THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING & GUIDING YOUR REACTIVE DOG
This guidebook will assist you in working with and supporting your dog through their reactions. A reaction is based in emotion, as we discussed above… so it is important to act as your dog’s guide so that you can increase their confidence and their resilience.
Just like us humans, dogs can react to certain things (aka stimulus) in their environments. The reaction can depend on many factors, including novelty, emotion, and proximity. These reactions can sometimes reflect BIG emotions, also known as arousal. Arousal can lead our dog to excitement, and eventually to frustration. Our dog’s can also be experiencing fear, pain, or discomfort — which will greatly change how they interact with the world (and the stimulus) around them.
Dog’s generally will respond to stimulus in their environment in four ways. The fight / flight / freeze / flirt response in your dog might look like any of the following behaviors:
Focusing on the stimulus for more than 2-3 seconds
Body stiffens, also known as a freeze response
Barking, lunging, or moving towards the stimulus
Cowering, hiding, running away, or making themselves appear small
Jumping up and biting the leash or the handler out of frustration
Redirected bites to the handler
There is a good amount of reasoning behind your dog’s reactions. Let’s keep in mind the LEGS model…
LEARNING – Dogs learn by association, just like we do. Have you ever met someone who came up in your personal bubble, greeted you rudely, or gave you a bad gut feeling? You would use this situation to learn to steer clear of similar interactions with this person in the future… you might even use a tactic to get the person to steer clear of you, or to create distance between you both. Trauma also falls under this category.
ENVIRONMENT – What is your dog’s day-to-day life like? Are their needs being met? Meeting your dog’s needs goes way beyond neighborhood walks and basic affection. They need routine, predictable patterns, and enrichment.
GENETICS – Your dog has been bred for thousands of years for a very specific purpose! It is only recently that many of these breeds are becoming house pets. Some dogs are predisposed to stranger danger… some dogs have been bred to chase after, control, and bite at moving things…
SELF – Your dog is a unique individual! Factors can include age, health, and individual personality. Pain is a big source of overreactions in dogs, that often gets overlooked.
MANTRAS FOR REACTIVE DOGS
Reactive dogs are not bad dogs.
Reactive dogs need additional guidance, not additional corrections.
Reactive dogs are having a hard time, not giving you a hard time.
UNDERSTANDING REACTIVITY: THE TRUTHS
Reactivity occurs when a dog displays action or behavior that coincides with its feelings about a specific trigger or situation.
This can mean reacting in ways such as barking and/or lunging towards the trigger(s).
Trigger stacking can occur when a dog is overstimulated by more than one trigger at a time, or one right after another.
Reactivity happens when a dog’s emotions display themselves outwardly.
Reactivity can stem from a place of fear and insecurity.
Reactivity can happen when on-leash excitement turns into frustration, and frustration levels can vary between various dogs and breeds.
In order to fully understand your dog’s reactivity, you must understand the following…
THE UNDERLYING EMOTIONS AT PLAY
Fight vs. Flight – if we take away a dog’s option to FLEE by putting them on a leash to take them for a walk… they may learn that their only option is to FIGHT.
HOW EMOTIONS AFFECT BEHAVIOR
Behavior is the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.
Behavior is based on feedback.
HOW OUR PROVIDED FEEDBACK AFFECTS EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORS
What are we feeling? Energy is emotion and intention.
SO HOW DO WE BEGIN TO HELP OUR REACTIVE DOG?
Look at That (LAT) Training
Developed by Leslie McDevitt
LAT OVERVIEW
Why this is useful for your dog to know: Some dogs go ballistic (barking, lunging and generally freaking out) on leash when they see something exciting or scary. Although a lot of dogs display reactive behavior, it can be embarrassing at best and dangerous at worst. Implementing this “look at that” training plan will help dogs stay calm and safe in these situations.
End behavior: The dog will look at the trigger (whatever she is reactive toward) and then look back at the handler.
Step 1: Decide on a sound, word or visual marker that you’ll use to indicate to your dog that she’s doing something great and a treat will follow. Clickers and a verbal “yes” or “good” are popular markers.
Step 2: To teach your dog that the marker always means a treat is coming, click the clicker or say the word and then give her a treat immediately. Do this repeatedly, until she looks expectantly at you whenever you use the marker.
Step 3: Next, with the dog on leash, stand at a distance from the trigger. You should be far enough away that your dog sees her trigger but isn’t reacting. As soon as she looks at the trigger, use your marker. She should turn toward you in anticipation of the treat. When she does, give her the treat. Repeat 10-15 times.
Step 4: When she consistently looks at her trigger without reacting, test to see if she’ll look back at you in anticipation of the marker and treat after she looks at her trigger. If so, mark and then treat. If not, repeat the previous step.
Step 5: Gradually, one foot at a time, decrease the distance between your dog and the trigger. Continue using your marker and treats if she doesn’t react. You may have to shift between Steps 3 and 4 as the distance decreases.
PROOFING: Proofing means teaching the dog to generalize the behavior in different contexts. It’s important to practice LAT often with your dog. When you first start, you will want to practice in the same environment, someplace that is low-stress for your dog. If your dog is reactive toward other dogs, make sure that you are practicing with a calm, non-reactive dog as the trigger.
