Dog Behavior Blog

Behavior Problems in Dogs Relinquished for Re-Homing

 Note from Con Slobodchikoff: This is a post by guest author Nancy Frensley, CPDT, CAP2, who is Manager of Behavior and Training at the Berkeley-East Bay Humane Society in Berkeley, California. She will write periodic posts about the behavioral challenges and joys of shelter dogs.

 Among the most fascinating and troubling phenomena I’ve observed while working in shelters and performing temperament testing are the difference in test responses between dogs found in shelters and dogs surrendered directly by their owners. Overall, more dogs already residing in shelters pass temperament testing and are more likely to be placed up for adoption than those brought in by owners. I have seen this hold true for over twenty years.

 The most common items that owner-surrendered dogs do not pass are guarding of food, objects and space, and also, being handled by strangers. It’s amazing that you do not see as much of this in dogs who have been in shelters – even for a few days. Many of these have been picked up as strays or have simply been back yard dogs without any family experience at all. 

During routine temperament screening for adoptability, evaluators attempt to identify dogs that will be safe when placed in a home as a companion animal. They also look for aspects of the dog’s personality that will make him a pleasant, affiliative pet, and fun for an owner or family to interact with. They also want to find out enough about the dog to match him successfully with a family or individual.

 The tests are not designed to push a dog over the edge. Or, to assess how much stress he can handle. They are solely based on typical types of interactions a dog might experience on a normal day within the home.

 A very problematic part of the tests for dogs who arrive with owners involve stroking and touching different parts of the body (including ears, eyes, paws and muzzle) to see how they tolerate being handled. A side benefit of this is it gives the evaluators an opportunity to screen the dog’s body condition for any health issues he might have, such as being under or overweight or having signs of a common illness. A surprising number of dogs have dental problems and are in need of medical attention for this alone.  Dental work can be anything from a dental cleaning to tooth extractions. And, it is not uncommon for dogs to be surrendered for re-homing because the owner cannot afford the vet bills.

 Other tests include those that measure a dog’s tendency to guard food or objects. Dogs with guarding issues are frequently unsafe to live with as pets. While guarding behaviors can certainly be worked with and modified, it is not a good idea to place a dog that is known to have this problem in a new companion home.

In today’s economy, more people seem to be forced to give up loved pets to shelters for re-homing. It is a heart-wrenching decision, but one that must be made under many circumstances.  Whatever the reason, I have never seen this to be easy for anyone.

 

When someone arrives at a shelter with a dog they must surrender, the dog is temperament tested and screened for health issues without the owner present. This is where I see a lot of differences between un-owned and owned dogs.  The owned ones are usually dogs that have been treated as pets and lived (for the most part) successfully with people for a number of years. Amazingly enough, a large number of these dogs growl or snap at simple, gentle stroking or just upon making eye contact with a person. An extraordinarily large number of them guard a bowl of food or an item such as a bone or chew stick.

 The owners typically have never experienced any of this with their dogs, but here are a couple of things that might be going wrong: 1.) The dog finds himself in a situation that reminds him of the veterinarian’s office and/or 2.) The dog feels the tension and sadness in his owner. This might explain why he suddenly feels intimidated or frightened by simple eye contact or being touched by a stranger. However, it does not explain guarding. Possessiveness of food and other items is closely tied to a dog’s survival traits and is more than likely a fixed pattern of behavior. The fact it did not appear in the home setting could be a result of gradual habituation and the build up of trust in his owner and the living environment. In the new situation, it surfaces and as a result the dog becomes difficult to place into a new home.

 These experiences make it incumbent upon me to stress the importance of full and complete socialization of any companion dog from the first day he arrives at your home. From my experience in teaching puppy classes to that of working with difficult and aggressive dogs, nothing jumps out as being more important than giving a dog the ability to trust people in all situations. And it is, truly, we who have the unique ability to create trust in our dogs. They cannot do it on their own. As dog owners, we own the obligation to help our dogs trust others beside ourselves, so if needed they can make it through the difficult times in their lives as well as ours.

