We all know the type…but are probably afraid to classify our own dogs as Crotch Hounds since it sounds so rude. The dog trainer is this video calls the behavior ‘checking the oil’ when visitors arrive!
Here’s a new video with some advice on how to re-train your dog so your visitors are greeted in a more socially acceptable way.
Kathleen Crisley, specialist in dog massage, rehabilitation and nutrition/food therapy, The Balanced Dog, Christchurch, New Zealand
The hierarchy in a group of dogs is not based on aggression but on submissiveness, says newly published research.
A dog ranked lower in the hierarchy displays signals of submissive behaviour towards dogs ranked higher. These findings have for the first time been substantiated by means of measurements by dog researcher Joanne van der Borg of Wageningen University and colleagues based in Utrecht.
Two beagles from the group of dogs studied. Communication by means of postures plays a central role in identifying dominance relationships between two dogs. The display of a lowered posture during an interaction by Zwart (the beagle on the right) is an acknowledgement of the higher status of Witband (left), who adopts a higher posture. Both dogs display mutual aggression (Witband by staring fixedly and Zwart by baring his teeth), which was found not to be a suitable measure of dominance. Photo: Joanne van der Borg.
In the study into dominance, a group of dogs was placed together on working days, and stable relationships formed between them after a few months. By closely observing and analysing the exchange of seven postures and 24 behaviours by the dogs, the researchers were able to establish a hierarchy. This proved to be linear.
The suitability of signals as a measure of dominance was determined using the exchange of signals between two animals. Suitable signals are postures or behaviours which are only displayed within a relationship from animal A to animal B and not in the opposite direction. Based on the receipt of submissive signals, the dogs were ranked from high to low.
The study supports the view that the dominance in a group of dogs is not determined by aggression, as many dog owners and dog trainers believe. Aggression is found to be exhibited by higher-ranked dogs towards lower-ranked dogs but also in the opposite direction, from lower-ranked dogs towards higher-ranked dogs. For this reason, signals of aggression are not suitable as a measure of dominance.
The idea of dominance in dogs is popular among some dog trainers in various countries. They believe that dogs, like wolves, are natural born fighters with only one aim: to reach the top of the hierarchy. By contrast, a different school of thought among dog trainers holds that dominance is an outdated and obsolete notion which is not applicable to our domestic dogs. There has been much misunderstanding about the interpretation of this view, because until now there was a lack of substantiation by means of hard figures.
The signals of submissiveness from a dog meeting another member of its species can best be read from the lowering of the posture compared to the other dog. Another expression of acknowledgement of the higher status of the other individual is body-tail-wagging. This behaviour, often seen in young dogs when greeting other dogs, involves the tail moving in quite broad strokes, often with the hindquarters (the hind part of the body) moving with it. Both forms of submissiveness are an expression of ‘formal dominance’, because the context (aggression, greeting, play) does not matter. The findings are in line with previous results into dominance among wolves in captivity and Italian feral dogs.
The study contributes to our knowledge about the ways in which dogs communicate their status towards other dogs. This is important for correctly classifying the hierarchical relationship between two dogs, and probably also between human and dog. This in turn helps establish the correct diagnosis in the event of problem behaviour and will therefore improve the welfare of dogs.
Dogs who suffer with separation anxiety become more optimistic when taking the animal equivalent of Prozac during behavioural treatment, according to the results of an innovative new study.
Led by researchers at the University of Lincoln, UK, the research has for the first time revealed how the animals feel during the clinical treatment of behaviours associated with negative emotions.
Jess Cook signed up for the study as her dog Lexi would become so distraught when left alone in the house neighbours would complain about her howling.
Jess Cook and Lexi, photo courtesy of University of Lincoln, UK
For five weeks in 2013, Lexi, now seven, took two tablets a day in some butter. She also underwent behaviour management therapy, which taught her to cope better with being separated from her owner.
Miss Cook, who runs Like My Own Pet Care Services in Derbyshire and is studying for her MSc in Clinical Animal Behaviour at the University of Lincoln, slowly built up the amount of time Lexi was left unattended for. It proved successful and now she has come off her medication.
Canine separation-related problems – also described as separation anxiety or separation distress – are among the most common behavioural complaints of dog owners. But the issue of using psychoactive medication to help pets with behavioural problems is a widely debated one.