BAT helps animals gain confidence and social skills. BAT is a natural method that creates an emotionally safe interaction with minimal intrusion. BAT is especially useful when the “triggers” for frustration, aggression, or fear are living beings, for example when dogs bark at or bite other dogs or people.
Separation anxiety in canines is a quite common issue. Separation anxiety displays itself as our dog being under distress when we leave them on their own. Most of us, after all, would jump at the chance to have our pets by our sides, all of the time… so why shouldn’t our pets feel the same way? While this may seem ideal, it is entirely unhealthy from both ends of the relationship. Our dogs should feel at ease when they must be without us, and we should rightly so feel at ease when we must leave our dogs on their own. There is much work that must go in from both ends to make this happen more naturally!
SYMPTOMS OF SEPARATION ANXIETY
Urinating and Defecating: Unusual urination or defecation when the dog is separated from their guardian, or left alone. If the same behavior is happening in the presence of the guardian, it is likely not caused by separation anxiety. Perhaps this dog was punished for soiling the house, or was not completely house-trained?
Barking and Howling: Unusual barking or howling for any prolonged amount of time might be an indicator of separation anxiety. This kind of barking is persistent and doesn’t seem to be triggered by anything except being left alone.
Chewing, Digging, Destruction: Some dogs that experience separation anxiety may chew on, dig, or destroy certain objects (including door frames, floors, pillows, carpets, curtains) when left alone or separated from their guardians. These behaviors can result in self-injury – such as broken teeth, cut and scraped paws, and damaged nails. If a dog’s chewing, digging and destruction are caused by separation anxiety, they don’t usually occur in his guardian’s presence.
Escaping: A dog with separation anxiety might try to escape from an area where he’s confined when he’s left alone or separated from his guardian. The dog might attempt to dig and chew through doors or windows, which could result in self-injury, such as broken teeth, cut and scraped front paws, and damaged nails. If the dog’s escape behavior is caused by separation anxiety, it doesn’t occur when his guardian is present.
Pacing: Some dogs walk or trot along a specific path in a fixed pattern when left alone or separated from their guardians. Some pacing dogs move around in circular patterns, while others walk back and forth in straight lines. If a dog’s pacing behavior is caused by separation anxiety, it usually doesn’t occur when his guardian is present.
Coprophagia: When left alone or separated from their guardians, some dogs defecate and then consume all or some of their excrement. If a dog eats excrement because of separation anxiety, he probably doesn’t perform that behavior in the presence of his guardian.
WHY DOES SEPARATION ANXIETY OCCUR?
There isn’t conclusive evidence as to why certain dogs experience separation anxiety, however we do know that separation anxiety can be pre-determined by genetics, and is often times exacerbated by the environment, any sort of change to the mundane, and prolonged stress.
A few common reasons that a dog can experience a higher level of stress include a change of family or guardian (foster change, adoption), a change in regular schedule (when and how things happen), a change in residence (loss of territory), or a change in household membership (adding or losing a member to the family).
It can also be determined that dogs who have been adopted from a rescue or a shelter can experience separation anxiety in far greater numbers than those dogs who have been in one, singular environment for the duration of their lives. For example, adopting a puppy as a family and keeping the puppy with the same family for the duration of their lives is much less stressful and anxiety-producing for said dog. This is basic logic, as the loss of an important person or group of people in a dog’s life can increase the chances of stress, and therefore of separation anxiety. This change or loss can also produce an effect on the intensity and the frequency of the separation anxiety.
As always, it is vital that any medical issues are ruled out of the equation FIRST… before applying any behavior modification protocols or new procedures with your dog. A few common medical issues that could be underlying your dog’s behaviors can include incontinence or new medications. Separation anxiety should also not be confused with containment phobia, submissive or excited urination, incomplete or improper house training, scent marking, adolescent destruction, or excessive barking – even though often times separation anxiety can lead a dog to display these common behaviors.
THE RESEARCH SUGGESTS…
New research suggests that separation anxiety in dogs should be seen as a sign of underlying frustrations rather than a diagnosis, and understanding these root causes could be key to effective treatment.
A team led by scientists from the University of Lincoln in Lincoln, England, identified four main forms of distress for dogs when separated from their owners. These include a focus on getting away from something in the house, wanting to get to something outside, reacting to external noises or events, and a form of boredom. More than 2,700 dogs representing over 100 breeds were included in the study.
The study highlights how different emotional states combine to produce problem behaviors in dogs. Although the unwanted behavior is first triggered by the owner’s departure, it arises because of a combination of risk factors that may include elements of the dog’s temperament, the type of relationship it has with the owner, and how the two of them interact.
The study, “Developing diagnostic frameworks in veterinary behavioral medicine: Disambiguating separation related problems in dogs,” was published Jan. 17 in the online journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science and is available atjav.ma/separation.
HOW TO ALLEVIATE SEPARATION ANXIETY
STEP 1: Understand the symptoms and underlying causes to the behavior.
