviour problems and affect the welfare of dogs is presented. On this website, you will also find advice about how to identify a suitable trainer or behaviourist.

Welfare in Dog Training

PRESS RELEASE

1 March 2010 Concerns over aversive dog training techniques UK animal welfare, behaviour, training, canine and veterinary organisations1 are again warning of the possible dangers of using techniques for training dogs that can cause pain and fear, such as some of those seen used by Cesar Millan, who starts his UK tour this week. The organisations have joined forces to voice their serious concerns about techniques which pose potential welfare problems for dogs and significant risk to owners who may copy them. These concerns are shared, and the statement supported, by similar organisations around the world2 and in continental Europe3. Aversive training techniques, which have been seen to be used by Cesar Millan, are based on the principle of applying an unpleasant stimulus to inhibit behaviour. This kind of training technique can include the use of prong collars, electric shock collars, restricting dogs air supply using nooses/leads or pinning them to the ground, which can cause pain and distress. The use of such techniques may compromise the welfare of dogs and may worsen the behavioural problems they aim to address, potentially placing owners at considerable risk. A number of scientific studies have found an association between the use of aversive training techniques and the occurrence of undesired behaviours in dogs. The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour. Dog trainers all over the UK use reward-based methods to train dogs very effectively. Where dogs have behaviours which owners find unacceptable, such as aggression or destruction, qualified behaviourists achieve long term changes in behaviour through the use of established and validated techniques of behaviour modification without subjecting dogs to training techniques which may cause pain or distress. We urge dog owners to carefully consider the help they choose to train their dogs or tackle behavioural problems, in particular to ensure that the trainer does not use any techniques which may put the welfare of the dogs at risk. Further information on: - the misconceptions which underlie the use of aversive training techniques - the development of behaviour in dogs - the problems associated with the use of aversive training techniques - finding a suitable trainer or behaviourist can be found at: www.dogwelfarecampaign.org 1 Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) Accreditation Ltd., Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC), Association of Pet Dog Trainers UK (APDT,UK), Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group (CABTSG), Dogs Trust, Raystede Centre for Animal Welfare, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), The Blue Dog Trust, UK Registry of Canine Behaviourists (UKRCB), Wood Green Animal Shelters and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). 2 American Veterinary Society of Animal Behaviour (AVSAB).

3 European College of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine - Companion Animals (ECVBM-CA), European Society of Clinical Veterinary Ethology (ESCVE), Norwegian Association for Pet Behaviour. More information about organisations supporting this press statement can be found at www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

Whats Wrong with Using Dominance to Explain the Behaviour of Dogs?

In the past, much of the behaviour of dogs was interpreted quite simplistically in terms of hierarchy or social structure. It was believed that dogs were motivated (i.e. had an internal drive) to achieve a higher status relative to other dogs or people, and that this desire led them to show behaviours such as aggression in order to achieve control. Lots of eminent behaviourists and trainers used to think in this way, but with the advancement of science and clinical behaviour practice, we now know that the foundations on which this theory was based are fundamentally flawed, and the majority of trainers and behaviourists have changed their practice as a result. We also have a much better understanding of how the brain works, and how animals learn, which has enabled us to develop a better understanding of why behaviours such as aggression do develop in dogs. In this article, we summarise why dominance is no longer regarded as a useful explanation for the behaviour of dogs. A fuller review is available in Bradshaw et al. (2009).

Key Points: Where did dominance theory came from? - Early studies of captive unrelated wolves suggested a rigid social structure or hierarchy maintained by aggression - The findings of this research was applied to interactions between dogs, because the wolf was the ancestor of the dog - The theory was assumed to apply in relationships between dogs and people, and that dogs perceived the relationship with their owner in terms of relative status - What are the problems with this theory? - More recent research on wolves has found that the natural social groupings of wolves is actually based on co-operative family groups of parents and offspring, with very little aggression - Dogs have changed a lot since domestication, and groups of feral dogs do not have the same social structure as wolves - Studies of interactions between dogs show no evidence of fixed hierarchical relationships, but rather relationships between individuals which are based on learning Where did Dominance Theory Come From? Firstly, it is worth considering where the concept of dominance originally came from, as this helps to explain the background to the debate on its current usage. The concept of dominance is a historically well established one within the field of ethology, the study of the natural behaviour of animals. It was used to describe relationships between individuals, where one of a pair of animals is observed to obtain an important resource in a competitive situation. However, over time the problem of using this concept in more complex animals became apparent, because such relationships were not always consistent in different situations. In other words, although animal A may be more likely to win an encounter over one resource, animal B may do so over another. Furthermore, in social species, other factors appeared to be influential in the outcome of an interaction over a single resource for example the outcome of competition over food varying with how hungry each animal was. The ability to identify and learn about particular signals that might predict how others are likely to behave in different situations makes predicting the outcome of an encounter between two individuals even more difficult. Dominance, therefore, seemed to be a too simplistic way of describing the interaction between social mammals, and in ethology much more complex models are now used to describe social groupings (e.g. Van Doorn et al. 2003). Dominance came to be used to describe dog behaviour through the application of studies of its ancestral species, the wolf. Early studies of wolves were done on artificial groups of animals kept in captivity, where individuals were unable to get away from each other, and the social groupings were not the normal family groups that are found in the wild (Mech 1999). The results of such studies suggested a rigid hierarchy where particular individuals (alphas) had priority access to resources, and maintained the group structure through the display of aggression to others (Zimen 1975). Since the wolf is the ancestor of the domestic dog, those interested in dog behaviour suggested that similar social groupings may occur in dogs, and that the formation of these groups are based on the desire or drive of each individual to be the leader or alpha of the group, the resultant hierarchical structure being based on competitive success. This interpretation of dogs became so well established, that it was also used to interpret interactions between dogs and people, the assumption being that dogs also regarded people as competitors in the struggle for social status. This interpretation of dogs has been used to explain behaviours ranging from aggression, attention seeking, destruction, and even failure to return on recall. If one assumes that the behaviour of a dog is motivated by a desire to control or dominate its owner, it tends to lead on to the conclusion that in order to deal with the problem, the owner needs to establish dominance over the dog. This interpretation of dog behaviour, therefore, has tended to