Treatment with psychoactive medication in parallel with a behaviour modification plan is well documented, but it is unknown if this is associated with an improvement in underlying emotion or mood, or simply an inhibition of the behaviour.
The new study, published in the peer-reviewed veterinary science journal BMC Veterinary Research, has thrown new light on the topic with researchers devising a method to evaluate animals’ emotional state when treated with fluoxetine – the active ingredient in Prozac for humans and Reconcile for pets. Prozac, the trade name for fluoxetine, is typically used to treat depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety in humans.
The researchers recruited dogs showing signs of separation anxiety, such as barking, howling, destruction of property and toileting when alone, and used a special behaviour test to determine if they were feeling ‘optimistic’ or ‘pessimistic’.
In the test, dogs were taught that when a food bowl was placed in one location it contained food, but when placed in another location that it was empty. The bowl was then placed in ambiguous locations, and the dogs’ response was assessed to determine whether they expected food (i.e. ‘optimistic’) or not (i.e. ‘pessimistic’).
The results indicated that when dogs were treated for separation problems using both a behaviour modification programme combined with fluoxetine treatment that they did become more optimistic, and as their mood improved so did the behaviour problem. The same results were not recorded for the control group.
Research lead Daniel Mills, Professor of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine at the School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, said: “For quite a while, I, like many others, have been concerned as to whether drugs such as Reconcile simply inhibit the behaviour and perhaps had no effect on the animal’s mood. With the advent of new methods to assess animal welfare, we were able to answer this question and were pleased to see that, when the drug is used within normal therapeutic ranges, the dogs do indeed seem better.”
“However, it is important to emphasise that animals were treated with both the drug and a behaviour modification programme – with both being essential for effective treatment. Using the drug does seem to bring about a rapid improvement in mood while the animal responds to the training programme. The reality is, whether we like it or not, there are animals who are suffering and we need to take measures to both prevent the problem but also manage it as effectively as possible when it arises.”
Animal behaviour specialists at the University of Lincoln (UK) have published a study that supports the use of positive reward-based training methods over the use of electronic shock collars.
The immediate effects of training pet dogs with an electronic collar cause behavioural signs of distress, particularly when used at high settings.
The study involved 63 pet dogs referred for poor recall and related problems, including livestock worrying, which are the main reasons for collar use in the UK. The dogs were split into three groups – one using e-collars and two as control groups.
The trainers in the study were industry approved and fully familiar with the guidelines for use of e-collars which are published by collar manufacturers.
Trainers used lower settings with a pre-warning function and behavioural responses were less marked than during a preliminary study (the results of which have since been discounted because the trainers did not follow collar protocols). Despite this, dogs trained with e-collars showed behavioural changes that were consistent with a negative response. These included showing more signs of tension, more yawning and less time engaged in environmental interaction than the control dogs.
Following training most owners reported improvements in their dog’s problem behaviour. Owners of dogs trained using e-collars were, however, less confident of applying the training approach demonstrated.
These findings indicate that there is no consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training, but greater welfare concerns compared with positive reward-based training.
Lead author Jonathan Cooper, Professor of Animal Behaviour and Welfare at the University of Lincoln’s School of Life Sciences, said: “e-collar training did not result in a substantially superior response to training in comparison to similarly experienced trainers who do not use e-collars to improve recall and control chasing behaviour.
Accordingly, it seems that the routine use of e-collars even in accordance with best practice, as suggested by collar manufacturers, presents a risk to the well-being of pet dogs. The scale of this risk would be expected to be increased when practice falls outside of this ideal.”
The peer-reviewed journal article for this research is:
Jonathan J Cooper, Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman, Hannah Wright, Daniel Mills ‘The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training’ PLOSone http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102722
New research suggests that dogs who spend a short time in boarding kennels may not find it unduly stressful and – quite the opposite – could find the change of scenery exciting.
Photo courtesy of Jerry Green Dog Rescue
The research team, which included academics from the University of Lincoln, UK, University of Birmingham, Queen’s University Belfast and The Royal Veterinary College, measured a range of stress parameters in 29 privately-owned dogs – both at home and in one of three private boarding kennel establishments in Northern Ireland.
This study aimed to test the validity of a range of physiological, physical and behavioural welfare indicators and to establish baseline values reflecting good dog welfare.