STEP 2: Get your dog comfortable relaxing with you.
STEP 3: Get your dog comfortable relaxing with you, from across the room.
STEP 4: Get your dog comfortable relaxing with you, through a barrier.
STEP 5: Get your dog comfortable relaxing without you, from another room.
STEP 6: Get your dog comfortable relaxing without you present.
Each step should be practiced until the dog is able to fully relax in each situation. Steps can be repeated, even more than once, until the dog is totally at ease. There will be transgressions, and that is okay. This training process will not be linear.
By Aubrey Whitten, CBCC-KA | Founder, Beezy’s Pack
Bringing home a new puppy is an exciting and meaningful decision that comes with joy and responsibility. At Beezy’s Pack, we specialize in helping families prepare for and navigate the early stages of canine development using evidence-based, humane training practices. As a certified canine behavior consultant, I often work with clients eager to do things right from the start but aren’t always sure where to begin.
This post is designed to help you understand what to expect and how to prepare when you’re welcoming a new puppy into your home. If you’ve already selected a dog that fits your lifestyle well, this guide will walk you through the next critical steps—before your puppy even sets foot through the door.
Step One: Prepare the Environment
Before bringing your puppy home, creating a safe and structured environment that supports calm behavior and learning is essential. Puppies are highly impressionable; the first few days and weeks are foundational for long-term success.
Create a Designated Puppy Zone
Set up a designated area in your home that allows your puppy to rest, explore safely, and begin to learn boundaries. This might include a crate, an exercise pen, or a gated-off section of a room. The space should be free from hazards and overstimulation and offer opportunities for rest and low-pressure exploration.
Puppy-Proof Your Space
Secure loose cords, move toxic plants and cleaning supplies out of reach, and remove any small items a curious puppy might chew or swallow. Consider this the canine version of baby-proofing.
Stock Up on the Right Tools
There are a number of products that can help support healthy behavior and reduce stress during this transition period. I’ve compiled a list of recommended items—training tools, enrichment toys, crate setups, teething solutions, and more—on our Amazon affiliate list, which you can access here: View the Amazon Puppy Prep List
These are all tools I’ve personally used or recommended to clients as part of a well-rounded behavior plan.
Step Two: Set Realistic Expectations
One of the most common mistakes new puppy parents make is assuming that a puppy will quickly settle into the home without confusion or distress. In reality, even the most well-matched puppy will experience a period of adjustment.
Adjustment Takes Time
It’s common for puppies to experience fear, overexcitement, or difficulty settling during the first few days. House training is a process. So is crate training. So is sleeping through the night. Progress is rarely linear—and that’s okay.
Sleep is Critical
Puppies need 18 to 20 hours of sleep per day. Overexposure to stimuli, too much activity, or unpredictable routines can lead to cranky, overstimulated puppies more prone to biting, barking, and stress-related behaviors.
Training Should Be Developmentally Appropriate
Early training is not about strict obedience—it’s about gentle exposure, play-based learning, building positive associations, and beginning to communicate clearly. Avoid punishment or dominance-based methods, which can increase fear and damage your relationship.
Step Three: Establish a Routine
Predictability helps puppies feel secure. While your schedule doesn’t need to be rigid, having a consistent daily rhythm will reduce stress for you and your puppy. A solid routine includes:
Scheduled feeding times
Regular potty breaks (every 1–2 hours for young puppies)
Short, structured training sessions
Age-appropriate enrichment and play
Frequent rest periods throughout the day
Step Four: Build Your Support System
No matter how prepared you are, raising a puppy can feel overwhelming at times. Access to accurate, evidence-based support makes a significant difference.
At Beezy’s Pack, we offer:
Private puppy training consultations (in-person and virtual)
Guidance on crate and house training
Support for common puppy behaviors like nipping, jumping, and chewing
Custom enrichment plans
Ongoing behavior support as your puppy grows
We also offer a free downloadable Puppy Starter Guide and regularly share training videos and resources via our website and Instagram account.
Final Thoughts
Raising a puppy isn’t about perfection—it’s about building a thoughtful foundation and responding to your dog’s needs with clarity, compassion, and consistency. If you prepare intentionally, avoid rushing the process, and focus on creating a calm, predictable environment, you’ll be well on your way to raising a confident, well-adjusted adult dog.
If you’re preparing to bring home a new puppy and want professional guidance, visit www.beezyspack.com to learn more about our training programs and behavior services.
Your puppy’s success starts with how you show up for them from day one.
No significant differences in bite severity were observed between contexts.
Male victims were more numerous across all bite contexts.
Only the age of the victim was predictive of bite severity: adults were bitten more severely than infants and infants more severely than children.
Children and infants were considerably more common victims than adults. Most bites were to the limbs, followed by bites to the face and neck area. Bites to the face and neck area were more common among children and infants, which is also consistent with earlier reports.1,10,11,27 (Numbers refer to references in the essay.)
Non-neutral dog body posture and some displacement and appeasement behaviors increased approximately 20 seconds before the bite and humans made more tactile contact with dogs 21 seconds before the bite.
From nine seconds before the bite, more codes for movement away from the dog were noted.