3 encourage the development of training techniques that use punishment or force to show the dog who is boss (e.g. Kovary 1999). However, for the reasons summarised in the following sections, we now know that the use of dominance theory to explain the behaviour of dogs relies on flawed assumptions, and it is therefore important to re-evaluate the techniques we use in the training of dogs, and make sure we use techniques that are not only effective but are least likely to compromise the welfare of our pets. Recent Interpretations of Wolf Behaviour Recent research on natural populations suggest that the groupings are more based on co-operative family groups, where one breeding pair produce puppies and other members of the family assist with rearing them (Mech and Boitani 2003). This particular reproductive strategy is adaptive for their ecological niche, and although it results in fewer puppies being born, the higher investment in each puppy increases their chance of survival. Hence, the natural social groupings of wolves are based on co-operative family groups, where the parents guide their offspring in developing social and hunting skills, the apparent hierarchical structure arising through parent-offspring relationships rather than competitive or aggressive encounters (Mech 2008). In such groups there is no alpha achieved by strength or aggression (Mech 2008), and there is no evidence that individual wolves have a life-long dominant characteristic (Packard 2003). Aggressive behaviour is very rare in stable groups (Mech 1999), and where it does it occur, it is flexible, being based on individual circumstance rather than being predictable between individual pairs of animals. Since the type of dominance hierarchy whereby the social structure is based on competitive ability does not appear to occur naturally in wolves, the argument for this occurring in the dog, as the descendent of the wolf, it has been strongly argued that to be a poor one (Van Kerkhove 2004). Do Feral Dogs have the Same Social Structure as Wolves? The next assumption in dominance theory is that since wolves are the ancestors of dogs, the two species will form similar social structures (e.g. Lindsay 2000). However, the dog has changed considerably from its ancestral species since domestication (Miklsi 2007), and observations of feral dogs suggest that the social structure of feral dogs is completely different (reviewed in Bradshaw et al. 2009). For example, mating is unrestricted in feral dog groups (Pal et al. 1999), and although appeasement behaviour occurs, it is both within family groups, and between individuals of different groups, suggesting a general function of diffusing conflict, rather than being a specific submission behaviour to maintain group hierarchical structures. Studies of feral dogs tend to suggest, therefore, that domestication has significantly altered the social behaviour of dogs from their ancestral species. In free living groups, feral dogs do not remain in strict family packs, there is no restriction of breeding, and hence no apparently pyramidal structure based on a single breeding pair and their offspring as is found in wolves. Interactions between individuals are much more fluid, and appear based more on circumstance, sexual cycles and prior learning about the behaviour of other individuals. What About the Social Structure of Domestic Dogs? Since neither natural groups of wolves, nor free-ranging groups of feral dogs, appear to adopt the pyramidal hierarchical social structure traditionally ascribed to them, the assumption that domestic dog behaviour is influenced by a desire to assume such a structure is difficult to substantiate. Furthermore, recent research suggests that groups of domestic dogs do not form social groupings that can be interpreted in terms of a dominance hierarchy. The study, described in Bradshaw et al. (2009) investigated the interactions between a group of 19 dogs housed together in a sanctuary environment. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these neutered domestic dogs, which had been in the group for at least 6 months and were freely able to determine interactions between group members, formed a hierarchical structure as predicted by the dominance theory. Interactions between each pair of dogs were recorded, but showed no evidence of an overall hierarchy within the group. Rather, the interactions suggested that each pair of dogs had a learnt pattern of behaviour with each other, which may or may not vary between different situations, but which could not be combined into any overall group structure (Bradshaw et al. 2009). Dominance as an Explanation of Behaviour There is, therefore, very little evidence that social groupings of the domestic dog are based around the traditional pyramidal structure. This may seem like an academic argument that has little relevance to the everyday interaction between people and dogs, but the real problems that have arisen with the use of dominance theory in the dog fraternity, is that the term has been used not only to describe the interaction between individuals, but also explain it. In other words, the reason for a dog showing a behaviour was ascribed to it trying to achieve dominance / social status. This requires a further assumption not only do dogs form a pyramidal structure based on competitive success, but that they are actively planning ahead in order to try and raise their own relative status. This assumes that dogs are able to form an abstract concept of their own status, relate this to the relative status of others, and plan future events with the aim of modifying their relative hierarchical position. This type of thinking is actually very anthropomorphic (from a human point of view) because we have language and an enlarged frontal cortex that enables us to form and name abstract ideas, it is difficult for us to imagine not being able to conceptualise using words. This is exactly the same principle as the argument that dogs which show appeasement behaviour when owners return home to find house-

4 soiling or destruction feel guilty because they recognise that they have done something wrong according to a human code of behaviour. Recent research supports the general consensus amongst trainers and behaviourists that the behavioural signs interpreted by owners as guilt are a learnt response to a context (such as an angry owner facial expression) rather than an awareness in the dog of a misdeed (Horowitz 2009). Because it is very difficult for us to imagine life without this ability, it is natural for us to interpret the behaviour of other animals with the assumption that they have the same cognitive abilities as ourselves. However, there is no evidence that dogs form abstract concepts and think about them forwards and backwards in time. It is, therefore, an unsupported assumption that dogs are likely to plan future actions with the aim of modify their long-term relative social status with other individuals. Their response to other individual animals or people is much more likely to be based on individual learning about how others respond in different circumstances (as we explain further in How do we explain social behaviour). What are the Consequences? The real problem with assuming that a dog is showing a behaviour because it has a master plan of achieving high status, is the effect that this assumption has on how owners respond to their dogs, and attempt to train them. If owners believe that a dog does something to achieve status or control them or be the boss it naturally tends to lead people to use coercive training techniques. This relies on inducing a negative emotional state (e.g. fear or anxiety) in a dog in order to inhibit behaviour, which has the risk of inducing further undesired behaviour or having a negative effect on welfare, as described further in What are the problems of using training techniques that induce fear or pain? Unfortunately the concept of dominance is well embedded in historic scientific literature and the public consciousness. Although the majority of trainers and behaviourists no longer think in this way, some new authors to the field interpret particular aggressive signs as dominant, because their definitions are based on older literature (e.g. Prez-Guisado, J. and Muoz-Serrano, A., 2009), which tend to perpetuate this theory. In addition, some of the trainers who reach many thousands of dog owners through television also perpetuate these out-dated ideas. Conclusions Although it has been widely accepted amongst qualified behaviourists and trainers for many years that the interpretation of dog behaviour based on a dominance model relies on unsupported assumptions, this outdated approach is still used by those that have not had the opportunity to study the most recent literature and clinical practice. This article has explained how this theory arose through a historical mistake in the interpretation of wolf behaviour, along with a series of assumptions about how this might apply to dogs. These assumptions have been clearly shown to be erroneous by recent research, and a modern interpretation of dog behaviour provides us with a much clearer interpretation of how and why behaviour develops. Although often portrayed as an academic argument it is important to realise that the way people interpret the behaviour of their dogs has a strong influence on the way that they behave towards them. Dispelling the myths behind this theory is therefore an important step in enhancing the welfare of the dogs in our care. References

Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J. and Casey, R.A. (2009) Dominance in domestic dogs useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 109-144 (May-June 2009). Horowitz, A. (2009). Disambiguating the guilty look: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour. Behavioural Processes, 81, 447-452. Kovary, R., (1999). Taming the dominant dog. American Dog Trainers Network: 23 http://www.inch.com/~dogs/taming.html Lindsay S.R., 2000. Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Volume 1, Adaptation and Learning. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, p. 12. Mech, L.D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance and division of labor in wolf packs. Can. J. Zool. 77, 1196-1203. Mech, L. D. (2008). What Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf? International Wolf, Winter 2008, pp. 48. http://www.4pawsu.com/alphawolf.pdf Mech, L.D. and Boitani, L. (2003). Wolf social ecology. In: Mech, L.D., Boitani, L. (Eds.), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp.1-34. Miklos, . (2007). Human-animal interactions and social cognition in dogs. In: Jensen, P. (Ed.), The Behavioural Biology of Dogs. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 205-222. Packard, J.M. (2003). Wolf behavior: reproductive, social and intelligent. In: Mech, L.D., Boitani, L. (Eds.), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 35-65. Pal, S.K., Ghosh, B. and Roy, S. (1998). Agonistic behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to season, sex and age. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59, 331-348. Pal, S.K., Ghosh, B. and Roy, S. (1999). Inter- and intra-sexual behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 267-278. Prez-Guisado, J. and Muoz-Serrano, A. (2009). Factors Linked to Dominance Aggression in Dogs. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8 (2): 336-342 Van Doorn, G.S., Hengeveld, G.M., Weissing, F.J., (2003). The evolution of social dominance. II: Multi-player models. Behaviour, 140, 1333-1358.

Van Kerkhove, W. (2004). A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 7, 279-285. Zimen, E. (1975). Social dynamics of the wolf pack. In: The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 336-368.

If Not Dominance...How do we Explain the Development of Social Behaviour?

Although their social structure is not the same as their ancestral species, dogs, like wolves, are a highly social species. This means that they are strongly motivated to maintain contact with familiar individuals, and try to avoid social isolation. This characteristic explains the high incidence of separation related behaviour (undesired behaviours occurring when left alone by owners) in dogs (Bradshaw et al. 2002). An important characteristic of being a social species is being able to both display and read communication signals as this enables individuals to adapt their behaviour according to the behaviour of other individuals (Wilson 1975). As well as displaying and reading social signals, it is clear that social interactions amongst groups depends on individuals learning about these signals (van Doorn et al. 2003).

Learning Those working in dog training or behaviour are very familiar with the concepts of associative learning. We tend to talk about learning mainly in terms of training. For example, by giving a dog a treat each time it sits down, as long as our timing is good, the dog will associate this action with the reward, and is more likely offer to park its bottom on subsequent occasions. However, this apparently simple piece of learning actually involves complex processing in the brain. Since being given the treat is an important event to the dog (assuming he or she likes treats), the learning process starts with the brain evaluating all the incoming information to identify what particular events might be predictive of the treat appearing, whether this is an external event or the dogs own activity. In almost all real life situations, it is combinations of specific cues and contexts that predict particular events. For example, many owners will be familiar with their dog learning to show a behaviour in one context (e.g. sitting when the owner says sit AND is in the training class, and has a calm voice, relaxed posture, maintains eye contact, has their hand in their pocket, is wearing their jeans and is smelling of treats) but not immediately doing the same if some of these cues change. Over time, by repeating the association between the word sit, the action and the treat in multiple contexts the dog learns that the only important predictive cue is the word sit and will show the behaviour whatever else is going on. This type of learning does not only occur when we are training dogs, however, but goes on all the time, constantly shaping the way our dogs interact with their environment. Their brains are constantly evaluating what is important, what predicts important events, and what the consequences (good or bad) of their own actions are. Learning in Social Interactions Although we have a good understanding of learning, and how it influences dogs responses in training, we have historically disregarded the importance of learning in the development of social interactions between dogs, and between dogs and people. The assumption that dogs responses in social interactions are fixed by innate characteristics, such as dominance disregards their amazing ability to learn complex associations. However, dogs clearly are able to learn about the consequences of specific social interactions (Elgier et al. 2009), and it is important to recognise this when considering the development of social interactions. From the perspective of mathematical modelling (van Doorn et al. 2003) and direct observation of behaviour (Bradshaw et al. 2009), the types of social structures which arise in social species appear to be best explained by each individual forming a distinct relationship with each other animal in the group. In other words, each animal both reads the signals of each other and is able to learn what this might predict in different circumstances. In addition, on each encounter they will be learning about the consequences of their own behaviour from the responses of others. This is no different from the way in which social behaviour is learnt in people. Throughout life we observe other people and pick up information that might help us predict how they may behave in different situations (Frith and Frith 2007). We also constantly gather more information as to how our own behaviours might affect multiple other people in a range of different circumstances (Keysers and Perrett 2004). In other words, when you go into a bar and meet a stranger, are all your behaviours directed by trying to establish social dominance over them? Or are you working out how they might react to you, so that you can find out the best way of passing the time with them? You initially dont know how they will react to you smiling at them, or saying hello, or bumping into them by accident. So, you are likely to be more anxious to start with, until you start to be able to predict their reactions. Essentially, you bring to this new interaction all of your previous experiences of how different facial expression, or tones of voice might predict particular outcomes, so you look at and listen carefully to the person to see if you can pick up any of these familiar cues, and change how you behave accordingly. Smiling at someone in the corridor as you pass them, or holding a door open to allow them through does not mean that you think that they are socially superior to you, but simply that you have learnt that if you do this for people they will smile back and thank you!