 

 

 

 

April is Child Abuse Prevention Month

Of course, we should all work towards preventing child abuse all year long, but April is the official month for doing so. As a mom, this issue hurts my heart. As a dog lover, I am fully aware of the links between cruelty to animals, including the canine set, and violence towards people, including the most vulnerable—children.

 

There are well-known links between violence towards animals, including torture and abuse and that same sort of violence towards children. Animal abuse can signal other dysfunctional and problematic behavior. As a predictor of future antisocial behavior, a person’s cruelty to animals often shows up at an earlier age than bullying, cruelty to people, vandalism, setting fires, or any other red flags useful for predicting future violent behavior. Additionally, in a household where children are abused, it is optimistic to the point of absurd to assume that pets are safe from the violence. Interestingly, the advocates in an early case of child abuse in this country included people whose life’s work was to protect animals from cruelty.

 

In the 1870s, the case of a badly abused girl in New York City named Mary Ellen set up a chain of events that led to the creation of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC). In 1877, this organization and several societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals from around the country joined forces and formed the American Human Association. Mary Ellen’s horrible suffering ignited world-wide efforts to protect children from abuse, and people involved in human treatment of animals were critical in the efforts to help Mary Ellen, and all other children in abusive situations.

 

In Mary Ellen’s case, she was in informal foster care of sorts after the death of her father and the ensuing poverty of her mother. Neighbors aware of the ill treatment of Mary Ellen by the woman of the household asked a mission worker named Etta Wheeler, who regularly checked on the poor residents of the building, to check on the child.

 

Etta Wheeler found a dirty, undernourished girl of about ten with numerous bruises and scars on her arms and legs, and a gash on her face. She was whipped daily as well as attacked with scissors and had suffered physical harm by numerous other methods. The state was not willing to intervene on the child’s behalf. Etta Wheeler continued to be an advocate for Mary Ellen, eventually seeking the help of Henry Bergh, a leader within the movement for humane treatment of animals in the United States who founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Wheeler had a niece who implored her to contact Bergh, saying, “You are so troubled over that abused child, why not go to Mr. Bergh? She is a little animal surely.” This remark is likely the source of an untrue but widely told story that attorneys for Mary Ellen argued that she was protected from abuse as a member of the animal kingdom under the laws that protected animals from cruelty.

 

Bergh acted in the case as a citizen concerned about human treatment of children rather than in his official capacity as president of the NYSPCA. However, his prominent position and links to the legal system and the media were instrumental in the removal of Mary Ellen from her abusive home as well as in the development of an official system whose goal is protecting children from abuse.

 

After being removed from her abusive home, Mary Ellen was cared for by relatives of Etta Wheeler. She went on to marry and have children, one of whom she named Etta, and lived to the age of 92.

 

It matters how people treat animals, and just one of the many reasons is that when any cruelty or violence is permitted by society, other types are allowed to go undetected and unstopped. The sorts of societies that can tolerate abuse of animals are more likely to tolerate inhumane treatment of children, and people who care about the humane treatment of animals are often active in protecting children from cruelty as well.

 

The safety of abused individuals of any species often depends on just one person committed to caring and helping. Whenever people speak out to help others or step in to help just one individual, the snowball effects of their actions invariably lead to the cessation of additional cases of cruelty.

 

--Karen London

 

 

Do Confrontational Training Methods Work?

In my dog training classes, people would often come to me and tell me that they tried hitting their dog or yelling at him to get him to stop a particular behavior, but nothing seemed to work. My response has always been that rewards are better than punishment. However, this was based on my own experience and on learning theory. All I had was anecdotal data, and a conviction that dogs should not be treated this way.

Now an article in the February 2009 issue of the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science addresses this matter in a scientific survey (Herron, M.E., F.S. Shofer and I.R. Reisner. 2009. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesirable behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117: 47-54).