Bites during play and benign interactions were particularly common, as reported before.10,14,16,18,24,50 (Numbers refer to references in the essay).
Standing over a dog, petting, and restraining a dog were seen proportionally more frequently closer to the bite, increasing approximately 20–30 seconds before.
The issue of dog bites and dog aggression directed at humans is frequently in the media. However, scientific research and evidence on the subject is scattered and sparse. Public and political opinions are often misinformed and out of proportion to the extent of the problem. Dog Bites brings together expert knowledge of the current situation, from a wide variety of disciplines, to provide information to the many people and professions affected by this issue. Subjects range from the practical, medical, behavioural, sociological, and theoretical, but the overall approach of the book is objective and integrative. Topics addressed include: the genetic basis of aggression; the public image of aggressive dogs; bite statistics; risk factors; the forensics and surgical aspects of dog bites; international legal perspectives; court evidence; first aid treatment; zoonotic disease potential; behavioural rehabilitation options; the risk to children; and a consideration of why some dogs kill. All contributors are academic or long-standing professional experts in their field, and they represent a wide spread of international expertise. This issue is an important one for pet owners, vets, animal shelters, and anyone who works with dogs, such as the police. This book will be a valuable resource for them, as well as for animal behaviourists, academic researchers, health professionals, dog breeders, and handlers. *** “… the first comprehensive resource on the subject of dog bites… The overall intent of the book is to prevent dog bites. …does a good job of compiling the information we think we know about dog bites into one place. It also debunks much of what were previously accepted truths about dog bites to humans. In the final chapter, the editors state they hope that ‘highlighting the many deficiencies in our understanding will inspire rather than demoralize’ and that they ‘have offered a point of reference not just to the problems but also the solutions'”. —Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 252, No. 6, March 15, 2018 [Subject: Veterinary Science, Public Policy, Animal Behavior, Animal Policing]
Ha the 80’s… So nostalgic of the eighties. Finishing High School, starting University, the best and the worst music of the past 50 years. Speaking of the things we are not missing: mullets and pony tails (I am so sorry mother, everybody was doing it…), parachute pants and stonewashed jeans (please don’t tell me they are coming back), shoulder pads, blue eye shadow, and punitive/coercive dog training methods…
The 90’s were refreshing. We started the Decade of the Brain (the new fixation and obsession with neuroscience), started to focus on dogs as genuine research subjects, and indulged in pretty radical re-thinking of everything having to do with dogs and wolves. A lot of good came out of the 90’s. But a lot of myths were also created. It was also the start of a new appreciation for science in general. Popularization of science and knowledge translation became the focus of some scientists. Some did it well. Very well. Others confused popularization with oversimplifying and polarizing issues between “right” and “wrong”, and encouraged the idea of a “truth” and the wrong idea that science is about “facts” or about “proving” things.
Let’s examine some of those ideas. First, science does NOT prove anything. Science can only be “quite sure” (at best) about something. Mathematics (a tool of science) can offer “proofs”, but the scientific process itself is not about proving anything. It does not matter if you used null hypothesis significance testing, Bayesian statistics, or any other method. If there is one thing we know about research as scientists, it is about what we are not 100% sure about. Unfortunately some scientists and non-scientists want to be convincing, and use very strong language to make their points. Many would defend that strategy by arguing that they have to convince trainers that they are doing it wrong. It seems that there is a new movement now going to rectify some of those created myths and misunderstandings. Some of us engaged in some of these comments (e.g., Roger Abrantes, Marc Bekoff, Monique Udell, myself) are often getting criticized for appearing to go against the current. Interestingly, from a scientific perspective, we are with the current. I will expand on this below.
One thing that plagues the knowledge translation process in canine science is the fact that the public has access mostly to books (albeit written by scientists). A little known fact is that most scientists don’t write books (or blog posts, or Facebook comments)… They write scientific papers, present posters and give talks to peers at scientific conferences. Why? Because many, if not most, are not interested in sharing with the public what they do. They do not have the time to write books, because, after all, peer-reviewed papers, not books, will get you tenure, other promotions, and scientific funding. The result is interesting: Most non-scientists in the dog world have a very biased perspective of who is actually well-known in the canid science world. They will name Coppinger, Klinghammer, Miklósi, Mech, etc. (all truly great scientists, for the record, along with some much less well known ones in scientific circles), and overlook other giants in the field. It always baffles me that individuals interested in wolves do not know Carbyn, Fentress, Frank, Ginsburg, Harrington, Moran, Murie, Paquet, Peterson, Pimlott, Zimen, and so many others that are unavoidable contributors of the field (in number of publications as much as scientific contributions and reputation). Although most of them have not written books, or at least not after the 90’s, they have undeniable clout in the field of wolf research (one of my PhD supervisors, John Fentress, is finishing a book as I write this).
So what are examples of confusions that arose from some popularized canine science? Here is a short list of myths. Let me just comment right away that anybody I know that a) actually worked with wolves or studied animal learning, and, b) actually read the scientific papers, would not make the statements below:
1. Punishment does not work and is always cruel. 2. Dominance does not exist in wolves. 3. Dog evolution has nothing to do with wolves.