6 Social Behaviour Between Dogs Dogs go through a very similar process when they first meet a new dog in the park. They may have had lots of previous experiences of meeting dogs of all shapes and sizes, and will use all the information gained in previous encounters to inform how they respond to a new dog (Bradshaw et al. 2009). For example, a particular dog (lets call him Ben) might have learnt from previous encounters that the combined cues of another dog being large and black with a tense body posture predicts aggression. A new dog approaching with these characteristics, therefore, is likely to cause anxiety. How Ben responds to this event is also learnt he may have previously found that showing appeasement, running away, or showing aggression worked best in that particular situation to resolve the perceived threat. So when two dogs first meet in the park, there is often increased anxiety because they dont know how each other are likely to respond. They will often have a very tense, vigilant posture, and show jerky sudden movements as they gather information about each other. In contrast, once they get to know each other, they will be able to predict how each other are likely to respond and react accordingly. Depending on what they have learnt, they might go straight into playing when they meet up, ignore each other, or even show aggression. Behaviour problems occurring between dogs are relatively common, and occur through this same process of learning. For example, a dog that shows aggression to other dogs will often have had an aversive experience of particular other dogs, and learnt that aggression is an effective strategy of avoiding the perceived threat. Similarly, a puppy that lives with a tolerant elderly dog may learn that the most effective way of getting playful interaction is to charge up and jump on another dog! This behaviour causes problems when the puppy starts to interact with other dogs that dont appreciate this type of greeting. In dealing with such cases, therefore, a behaviourist will first obtain information about specific previous experiences, so that the reason for the development of the behaviour can be identified. Social Interaction with People Obviously, if dogs interact with each other based on complex associative learning, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they do any different when interacting with us. Indeed, there has been a flurry of recent research investigating the extent to which dogs can learn about specific human signals in comparison to their ancestral species, the wolf (e.g. Udell et al. 2008). It would be foolish to think that they see people as other dogs but as they develop within a human family, they learn about all the things that humans do which relate to them, just as they would with other dogs. So, for example, they may learn that when people smile, or talk in a high pitched voice it generally predicts a good outcome, and behave accordingly (waggy tail, running up, etc.), but may also learn that if particular people have a raised voice pitch, dilated pupils and put their hand towards their collar it predicts a bad outcome. Again, they may learn different responses that work to resolve this situation. The possible options might be to show appeasement behaviours, to avoid contact by hiding, or to show aggression to get the perceived threat to move away. Whichever of these is successful (i.e. works to avoid the threat) becomes reinforced, and is more likely to be shown on subsequent occasions. Considering an example helps to explain what might happen in an individual case. Imagine a dog (lets say Ellie) who is scared of fireworks. It is just after 5th November, and when she recently went out into the garden last thing at night to go to the toilet, a firework went off further down the street. From this experience, Ellie has learnt that going into the garden when it is dark predicts that a terrifying event is likely to occur (but going out in the daytime is fine). She therefore no longer wants to go out into the garden at night before her owners go to bed. However, her owners particularly want her to go into the garden last thing, as otherwise she may mess in the kitchen overnight. They havent connected her reluctance to go out with the fireworks, and consider her new habit of trying to avoid going out rather irritating. Understandably, from a human point of view, they insist she goes outside, and grab her by the collar to guide her outside. From Ellies point of view, going outside in the dark is a life-threatening event, and she wants to avoid this at all costs. Initially she might show appeasement behaviours, but in this type of situation owners often ignore these. She might wriggle free and go and hide under the table, but her owners are also likely to go and get her out again. She learns that neither appeasement nor avoidance work to escape the perceived threat. She may, therefore, try the alternative option of aggression. When dogs growl or snap for the first time owners are often very surprised or shocked and sensibly back away, even if only momentarily. This is enough, however, for the behaviour to become reinforced, and the next time that Ellie is in the same situation she would be more likely to try this option first. Over repeated occasions, an aggressive response like this becomes more and more well established. Dogs like Ellie will gradually learn the specific cues that predict the threat (e.g. an owners hand reaching for their collar) and will select aggression more rapidly on identifying these cues. They will also become more confident that aggression is likely to work in this situation, and will progressively show less signs of fear, and instead have a confident body posture. The aggression will gradually become more immediate on the dog identifying the first predictive cues, such that they could bark or growl at the owner as soon as they enter a room. This behaviour appears very confident, and historically has been described as dominant or offensive aggression. However, if we examine the history of the problem in the light of

7 our knowledge about learning, we can see that this is a defensive response to a perceived threat which the dog has developed into a (very effective) avoidance strategy. Once this type of avoidance response is well established, the dog will have a strong expectation that it will be successful, and trying to interrupt it can be very dangerous. Owners should therefore seek specialist help in cases of aggression. Conclusions Although the importance of learning in training is widely recognised, the extent to which learning influences how social behaviours develop and are shaped over time in dogs is often underestimated. Rather than explaining how an individual interacts with others in terms of fixed characteristics, it is important to recognise that previous experience has a profound influence on the way each dog behaves with every other dog and person that it meets. The ancestral history of dogs has led them to being a highly social animal with an amazing ability to identify where complex combinations of events might predict particular outcomes, and also to discriminate between apparently similar cues where these might have different meanings. This makes them fantastic pets, because they can pick up very subtle changes in our behaviour and respond accordingly, but it can also lead to misunderstandings, anxiety, and the occurrence of undesired behaviours. It is therefore important that those advising owners about their pets have a thorough knowledge of the science of learning, and the ability to use this knowledge in the practical evaluation of individual cases. References
Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J. and Casey, R.A. (2009) Dominance in domestic dogs useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 109-144. Bradshaw, J.W.S., McPherson, J.A., Casey, R.A. and Larter, I.S. (2002) Aetiology of separation-related behaviour in the domestic dog. Veterinary Record, 151, 43-46. Elgier, A.M., Jakovcevic, A., Barrera, G., Mustaca, A.E. and Bentosela, M. (2009). Communication between domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans: Dogs are good learners. Behavioural Processes, 81, 402-408. Frith, C.D. and Frith, U. (2007). Social cognition in humans. Current Biology, 17, R724-R732 Keysers, C. and Perrett, D.I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 501-507. Reid, P.J. (2009). Adapting to the human world: Dogs responsiveness to our social cues. Behavioural Processes, 80, 325-333. Udell, M.A.R., Dorey, N.R. and Wynne, C.D.L. (2008). Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Animal Behavior, 76, 1767-1773. Van Doorn, G.S., Hengeveld, G.M., Weissing, F.J., (2003). The evolution of social dominance. II: Multi-player models. Behaviour, 140, 1333-1358. Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