Physical measurements included skin dryness, nose temperature, core body temperature and amount of food eaten. Behavioural measurements included spontaneous behaviours such as lip licking, paw lifting, yawning, shaking and restlessness. Physiological measures included stress hormones (corticosteroids) and epinephrine (adrenaline).
The study revealed that dogs have higher levels of arousal, colder noses and were generally more active in kennels than when they were at home.
Based on existing research it was assumed that dogs would show higher levels of stress in the kennel compared to the home environment.
The most widely used physiological indicator of canine welfare is urinary cortisol (hormone secreted following activation of one of the major stress response systems) and creatinine (chemical waste product created by the liver) ratios (C/Cr), which is considered a valid measure of acute and chronic stress in dogs. However, the reliability of this has been questioned.
The study revealed that C/Cr was significantly higher in the kennel compared to the home environment but cortisol levels have also been found to increase after exercise and excitement, and appear to provide an indication of arousal without specifying the emotional reason of that arousal.
Dr Lisa Collins, from the School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, UK, said: “Many owners find leaving their dog at a boarding kennels a stressful experience. However, this study suggests that although dogs appeared to have a higher level of overall arousal or excitement in kennels compared with their state at home, this arousal is not necessarily due to dogs experiencing kennels as negatively stressful. The emotional reasons for the behavioural and physiological responses of the dogs were ambiguous and no definitive evidence was found to suggest that dogs were negatively stressed by kennelling.”
“Our findings did strongly suggest that C/Cr, epinephrine and nose temperature are robust measures of psychological arousal in dogs. Nonetheless, these measures can be easily misinterpreted and do not provide unequivocal indicators of psychological stress. Findings appear to suggest that the dogs in this study did not perceive admission to boarding kennels as an aversive stressor and perhaps, instead, perceived kennelling as an exciting change of scene, at least in the short-term.”
The team recommends further investigation to determine the validity of measurements tested as indicators of acute and chronic stress in domestic dogs.
Their study has been published in the journal Physiology & Behavior.
Research by Christy L Hoffman of Canisius College in New York indicates that the bond between you and your dog may be the key to their behaviour.
Photo courtesy of Canisius College
Methodology
The study looked at human-animal attachment among 60 dog-owning families, including parents and children. Participants completed questionnaires that asked about their attachment to their pet dogs, their levels of responsibility for the animals, such as feeding and walking them, and their general attitudes toward pets. Participants were also asked to rate their dogs on behavioral characteristics, including excitability, trainability, stranger fear and aggression, separation problems and attention-seeking behavior.
Findings
Hoffman thinks that the last finding is indicative of adults having busy lives with parental and work responsibilities – so they are most likely to bond with dogs that seek out their attention.
This research was a collaboration with researchers from the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania and has been published in the the journal Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin.
Source: Canisius College media release
Posted in research
Tagged canine behavior, canine behaviour, Canisius College, Christy L Hoffman
There are 15 finalists for this year’s Bark for your Park contest, sponsored by PetSafe.
PetSafe evaluated the availability of land, civic leader support, population size, and the total number of votes in the first round of the contest to come up with the finalists.
The contest supports dog parks because they provide a venue and opportunity for dogs to get vital exercise and socialization they need, which are two major factors in reducing behavior issues. People tend to meet other dog owners, trainers and pet professionals at dog parks and are able to exchange information and resources that can further encourage responsible dog ownership.
You have until July 31 to vote. Popular vote will determine the winner, who will receive $100,000. Additionally, the runner-up city in each small, medium and large category will win $25,000. The Bark from Your Heart award winner, which will be the city with the highest vote to opportunity to vote, will win $25,000.
Winners will be announced on August 7.
The finalists are:
Posted in dog care, dog ownership, Dogs
Tagged Bark for your Park, behaviour, canine behavior, canine behaviour, PetSafe, vote
Dogs purchased from pet stores are more likely to have a range of behavior problems than those purchased from small, non-commercial breeders, says a study by researchers at the Best Friends Animal Society and the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine.
The study was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
The study involved 413 dogs purchased from pet stores. Psychological and behavioral characteristics of these dogs were compared to the same characteristics in 5,657 dogs obtained from small-scale, private breeders. (Most puppies sold in pet stores in the USA are sourced from large-scale, puppy mill type commercial breeders).