There is quite a bit to say on each of these items. Note also that, on purpose, the statements are very black or white. In fact, especially with the corrections, clarifications, and even retractions of the past few years from some individuals, many of you will think I am unfairly dramatic. Well, I agree to some extent, but considering what I read on Facebook and elsewhere, this is at least the “dark” end of the spectrum.
You see, science is about shades of grey. Science seeks a consensus. Science seeks converging evidence. That rarely translates into “black or white” statements. Science is about synthesis, open-mindedness, even compromises. Pitting theories against each other is part of the process. But the point is to get to a golden middle. To that idealized “truth” that some promise you. Regardless of what they say, scientists are idealists (and human). Sometimes they get carried away by their convictions and opinions. My father gave me a gift early in my life as a young scientist. In the 50’s, he was a graduate student of Jean Piaget at La Sorbonne. From what I understand, my father struggled very much in trying to reconcile North American and Continental European psychologies. In the process though, he became quite a dialectician, something he taught me through his careful consideration of any argument I would try to make or idea I would put forward (although I was not fully aware of it at the time). The process is simple: State a thesis (e.g., “punishment does not work”). Find the “evidence” for it, argue for that point. Then, state the antithesis (e.g., “punishment works”). Same process, gather the data, argue for that point. Finally, and most importantly, formulate the synthesis. It likely won’t be black (thesis) or white (antithesis), it will be something in the middle, in the shades of grey. His gift was to teach me to be a relativist and never accept dogmatism, in science, or in anything else in life.
Very quickly, the statement, “punishment does not work”, is easy to deconstruct. Obviously (and sadly) punishment (mostly) works. If any of you try to use science to make the statement “punishment does not work”, you are in trouble. There are literally thousands of scientific papers and hundreds of scientific books (e.g., the classic Handbook on Operant Conditioning, Honig & Staddon, 1977; Domjan, 2003*) that will confirm this: Using punishment can suppress, if not inhibit completely, behaviours (it is, after all, the definition of the term). The question in this case is about the statement itself. The statement misses the point: What are the side-effects of punishment? That is the question! And as I often argue, then we fall into ethical arguments more so than scientific ones. I often find scientists and dog trainers not courageous enough in just making an ethical statement. My approach is to ask the question “what kind of relationship do you want with your dog, one based on coercive and punitive interactions, or one based on friendship, communication and mutual understanding?”. There is another important issue associated with the arguments against punishment. Not all punishment is “punitive” and coercive. The scientific definition simply suggests that a punishment will at least reduce the frequency (count per unit of time), duration or intensity of a behaviour. Nothing here suggests the necessity of using shocks, or hitting, kicking, yelling, etc. Somehow, the connotation of the scientific term took a dark turn.
Any student in experimental psychology has done at least one cognitive computer task where the computer gives feedback for accurate (sound A) or inaccurate (sound B) responses. This is typically done so the subject can update its knowledge of the task and change its response pattern to increase performance. Is it not fascinating that the same idea will repulse many trainers? The idea of saying (softly) “no”, or “nuh uh” or use a non-reward marker (a very fancy terminology to say “punishment”) seems to get people all up-in-arms. Why? Well, technically, if “no” means “that was not the right choice” or “don’t do that again”, and the dog does not repeat the behaviour… it was a punishment. It is actually what I like to call information. Simple. We like information as humans, because it accelerates learning, it helps us make sense of the world, it helps us make sense of a set of rules in a game. When I was learning classical guitar in the 70’s, I was very happy to have my teacher tell me what I was doing right, and what I was doing wrong. It was less frustrating to know about my mistakes, than trying to guess what I was doing wrong. He was paid to tell me this. Why do we deprive our dogs of that information? In my lab we work a lot with border collies. I have seen border collies go nuts if they are told only what they do right, and are ignored when making a wrong choice (for example, in a matching-to-sample task). In fact, ignoring wrong responses becomes very aversive, without really telling the dog what to avoid doing. Interesting, is it not? That will sound familiar. Positive reinforcement-only trainers will often make the argument that punishment won’t tell the dog what to do. Mmmh… that’s right… but it won’t tell the dog what to avoid doing either. This becomes very obvious in some complex tasks with multiple choices, meaning multiple possible mistakes or misses. But again, you are not “punishing” (with the modern, non-scientific connotation), you are informing.
To summarize this discussion on punishment:
1. Punishment works… but if punitive and coercive, it does not make it good or ethical.
2. Punishment is not necessarily punitive or coercive.
3. Information (feedback) about good choices (positive feedback) and mistakes (negative feedback) accelerates learning and decreases frustration… even if technically the negative feedback part, by definition, is “punishment” (as it gets the dogs to reduce or eliminate responses).