What are the Implications of Using Training Techniques Which Induce Fear or Pain in Dogs?
If a dog shows a behaviour which results in a perceived positive outcome, he or she is more likely to show the behaviour again on subsequent occasions this is known as reinforcement. If a behaviour results in a perceived negative outcome, the dog is less likely to show the behaviour again this is punishment. Simplistically, in order to change a behaviour, one could either punish an undesired behaviour or reinforce the desired one. Punishment tends to be an emotive word, but scientifically this just means a reduced chance of a behaviour occurring again. Hence, depending on the characteristics and experience of the animal, and the choices of the trainer, a punisher could vary from a mild no to a very aversive stimulus such as a tightened prong collar around a dogs neck. Punishment has been used in animal training since animals have lived in close proximity with people. However, just because training techniques based on the induction of fear or pain have been used for a long time, does not necessarily mean that they are the best option in terms of efficacy or animal welfare. In fact, training a dog using such techniques carries a number of risks. These are: - Increasing the dogs fear or anxiety about the situation in which it is used - Decrease the dogs ability to learn - Associate other, coincidental events with a fear provoking event - Inhibit behaviour, but leave the underlying emotional response unchanged increasing the chance of future problems - Induce an new avoidance, or aggressive response - Cause confusion as to which behaviour is required - Cause physical injury In addition, since training techniques are widely used that do not require the use of severe punishment, there is no need to use techniques which impact negatively on the welfare of dogs. The relative safety and effectiveness of using reward based or punitive training techniques must also be taken into consideration.

8 Increasing Fear and Anxiety Most problematic behaviours, including aggression, develop because the dog learns to show aneffective response to a perceived threat. Causing further anxiety to the dog by applying a punishment will not achieve the aim of making the dog less worried about whatever it is responding to: in fact it will almost inevitably make it more fearful in that context. When a dog shows aggression to something that is perceived as a threat, it is possible to do something to it which is even more aversive (e.g. by pinning to the floor with your foot on its throat, or blasting an air-horn in its face), that may inhibit its expected behaviour temporarily. Because people often look for instant fixes this approach may look like a cure, and appear impressive on TV, but it does not resolve the cause of the original behaviour. Because the dog remains fearful of the original perceived threat, and indeed will often be more anxious because they are now worried about the original threat and what their owner will do to them in that context, the behaviour will often recur, or different behavioural responses to avoid the threat may develop. This makes sense if you think about it from a human perspective. For example, if you are scared of spiders, you will respond to this fear by trying to avoid close contact with them. Now imagine that someone dragged you up to a spider by pulling you up to a spider by the neck-tie so that it was choking you, and held you there until you stopped struggling would you feel any different about spiders? Or would you now be worried about spiders and by the presence of the person who tried to cure you? Stress and Learning Using harsh punishment based techniques to change behaviour is frequently counterproductive. There is a complex relationship between physiological stress responses and learning ability, but in general mild stress tends to enhance learning, but higher or more chronic levels of stress actually inhibit the ability of animals to learn, and particularly to consolidate and retrieve memories (Joels et al. 2006; Mendl, 1999). Research suggests that high levels of stress may influence a dogs ability to learn (Walker et al.,1997), therefore the application of severe punishers may also result in a stress response that impedes learning. Risk of the Dog Associating the Punishment with Something Else Anxious and fearful responses appear to particularly occur where the punishment is poorly synchronised with the action of the animal (Schalke et al., 2005), in other words when the punishment is poorly timed. After a significant event, such as the application of pressure from a choke chain, the dog will try to identify what events might have predicted this occurrence, either related to its own activity, or things happening in the environment. This means that although the trainer may intend the dog to associate pulling on the lead with the pressure on the neck, the dog may associate the latter with something completely different. Quite often, for example, dogs will associate the pressure from a choke chain with the word heel, but not with their pulling. So, when they hear heel they tense up and brace themselves for the anticipated pressure. In practice, anything else present when the punishment is used may serve as a discriminative stimulus for the punishment (Polsky, 1994). In other words there is a real danger of an unwanted association being made between the unpleasant punishment and some coincidental stimuli, such as the presence of a person or other animal. Even when a dog is caught in the act and punished, he or she may still not associate the punishment with the undesirable behaviour. This is commonly seen, for example, when puppies are smacked by owners for toileting indoors: they dont associate this with where they are peeing, but instead with the presence of the owner, so simply find a place to pee away from the owner rather than learning to go outside. In addition inappropriate levels of punishment may result in an intense fear and avoidance of the location e.g. the back garden. Of course unintended associations, due to poor trainer timing, or the chance association with another, random, stimulus, occurs as frequently with reward based training as it does with punishment techniques. For example, if an owner recalls their dog, but takes a while getting the toy out of their pocket when he or she returns, they may end up throwing the toy when the dog happens to be turning in a circle, resulting in a dog that comes back and then turns a circle for its reward. However, the long term consequences of these reward mistakes is much less serious than when punishers are associated with unintended stimuli. Avoidance response to things that are perceived as aversive are likely to be long lasting and resistant to change compared to those occurring as a result of positive reinforcement (Brush, 1957; Solomon et al., 1953). The difficulty in correcting errors when using aversive methods is significant considering the opportunities for unintended associations, and the potential development of fear. Increasing Aggression and Risk to Owners Another drawback of the use of harsh punishment in training dogs is the risk of eliciting or worsening aggression. For example, puppies that are trained using punishment based approaches will have an increased risk of being fearful of hand movement as adults, and have an increased risk of biting (Hunthausen 2009). Although some authors have advocated the use of punishment in the treatment of certain types of aggression in dogs, as pain is a primary cause of aggression (Johnson, 1972), it is clear that the potential exists for a dog to respond aggressively to a nearby person or animal on application of a painful stimulus. The misplaced belief in dominance theory can lead to owners using punitive types of