In this article, the authors surveyed 140 dog owners whose dogs had a variety of behavioral issues, such as aggression to familiar people, aggression to unfamiliar people, aggression to dogs, separation anxiety, or a variety of fears such as to thunderstorms and loud noises. The authors asked the owners to list the methods that they used to deal with these behavioral issues. The owners were also asked if they were bitten, snapped-at, or growled-at as a result of using these methods.

The methods that were used could be grouped into two categories: confrontational and non-confrontational.

Confrontational methods were subdivided into direct confrontation and indirect confrontation.

Direct confrontation included the alpha roll, pushing the dog down into a lying position, hitting or kicking the dog, jabbing the neck, using a prong or choke collar, using leash corrections, using a muzzle, forcibly removing something from a dog’s mouth, forcibly pulling the dog down with a leash, grabbing the dog by the scruff of the neck, using a shock collar, and rubbing the dog’s nose in soiled areas.

Indirect confrontation included yelling “no”, spraying the dog with a water pistol or bottle, growling at the dog, or staring down the dog.

Non-confrontational methods included using the “Look” or “Watch Me” commands, food rewards, food-stuffed toys, use of food as a trade for an item that the dog is holding, using the “Sit” command, and clicker training.

Among the direct confrontational methods, many provoked an aggressive response (bite, snap, growl, bare the teeth, or lunge at person) from some dogs. Each of the following direct confrontational methods is listed with the percent of dogs who responded with an aggressive response: Hitting or kicking the dog, 43%; Forcibly removing something from the dog’s mouth, 38%; Muzzle use, 36%; Alpha roll, 31%; Dominance down, 29%; Grabbing the dog by the scruff of the neck, 26%; Forcing the dog down with a leash, 17%; Choke or pinch collar, 11%; Shock collar, 10%.

Indirect confrontational methods also provoked aggressive responses from some dogs. Each of the following indirect confrontational methods is listed with the percent of dogs who responded with an aggressive response: Growl at dog, 41%; Stare down the dog, 30%; Water pistol or bottle, 20%; Yelling “no”, 15%.

Among the non-confrontational methods, the percent of dogs responding with aggression ranged from 0-6%. The highest aggressive response was when food was used as a trade for an object that the dog was holding (6%). Using the “Look” or “Watch Me” commands and using clicker training showed a 0% aggressive response, while using food rewards, the “Sit” command, and food-stuffed toys each had a 2% aggressive response.

The results of this survey show that using aggressive methods on a dog can result in an aggressive response. Some of this might be aggression as a result of fear on the part of the dog. An earlier study published in 2007 reported that using punishment in training dogs can give rise to fear-related responses (Blackwell et al. 2007. The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behaviour problems in a population of domestic dogs. In: Proceedings of the 6^th International Veterinary Behaviour Meeting, Fondazione Iniziative Zooprofilattiche e Zootecniche, Brescia, Italy, pp. 51-52).

Interestingly enough, the dog owners were asked in the survey where they learned about the methods that they used.

Many owners reported that they learned about the direct confrontation methods from dog trainers. The percent of owners who learned about these methods from trainers is as follows: Force dog down with a leash, 70%; Choke or pinch collar, 66%; Leash correction, 50%; Knee dog in the chest for jumping, 31%; Bark-activated shock collar, 40%; Remote-activated shock collar, 29%.

Use of many of the non-confrontational methods fell into the category that the authors of the survey called “Self,” in other words, the owners thought of using these methods themselves, without any recommendations from anyone. The percent of owners who fell into the “Self” category for the different non-confrontational methods are as follows: Using food to trade for an item held by the dog, 63%; Food rewards, 56%; Using the “Sit” command, 54%; Food-stuffed toys, 54%; “Look” or “Watch Me” commands, 34%; Clicker training, 23%. However, between 31 and 60 percent of the owners reported that these methods were also recommended by dog trainers.

The value of this study is that it presents quantitative data showing that rewards work better than punishment in training dogs.

Let’s say that you are constantly exposed to someone who yells at you, can hit or kick you at any moment, hurts you, and generally scares you much of the time. Would you be willing and happy to do things for that person? If you answered “No,” then why should we expect dogs to be any different?

--Con Slobodchikoff