As for dominance… ugh… what a mess that one is… and the confusion between dominance (as status vs. as a trait), dominance hierarchies, aggression, aggressiveness, agonistic behaviours, rank, status, etc. People citing papers that are supposed to reject the dominance concept when they actually simply redefine the alpha role (not roll) and in fact even suggest parents have a firm hold on the pups (i.e., being quite disciplinarians)… yes, that Mech paper (1999). The same author that more recently published on dominance in wolves (e.g., Mech, 1999; Mech, 2000; Peterson, Jacobs, Drummer, Mech, Smith, 2002) because he actually never denied the existence of dominance hierarchies, and the same author that writes to Marc Bekoff about Bekoff’s great piece “Social Dominance Is Not a Myth: Wolves, Dogs, and Other Animals” published in another blog platform in February of 2012: “… a quick scan of the (name removed) article reveals much misinformation attributed to me. This misinterpretation and total misinformation like (name removed)’s has plagued me for years now. I do not in any way reject the notion of dominance.”
In an online essay by Mech, he also writes “Similarly, pups are subordinate to both parents and to older siblings, yet they are fed preferentially by the parents, and even by their older (dominant) siblings (Mech et al. 1999). On the other hand, parents both dominate older offspring and restrict their food intake when food is scarce, feeding pups instead. Thus, the most practical effect of social dominance is to allow the dominant individual the choice of to whom to allot food.” Ironically, Mech pointed towards more tension between the breeding male and the breeding female, or between parents and progeny, than I believe we ever saw or documented at the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research (a captive pack in a 4 hectare enclosure; e.g., Fentress et al, 1987; Gadbois, 2002). So much for the idea that captive wolves are more likely to show dominance than wild ones! I am still waiting for the evidence (actual data) suggesting that captive wolves are more stressed than wild ones. So far, I see only the opposite trend, or no difference at all.
For my part, I adhere at least partially to “role theory”, proposed by scientists like Bernstein, Fedigan, Gartland, and Mech (Mech, 1999 writes about “division of labour”, a similar concept). In wolves, it is clear that the dominance hierarchy is in place to determine the breeding pair (as only the formerly labelled “alpha male” and “alpha female” typically breed; wolves are “technically” monogamous). This is clearly seen via noticeable peaks in aggression in (captive and wild) packs during the breeding season (January to March). Our main captive pack at the Canadian Centre for Wolf Research rarely displayed significant aggression or dominance conflicts outside of the breeding season (with some exceptions over the 30 year life of that pack). And even during the breeding season, my Master’s student Barbara Molnar re-analyzed my PhD videotapes to find that they still engaged in almost 3 times more affiliative behaviours (e.g., play) than agonistic behaviours during that more “conflictual” time of year!
We also forget that not all packs (captive or wild) are the same. Some form nuclear family groups (mom, dad, pups of the year). In those groups you are less likely to find any dominance hierarchy. Why? Well, for one, wolves don’t “enter” the dominance hierarchy until they are sexually mature (at puberty). In principle this is not until their first Winter/Spring, and often not until the following breeding season, in other words, well into their second year. So those “nuclear” or immediate family units (like the Arctic wolves of Ellesmere) cannot compare to wolves that form extended family groups that are multi-generational (with cousins, uncles, aunts, even grandparents, being part of the group). In those family units, there will be individuals interested in breeding beyond the breeding pair. This will create conflicts (note that in principle, in larger packs, some subordinates could end-up never having a chance to breed unless they challenge the breeding individuals).
Another forgotten characteristic of dominance hierarchies, in wolves, humans, or any other animal, is that they are in place in order to avoid conflict and aggression, not contribute to it. In fact, wolves use mostly ritualized aggression, not contact aggression.
To summarize this discussion on dominance:
1. Dominance and dominance hierarchies exist in wolves.
2. It is not all about dominance, in fact, they would rather have fun with their buddies.
3. Dogs are not wolves.
Well, that last point raises yet another issue… Actually, modern molecular genetics is pretty clear about this: They kind of are the same… In the past decade, the debate is more about when and where the “split” occurred. But to play the dialectical game here again… they kind of are “not the same”. We spent centuries working on selectively getting rid of aggressive behaviour in wolves and purposively making them more docile… Why insist on still seeing them as wolves? Have we failed our artificial selection (selective breeding) experiment, or are we just obsessed ourselves with status and rank (think corporations, the military, academic ranks, sibling rivalries)? And again, what kind of relationship do you want with your pet? Personally, I would rather have a friend than a competitor or slave. I don’t get the paranoia, or the servitude angle. That is why I pick dogs as pets, and not grizzlies or wolverines.
To summarize our current knowledge on the origin of dogs:
1. Dogs: They are virtually undistinguishable from wolves, genetically speaking. It is certainly easier to see the similarities than the differences. Somehow these days it is trendy to talk about the differences.
2. Dogs and wolves: They are at the very least extremely close in evolutionary terms. Coppinger discusses this in terms of genealogy, Fentress used to refer to the evolutionary bush (as opposed to an evolutionary tree). Great metaphors in both cases.
3. Obviously domestication induced changes. That was the whole point. Pointing out differences to advance the idea that they are different species is forgetting what artificial selection is about (e.g., inducing neoteny).