9 training which predisposes to aggression (De Keuster and Jung 2009). Reisner et al. (2007), for example, found that 59% of dog bites happened as a consequence of owners attempting to discipline their dogs. Owners should be particularly cautious of using confrontational or punitive techniques with dogs that have an established aggressive response. Aggression develops as a response to perceived threat either to itself or a valued resource. However, once established, dogs will often have a strong expectation that their aggressive behaviour will be successful to avoid the perceived threat. Trying to stop or interrupt such a response has a high risk that the dog will show an increased level of aggression. Confusion as to Which Behaviour is Required Imagine that you needed to learn a new behaviour as a new employee, but in order to teach you this behaviour, your new colleagues only shouted at you when you did the wrong thing. You might try a whole range of different possible responses, but may never identify the exact thing that they wanted you to do. Where owners rely mainly on punishment for inappropriate behaviours, it is very difficult for a dog to work out what it is supposed to do. As would also happen to you in your work-place, dogs will tend to either end up becoming very frustrated and showing one of the behavioural consequence of this emotion, such as aggression, or give up entirely and stop trying any behaviours at all. Risk of Physical Injury There is also an increased risk of physical injury to the dog where harsh handling is used. Choke/check chains and prong collars can result in laryngeal, esophageal, thyroidal, and tracheal damage (Brammeier et al. 2006). Efficacy of Different Training Approaches In order for any form of training to be successful, it is important that the reinforcer or punisher is applied very quickly after the animals action, in order for the animal to make an association between its own behaviour and the consequence of it. In addition, the reinforcer or punisher must be applied at such a level that it either increases or decreases subsequent displays of the behaviour. In the case of positive reinforcement, this requires the reward to be something that the animal values, and which creates a positive emotional response. Where punishment is used, it must be aversive enough to create a negative emotional response. A further problem with the use of aversive stimuli, therefore, lies in the trainers ability to achieve the optimum level of pain/discomfort required to suppress the target behaviour. Understandably, owners tend to begin with a low level of punishment and gradually increase the level of punishment to find the level required to stop the behaviour. This is unlikely to be effective as animals can habituate to aversive stimuli when they are incrementally increased. In order to effectively suppress a behaviour, the initial level of punishment needs to be of sufficient severity to suppress the behaviour and avoid immediate reappearance. There are ethical concerns and practical problems that arise from this as there is no way of knowing in advance how intense the initial punishment should be for each individual animal, due to large individual differences between dogs. Even within a single breed, dogs have been shown to have a variable capacity for coping with aversive stimuli (Vincent & Mitchell, 1996). This leads to the problem of determining and administering an appropriate level of punishment (high enough to suppress the behaviour, but not so high that it causes a prolonged fear or anxiety response) for each individual dog. Research also suggests that training using positive reinforcement based methods is more likely to be successful than those based on punishment (Hiby et al., 2004). The study also found that the use of punishment techniques in the training of dogs was associated with an increase in the incidence of problem behaviours. Conclusions Accurately determining the underlying motivation for a behaviour requires specialist expertise, as does assessing the risk that an aversive experience might actually increase the severity of a problem behaviour or induce new ones. Because of the serious risks of using punishment based techniques, even when applied accurately, most professional behavioural clinicians very rarely advocate the use of any punishment based training techniques in the modification of dog behaviour. As owners, trainers or clinical behaviourists, we all share a responsibility to the welfare our dogs to use the least aversive methods available to us to change our dogs behaviour without the need for pain or fear. References
Brammeier et al. (2006) Good trainers: How to identify one and why this is important to your practice of veterinary medicine. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 1, 47-52. Brush, F.R. (1957) Effects of shock intensity on the acquisition and extinction of an avoidance response in dogs. Journal of Comp Physiol Psychol 50, 547-552 De Keuster, T. and Jung, H. (2009). Aggression towards familiar people and animals. In Horwitz, D.F. and Mills, D.S. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. 2nd ed. 182-210. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS (2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13 (1): 63-69 Hunthausen, W. (2009). Preventative behavioural medicine for dogs. In Horwitz, D.F. and Mills, D.S. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. 2nd ed. 65-74

Joels, M., Pu, Z., Wiegart, O. et al. (2006). Learning under stress: how does it work? Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 152-158. Johnson, R.L. (1972) Aggression in man and animals, Saunders, Philadelphia. Mendl, M., (1999). Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 221-244 Polsky RH (1994). Electronic shock collars are they worth the risks? Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 30 (5), 463-468 Reisner, I.R., Shofer F.S., Nance, M.L., (2007) Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression, Injury Prevention, 13, 348-351 Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J. and Jones-Baade, R. (2005) Stress symptoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs (Canis Familiaris) in everyday life situations.Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioural Medicine: Papers presentedat the 5th International Veterinary Behaviour meeting. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana. Solomon R. L., Kamin, L.J. and Wynne L. C. (1953) Traumatic avoidance learning: The outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 48 (2), 291-302 Vincent I.C and Mitchell A.R. (1996) Relationship between blood pressure and stress prone temperament in dogs. Physiol Behav 60, 135-138. Walker, R., Fisher, J. and Neville, P. (1997). The treatment of phobias in the dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 52, 275289. The following books are good sources of information on training techniques and their application: Excel-elerated Learning by Pamela Reid. How Dogs Learn by Mary Burch and Jon Bailey

10

Should I Follow Status Reduction Programmes with my Dog?

The theory behind status reduction programmes is that dogs show behaviours in order to increase their relative status, or position in a hierarchy, compared to their owners. Since the theory underlying the use of such programmes has been shown to be flawed, the majority of trainers and behaviourists no longer recommend such programmes. However, a wide range of different advice and techniques have been used in this type of programme, and it is important to understand the types of advice given and the relative degree of risk or benefit associated with each.

Inhibiting Behaviour with Techniques that Cause Fear or Pain The basis for this type of programme is that dogs show behaviours because they are trying to achieve high status, and in order to prevent this, the dog has to be shown who is the pack leader. The problems with this argument, in terms of both evidence of the normal social behaviour of dogs, and their cognitive ability is explained in Whats wrong with using dominance? The types of techniques used to achieve this goal can be very aversive to dogs, and can include devices such as prong collars, choke chains, alpha rolling dogs, or other types of physical restraint. The use of these techniques is likely to adversely affect the welfare of dogs, and may result in injury to the dog. For the reasons explained in Whats wrong with using aversive training techniques?, using these techniques may lead to a worsening of existing problem behaviours, the development of further undesired behaviours, or the risk of injury to the owner. Programmes Using a Non-confrontational Approach Other trainers use programmes that are based on dominance theory but which do not advocate the use of punitive training techniques. The theory behind these programmes is that dogs perceived status in the hierarchy will be influenced by the extent to which the owner either controls important resources, or controls the activity of the dog. These programmes generally involve less direct confrontation, and are less likely to cause the same types of adverse welfare or behavioural outcomes. The types of advice given in these programmes include eating before the dog, going through doorways before the dog, restricting access to toys, preventing the dog from getting on the furniture, moving the dog around or controlling interaction with the dog. Since we now believe that dogs do not plan how to enhance their hierarchy in the family, but develop specific behavioural response to events through learning, many aspects of these programmes have limited benefits in resolving specific undesired behaviours. For example, a dog may rush through the back door, because they are excited to get outside, and rushing gets them there faster. Teaching the dog that the door only opens if it waits will make it better behaved in this context, and less likely to knock people over, but the dog will not think about this new rule about doors in terms of an abstract concept like dominance status. Introducing this rule is unlikely, therefore, to alter a behaviour which is unrelated to going through doors. Equally, dogs will learn when to expect their food, and are likely to get excited at the events which predict food arriving. Changing the feeding routine may alter behaviours associated with this context, but the dog will not be thinking about how their relative feeding time relates to their status. In some cases owners are advised to get into the dogs bed or take their food away. These are not advised, since a dog that is anxious about being approached when eating or when in its bed, may show aggression in response to these actions. Again this is not because the dog thinks that it is Pack leader, but simply that it has learnt from past experience that people or other dogs approaching whilst it is eating predicts that the food will be taken away! Some aspects of these programmes can, however, be very helpful in some cases, although not due to dominance reduction. Where owners are advised to control their interactions with their dog, for