Results show that dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores showed significantly more aggression toward human family members, unfamiliar people and other dogs. Dogs purchased from pet stores were almost twice as likely to exhibit aggression directed toward unfamiliar dogs than dogs purchased from small non-commercial breeders.
The pet store dogs also a displayed greater fear of other dogs and typical events in pet dogs’ lives, had more behavior problems when left alone at home, and experienced more problems with house-soiling. These behaviors in young adult dogs are reasons typically cited by people who surrender their pets to animal shelters.
“The results were so one-sided that in the wide range of behavior problems we included in our analysis, pet store dogs failed in every single case to even obtain one more favorable score than the comparison group of dogs” says Dr Frank McMillan of Best Friends Animal Society.
The research team acknowledges that the exact causes of the behavioral problems observed are not known; until these causes are understood, they recommend avoiding purchasing puppies from pet stores.
Source: BusinessWire media release
See my related post about the ASPCA’s No Pet Store Puppies initiative
Posted in animal welfare, research
Tagged aggression, aggressive behavior, aggressive behaviour, American Veterinary Medical Association, animal shelters, behavior, behaviour, Best Friends Animal Society, canine behavior, canine behaviour, pet store, pet stores, school of veterinary medicine, University of Pennsylvania
You’ve probably heard about Short Man Syndrome. (In fact, many of us (including me) have experienced it firsthand!)
Did you know that there is growing evidence of Short Dog Syndrome?
Researchers at the University of Sydney have published their research into this topic in the online journal PLoS One. Professor Paul McGreevy is the lead author of the study and says, “the shorter the dogs the less controllable their behaviour is for their owners.”
Dachshunds and other short breed dogs may be more difficult to control
The study used owners’ reports on the behaviour of over 8,000 dogs from across 80 breeds and related them to the shape of 960 dogs of those breeds, revealing strong relationships between height, bodyweight, skull proportions (relative width and length) and behaviour.
33 out of 36 undesirable behaviours were associated with height, bodyweight and skull shape
As a breed’s average height decreased, the likelihood of behaviors such as mounting humans or objects (humping), owner-directed aggression, begging for food and attention-seeking increased.
“The only behavioral trait associated with increasing height was ‘trainability’. When average bodyweight decreased, excitability and hyperactivity increased,” said Professor McGreevy.
The researchers admit that there is an aspect here of nature vs nurture. If aggressive and ‘bad’ behaviours were present in larger dogs, the results could be more dangerous. Poor behaviour in small dogs is likely to be tolerated more. Over time, breeding has resulted in the patterns observed by the research team.
When scientists studied captive wolves (and I’m talking about research that dates back to the 1960s), they observed fighting for dominance within the group and extrapolated that information as relevant to domesticated dog behaviour. Unfortunately, by studying captive wolves, the scientists were observing an artificial pack – wolves that were placed together in very unnatural circumstances.
Over the years and ‘informed’ by this research, the theory of being the Alpha Dog developed. The alpha dog is the top dog of the pack, the dog who eats first (as an example).
Trainers who picked up on the alpha dog theory taught their clients to ‘alpha roll’ their dog. That is when you force your dog to roll over on its back to signal your dominance.
It is true that wolves roll over as a submissive behaviour, but nothing in the record suggests that wolves force other wolves to roll over. Wolves will roll over on their backs as a submissive gesture – they do it willingly and not by force.
This YouTube video shows a wolf rolling over as a sign of submission:
There are many trainers today who are adopting reward-based techniques, but others still adhere to a rigid interpretation of dominance theory including alpha rolls. I’m saddened to say that when I first adopted Daisy eight years ago, I went to a local dog training club in Christchurch where the teacher believed in alpha rolls. When Daisy didn’t go ‘down’ on my command, he took both of her legs on the right side and flipped her over. I can still remember the frightened look in her eyes and I was almost in tears myself over the incident.
My advice is to stay away from any dog trainer that doesn’t use reward based techniques. Make sure any trainer you use doesn’t have outdated ideas of what is true canine behaviour.
Posted in dog care, dog ownership
Tagged alpha dog, canine behaviour, Cesar Millan, dog behavior, dog behaviour, dominance, dominance theory, youtube video
DoggyMom.com 