For people that may have followed some of my posts on the internet over the past 20 years (Facebook, the old “applied ethology listserv”, “human ethology” list, etc.), I know I will sometimes exasperate some with my relativist attitude and (now you know) my dialectical style… But science is NOT about all-or-nones and black or white judgements, at least, not for long. Science is not infallible, nor is it dogmatic. Science is an attitude, a cognitive style, a method. And I do not accept the idea that the popularization of science and knowledge translation mean that you need to oversimplify the information, especially when communicated to people that will educate others about behaviour, dogs and wolves. Maybe some scientists think that the public is not smart enough to be given all the information and nuances necessary. I would rather give the public the benefit of the doubt and let them decide.
As Spring is upon us, wolves already think about dens, pups, play and fun and leave the politics behind for another year. I wish you the same, until next time. 😉
Note: The Dalhousie University Canid Behaviour Research Team uses force-free, positive methods of training dogs for olfactory detection, discrimination, identification, tracking and trailing. All dogs are pets volunteered by their owners and are selected for temperament, trainability, scent abilities, and play drive (i.e., “work” drive). For that reason, 95% of our volunteers are border collies or border collie mixes.
* Domjan writes in fact, in this popular textbook (p. 302, 2003, 5th edition) “On the basis of a few experiments Thorndike (1932) and Skinner (1938, 1953) concluded that punishment was not a very effective method for controlling behavior and that it had only temporary effects at best (see also Estes, 1944). This claim was not seriously challenged until the 1960’s, when punishment processes began to be investigated more extensively (Azrin & Holz, 1966; Campbell & Church, 1969; Church, 1963; Solomon, 1964). We now know that punishment can be an effective technique for modifying behavior (Dinsmoor, 1998).”
Mech L.D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77 (8) 1196-1203. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z99-099
International Positive Dog Training Association Research Findings – Tools: Pinch (Prong) Collars Read the findings here.
Comparison of learning effects and stress between 3 different training methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs Read the full study here.
These findings refute the suggestion that training with an E-collar is either more efficient or results in less disobedience, even in the hands of experienced trainers. In many ways, training with positive reinforcement was found to be more effective at addressing the target behavior as well as general obedience training. This method of training also poses fewer risks to dog welfare and quality of the human-dog relationship. Given these results we suggest that there is no evidence to indicate that E-collar training is necessary, even for its most widely cited indication.
3. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim Welf . (2004) 13:63–9.
4. Rooney NJ, Cowan S. Training methods and owner–dog interactions: links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2011) 132:169–77. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.007
5. Fernandes JG, Olsson IAS, de Castro ACV. Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare? A literature review. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2017) 196:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.07.001
7. Masson S, de la Vega S, Gazzano A, Mariti C, Pereira GDG, Halsberghe C, et al. Electronic training devices: discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. (2018) 25:71–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.02.006
13. Polsky RH. Can aggression in dogs be elicited through the use of electronic pet containment systems? J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2000) 3:345–57. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0304_6
19. Electronic Collars Manufacturers Association ECMA. EMCA Products: Electronic Training Products Fall Into 3 Main Types. EMCA (1996). Available online at: http://ecma.eu.com/product/ (accessed November 27, 2019).
20. Christiansen FO, Bakken M, Braastad BO. Behavioural differences between three breed groups of hunting dogs confronted with domestic sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2001) 72:115–29. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00202-1
22. Salgirli Y, Schalke E, Boehm I, Hackbarth H. Comparison of learning effects and stress between 3 different training methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs. Rev Med Vet. (2012) 163:530–5.
23. Dale AR, Statham S, Podlesnik CA, Eliffe D. The acquisition and maintenance of dogs’ aversion responses to kiwi (Apteryx spp.) training stimuli across time and locations. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 146:107–11. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.006
24. Robertson. Consultation on Potential Controls or Prohibition of Electronic Training Aids in Scotland: Analysis of Consultation Responses. The Scottish Government (2016). Available online at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00503099.pdf (accessed June 16, 2019).
25. Blackwell EJ, Bolster C, Richards G, Loftus BA, Casey RA. The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods. BMC Vet Res. (2012) 8:93. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-93
31. Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills D. The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e102722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102722
32. DEFRA. Studies to Assess the Effect of Pet Training Aids, Specifically Remote Static Pulse Systems, on the Welfare of Domestic Dogs – AW1402. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Hannah Wright, Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln); Dr. Rachel Casey, Dr. Emily Blackwell (University of Bristol); Katja van Driel (Food and Environment Research Agency); Dr. Jeff Lines (Silsoe Livestock System) (2013). Available online at: http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15332 (accessed June 16, 2019).
33. DEFRA. Studies to Assess the Effect of Pet Training Aids, Specifically Remote Static Pulse Systems, on the Welfare of Domestic Dogs; Field Study of Dogs in Training – AW1402A. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman and Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln) (2013). Available online at: http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17568#discription (accessed June 16, 2019).
34. China L. Comparison of E-collar and Reward Based Training on Acute Behavioural Responses and Efficacy of Training in Pet Dogs. BSc. University of Lincoln (2018).