11 example, this can help reduce anxiety, not by changing relative status, but by making interactions with people more consistent. This means that the dog can better predict when interactions will occur and what the likely outcome will be. Many modern programmes of behaviour therapy include protocols which aim to increase the consistency of interactions between owners and their dogs. Consistency What is important for owners to understand is not to dominate their dog but to be calm and CONSISTENT with it. Dogs, like people, go through their lives trying to work out what predicts important events (good or bad), how to avoid bad things, and how to achieve good things. In each situation, they will develop an expectation of what is likely to happen and what the consequence of their own behaviour is likely to be, and will become anxious if these expectations do not match reality. If we are inconsistent or unpredictable in the way we behave with our dogs, we can often cause them considerable anxiety, often without realising what we have done. The following story is an example of how undesired behaviours can arise through inconsistent responses from owners. Imagine a cute puppy let say a Great Dane called Bing. Bing learns that picking up a slipper and rushing round with it makes people laugh and ends in a chase game, something which is very common. Bing therefore learns that picking up something smelling of feet is positively reinforced with lots of lovely owner attention (a strong motivator for dogs that live with people). As Bing gets older, bigger, more dribbly, and less cute, the owners dont find it so funny. He, however, still highly values his owners attention, so he tries harder, rushing round more, dropping the slipper on their laps, or trying different things that smell of feet. His owners, busy with their lives, get annoyed and start to tell Bing off when he is annoying perfectly sensible from their point of view, but very confusing for Bing. He still values slippers, and he has a strong learnt association between slippers and attention, but when his owners shout he gets anxious and takes the slipper under the kitchen table. At some point in this story, Bing picks up the owners best patent leather shoe when they are in a hurry getting ready, and they chase him this is the old game that he recognises and starts running off with the shoe. They shout, Bing gets anxious and goes under the table with the shoe. His owner really needs her shoe, so pursues him under the table, hauls him out, smacks him, prises open his mouth and takes the shoe. He is scared his owner is suddenly displaying unexplained aggression! Bing now has two bits of learning, firstly that picking up things that smell of feet leads to lovely human interaction which he highly values, but also that sometimes when he has a shoe in his mouth his owners might unpredictably show aggression towards him. The cues he recognises that predict the aggression are them raising their voice pitch, having dilated pupils and putting their hand towards him if this happens he knows there will be a bad outcome. He has also learnt that appeasement and hiding do not work to avoid the punishment, making it likely that he will start to show aggression. This is the point that the owner often seeks advice. Unfortunately they may still be advised that Bing is being dominant, and instructed to punish him (which will make him more worried about this context and more aggressive). Sometimes they are told that to readjust the hierarchy by going through doors first, and eating first. He may learn to do these things, but he will have not learnt anything different about the specific context that he has become anxious about (i.e. people approaching when he has a slipper in his mouth). To make a difference to this dogs behaviour (and welfare), a qualified behaviourist would first explain to the owner to how the behaviour has developed, so that they understood the reasons behind the different aspects of the treatment programme. The programme of advice given would be likely to include a programme of behaviour therapy which has elements to address the inconsistency of owners, and to teach the dog something different about the specific context(s) that it is responding to. For further information see What do I do if my dog has a behaviour problem? Conclusion In short, dogs dont relate getting on the sofa with their owners, eating first, or going through the door first as any thing to do with an abstract idea of social status they just learn about those individual contexts. So, there is no fundamental problem with dogs getting on sofas, as long as the owner is consistent about it. If a dog normally comes into the room and leaps straight on the sofa without being asked and gets cuddled, then it develops a strong expectation of doing so and getting rewarded. If owners then one day shouts at the dog, drags it off the sofa by the collar and smacks it because it has muddy paws and they have just vacuumed, the dog is being punished for a behaviour that it is normally rewarded for. This dog may respond with aggression - but its not dominant, just confused! It is not helpful, underestimates the amazing learning abilities of our dogs, and often leads to inappropriate responses, to suggest that behaviours are motivated by trying to achieve status.
Being a responsible pet owner includes making sure that you teach your dog some basic obedience to ensure that you can keep him or her under reasonable control in public places. Reward based training also helps to build and strengthen the relationship between you and your dog, and makes being with your dog a more pleasurable experience. There are lots of different sorts of training classes, and lots of instructors with different qualifications or memberships, (but remember - a long list of letters after their name is no guarantee that the instructor is suitably qualified or

How do I Find a Suitable Dog Training Course?