35. Masson S, Nigron I, Gaultier E. Questionnaire survey on the use of different e-collar types in France in everyday life with a view to providing recommendations for possible future regulations. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. (2018) 26:48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.004
36. Skyrme R, Mills DS. An investigation into potential overshadowing of verbal commands during training. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. (2010) 1:42. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2009.09.039
37. Beerda B, Schilder MBH, van Hoff Jan ARAM, de Vries HW, Mola JA. Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1998) 58:365–81. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00145-7
38. Schilder MB, van der Borg JA. Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2004) 85:319–34. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004
39. Schalke E, Stichnoth J, Ott S, Jones-Baade R. Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2007) 105:369–80. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.002
40. Mills DS. Training and learning protocols. In: Horwitz DF, Mills DS, editors. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. Cheltenham Glos: BSAVA (2009). p. 49–64.
Electronic and lemon spray bark collars significantly reduced barking, with no significant difference between collar types. Dogs with either type of bark collar had an increase in plasma cortisol the 1st day wearing the activated collar, but this was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in plasma cortisol levels between dogs wearing control, lemon spray or electronic collars.
STUDY 3
Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations
This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators.
The most effective way to teach a person or animal a new behavior is with positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement, a desirable stimulus is added to increase a behavior.
For example, you tell your five-year-old son, Jerome, that if he cleans his room, he will get a toy. Jerome quickly cleans his room because he wants a new art set. Let’s pause for a moment. Some people might say, “Why should I reward my child for doing what is expected?” But in fact we are constantly and consistently rewarded in our lives. Our paychecks are rewards, as are high grades and acceptance into our preferred school. Being praised for doing a good job and for passing a driver’s test is also a reward. Positive reinforcement as a learning tool is extremely effective. It has been found that one of the most effective ways to increase achievement in school districts with below-average reading scores was to pay the children to read. Specifically, second-grade students in Dallas were paid $2 each time they read a book and passed a short quiz about the book. The result was a significant increase in reading comprehension (Fryer, 2010). What do you think about this program? If Skinner were alive today, he would probably think this was a great idea. He was a strong proponent of using operant conditioning principles to influence students’ behavior at school. In fact, in addition to the Skinner box, he also invented what he called a teaching machine that was designed to reward small steps in learning (Skinner, 1961)—an early forerunner of computer-assisted learning. His teaching machine tested students’ knowledge as they worked through various school subjects. If students answered questions correctly, they received immediate positive reinforcement and could continue; if they answered incorrectly, they did not receive any reinforcement. The idea was that students would spend additional time studying the material to increase their chance of being reinforced the next time (Skinner, 1961).
In negative reinforcement, an undesirable stimulus is removed to increase a behavior. For example, car manufacturers use the principles of negative reinforcement in their seatbelt systems, which go “beep, beep, beep” until you fasten your seatbelt. The annoying sound stops when you exhibit the desired behavior, increasing the likelihood that you will buckle up in the future. Negative reinforcement is also used frequently in horse training. Riders apply pressure—by pulling the reins or squeezing their legs—and then remove the pressure when the horse performs the desired behavior, such as turning or speeding up. The pressure is the negative stimulus that the horse wants to remove.
LINK TO LEARNING
Watch this clip from The Big Bang Theory to see Sheldon Cooper explain the commonly confused terms of negative reinforcement and punishment.
Punishment
Many people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment in operant conditioning, but they are two very different mechanisms. Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases a behavior. In positive punishment, you add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior. An example of positive punishment is scolding a student to get the student to stop texting in class. In this case, a stimulus (the reprimand) is added in order to decrease the behavior (texting in class). In negative punishment, you remove a pleasant stimulus to decrease a behavior. For example, when a child misbehaves, a parent can take away a favorite toy. In this case, a stimulus (the toy) is removed in order to decrease the behavior.
Punishment, especially when it is immediate, is one way to decrease undesirable behavior. For example, imagine your four year-old son, Brandon, hit his younger brother. You have Brandon write 50 times “I will not hit my brother” (positive punishment). Chances are he won’t repeat this behavior. While strategies like this are common today, in the past children were often subject to physical punishment, such as spanking. It’s important to be aware of some of the drawbacks in using physical punishment on children. First, punishment may teach fear. Brandon may become fearful of the hitting, but he also may become fearful of the person who delivered the punishment—you, his parent. Similarly, children who are punished by teachers may come to fear the teacher and try to avoid school (Gershoff et al., 2010). Consequently, most schools in the United States have banned corporal punishment. Second, punishment may cause children to become more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior and delinquency (Gershoff, 2002). They see their parents resort to spanking when they become angry and frustrated, so, in turn, they may act out this same behavior when they become angry and frustrated. For example, because you spank Margot when you are angry with her for her misbehavior, she might start hitting her friends when they won’t share their toys.
While positive punishment can be effective in some cases, Skinner suggested that the use of punishment should be weighed against the possible negative effects. Today’s psychologists and parenting experts favor reinforcement over punishment—they recommend that you catch your child doing something good and reward her for it.
WATCH IT
Make sure you understand the distinction between negative reinforcement and punishment in the following video:
Still confused? Watch the following short clip for another example and explanation of positive and negative reinforcement as well as positive and negative punishment.