experienced!), so choosing where to go with your dog can be very confusing. Finding a trainer who is accredited with a professional organisation that has a code of practice, insurance and assessment procedures for membership will help to ensure standards. For example, The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) in the UK accredits trainers who have been assessed to ensure their competence, and who sign up to a code of conduct which includes an undertaking to not use coercive or punitive techniques and equipment. There are a number of similar organisations in the US, for example the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, which requires applicants to complete theoretical and practical assessment prior to membership, and whose members sign a code of conduct and attend continuing education events. It is always a good idea to attend a training class without your dog first, so you can assess the type of training that is being used, see if you feel relaxed with the instructor and assistants, and would be happy to bring your dog into that environment. Some of the things that you should look for include: Observe the behaviour of dogs in the class. If this is the first night of a course some of the dogs may be anxious until they have settled in. How do the instructors and/or assistants help the anxious dog and their owner? If this is the second or later class the dogs should be relaxed with wagging tails and be interested in their surroundings. Be wary of classes where lots of dogs appear to be cowered, have their tail between their legs, or do not make eye contact with their owner or trainer. Look out for the types of training methods used. You should not consider joining the class if instructors/assistants are recommending techniques which rely on inducing fear or pain, such as prong collars, or where they rely on shouting at dogs, or hitting them with hands, feet or the lead. There is no need for such techniques to be used in the training of a dog. Check that dogs are motivated to show the desired behaviours through the use of rewards such as food treats or playing with a toy, and not through fear of the consequences. Check whether there are an appropriate number of dogs and owners for the situation. For example, the APDT (UK) recommends no more than 8 puppies in a class with an instructor and one assistant. Lots of dogs crowded together in a hall can create problems, and too many dogs makes it difficult for the instructor to clearly see what is happening, and be available to help owners. Observe whether the class is calm and quiet lots of shouting (by owners) and barking indicates that people and dogs are finding the situation stressful. Except in an emergency, there is no reason for an instructor to be shouting at dogs or owners. See if the instructor recognises that each dog is an individual and may be motivated by different things (such as food, play or toys), and is likely to progress at different rates. For example, check that the instructor or assistants do not force anxious dogs to participate in activities before they relax and are ready to take part. If your dog becomes anxious during training sessions, or is not keen to enter the training class, then group training may not be appropriate for him or her at this stage and you should speak to the instructor about oneto-one training. Are the instructors and assistants friendly and do they welcome you observing their class? A good instructor will be proud of the service they are offering and will be pleased that you are taking the trouble to find out about classes before enrolling your dog. You should also check that the instructor is not giving advice beyond their level of knowledge or qualification. For example, you should be wary of instructors who give advice about serious behavioural disorders, such as aggression, or medical disorders within their training class. Owners should be advised to seek advice from their veterinary surgeon in such cases. Before or after the class, ask some of the other participants about their experiences of the course, and how successful they have found it, as it is difficult to assess how well dogs progress with their learning when attending a single class. If possible, go to the first night of a course and then go back to the same class a few weeks later. Further information about finding a suitable trainer is available from The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behaviour.

12

What is a behaviour problem? A behaviour problem is really any behaviour shown by a dog that people find a problem! People obviously vary in how much they tolerate different behaviours in their dogs, so what some people regard as a problem, others can be quite happy to live with. This means that behaviour problems can range from things like dogs jumping up to greet their owners as they return, to extreme forms of aggression, or behaviours that appear hallucinatory such as snapping at flies that are not there. The term behaviour problem, therefore, covers a wide range of issues from situations where dogs have not been trained how to behave in response to particular events, to behaviours which are linked to medical problems. As a general rule, if your dog shows obedience training problems such as pulling on the lead or failing to come when called, then you should look for a reputable trainer to help you. However, if your dog shows behaviours such as aggression, withdrawal from or avoidance of particular sounds or events, excessive vocalisation or destruction when left alone, then you should seek help from your veterinary surgeon, who will be able to refer you to somebody who specialises in clinical behaviour. These behaviours are often signs that your dog is experiencing a negative emotional state (such as fear or anxiety) in particular situations, and a qualified behaviourist will be able to develop a tailored treatment programme to resolve both the behaviour and any underlying emotional distress.

What do I do if my Dog has a Behaviour Problem?

13 Why do I need to see a vet first? Behavioural changes can be an indication of a medical problem. There are a whole range of different conditions that can first present as an apparent behaviour problem but which are in fact signs of disease. For example, neurological problems in the brain or spinal cord, hormonal disorders, inflammation of the bladder, or reduced functioning of the liver can all first become apparent as behavioural changes. Medical conditions can only be diagnosed by a vet, and may require additional tests to identify the specific disorder. Because many of these conditions are very serious, it is important that your vet sees your dog first so that any necessary treatment is started as soon as possible. In addition, medical or physiological factors often influence the development of behaviour even where they are not the sole cause of the problem. For example, a sore ear in a dogs medical history may be an important factor in the development of an aggressive response to stroking on the head. It is important, therefore, for a vet to examine your dog and also ensure that a full medical history is passed on to the behaviourist at the time of referral, so that all relevant factors can be taken into account when evaluating each case. Types of behaviour professionals Depending on the nature of the behaviour that your dog is showing, your veterinarian may refer you to a behaviourist, or a veterinary behaviour specialist. Veterinary surgeons who specialize in behaviour are recognised as such by specialist boards. For example, in Europe, they are regulated by the European College of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine (Companion Animals), and in the USA the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists. In addition to a veterinary degree, Diplomats these specialist boards have considerable further training and experience in clinical behaviour. For example, they generally require applicants to complete a three year residency training programme in an approved centre, to conduct and publish research, and to show evidence of extensive clinical experience before taking an entrance examination. Veterinary Specialists treat a wide range of cases, but have particular expertise on the relationship between medical problems and behavioural signs, and are also able to determine whether medication is necessary in conjunction with behaviour modification as part of a dogs treatment programme. Alternatively, your veterinary surgeon may refer you to a non-veterinary behaviourist. Behaviourist is a widely used term which anybody can use without qualification or experience. For the welfare of your pet, therefore, it is important to seek the advice of an individual belonging to an organisation that has standards of both qualification and experience in their membership criteria. This will ensure that the behaviour expert identified is someone with the appropriate up-to-date knowledge, skills and experience to treat your pet. For example, in the UK, the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) is an independent organisation which accredits Certified Clinical Animal Behaviourists (CCAB). Membership includes obtaining an approved qualification at Honours degree level or above, and undertaking an extensive period of supervised clinical training. The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC) also represents animal behaviourists in the UK, and requires applicants to have at least a relevant degree and two years experience or a postgraduate qualification and one years experience. An example of organizations in the US is the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABS), for which membership requirements are a Masters degree in a relevant subject and a minimum of 3 years and 1500 hours in animal behaviour consulting. A qualified behaviourist will work to identifying the factors which have contributed to the development of behaviour problems. This includes sufficient knowledge about medical causes of behavioural change to recognise where further veterinary attention may be necessary. Their understanding of the range of factors which contribute to the development of behaviours enables them to develop structured treatment plans that are specific to the circumstances of each individual case. They also have the ability to critically evaluate new advances in research and clinical practice, and are required to attend continuing education, to ensure that they provide the most up to date and effective advice for pet owners. In evaluating the suitability of a behaviourist it is important to pay regard to the meaning and significance of any post-nominals given, and ensure that methods used are compatible with modern practice and the welfare of animals. Inappropriate or outdated advice or methods may adversely affect your pets welfare and even make your pets behaviour problem worse in the long term.