[QUOTE=GreekDressageQueen;4231057]
I don’t agree with you at all, but it is pointless to attack your response because you are entitled to your opinion as am I. I’m not interested in changing your ways, but would like to know how you can logically justify your position. In other words, what logical facts or scientific data can you point to to support your position other than what some trainers say is a better way?
I believe that we need to treat animals as similar or as close to how they would be treated in their natural environment or herd. Scientific facts and observational data have proven that there is always an alpha (boss mare/stallion or alpha male/female) and dominance does play a key role in managing members of a herd or pack. For example, mares will often nip overzealous colts and adult dogs will snarl at boisterous puppies). I agree that not all animals need a strong hand, but a hierarchy still exists and dominance - even in a very minor level - still exists. Animals that do not work well in the group (do not recognize hierarchy/dominance or are mentally/physically unstable individuals) are often ostracized and will die.
I will follow these “laws of nature” and try to be highest up on the ladder as possible since - as a human - I am physically inferior and must use my mental superiority to my evolutionary advantage. I am the boss through proper displays of assertive mental energy (TRUE dominance does not need much - if any - physical display) and my animals respect me as boss even though my horses could easily ignore me and my dogs could rip me to shreds if they wanted to. If you think CM (or anyone who supports his philosophy) abuses animals because we follow animals’ natural behavior then you should never watch nature programs. Nothing is more abusive and savage as real nature.[/QUOTE]
What I am saying is backed up by science. Which is why I am so passionate about it, and why I want to change this mentality in people. The animals will be better off. So please read below! Keep an open mind. You may learn something:
Dominance Versus Leadership in Dog Training
Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet. July 2007;29(7):414-417;432. 8 Refs
Sophia Yin, DVM, MS1
1 University of California, Davis
Abstract
Whether treating separation anxiety, fear aggression, or general unruly behavior in dogs, virtually all veterinary behaviorists, applied animal behaviorists, and dog trainers agree that the solution to better behavior involves teaching the owner to be predictable and trustworthy-in essence, to be a good leader. But does learning to be the leader mean that owners must dominate their dogs? Twenty to 30 years ago, social dominance theory and ideas about wolf behavior in the wild guided dog-training methods, which focused on punishing bad behaviors by using choke chains, pinch collars, and electronic collars because wolves in the wild appeared to gain higher rank through force. Since then, the understanding of dog behavior in relation to wolf behavior has become clearer, and the science of learning has improved our understanding of why animals behave as they do and how their behaviors can be modified. This article discusses traditional training methods based on dominance theory and some of the associated misconceptions, defines dominance and explains why dog behavior should not be based on wolf behavior or animal dominance models, clarifies the difference between leadership and dominance, and shows how leadership can be achieved (even with aggressive dogs) using nonconfrontational methods.
URL: http://www.vin.com/Members/Journals/Journal.plx?AID=1499425
Applied animal behaviour science
Volume 117 | Issue 1-2 (Feb 1 2009)
Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors
Appl Anim Behav Sci. Feb 1 2009;117(1-2):47-54.
Meghan E. Herron1, Frances S. Shofer, Ilana R. Reisner
1 Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6010, USA. Tel.: +1 215 898 3083; fax: +1 215 573 7041
Author Abstract
Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist many dog owners have attempted behavior modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include aversive training techniques which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. The purpose of this study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems. A 30-item survey of previous interventions was included in a behavioral questionnaire distributed to all dog owners making appointments at a referral behavior service over a 1-year period. For each intervention applied, owners were asked to indicate whether there was a positive, negative, or lack of effect on the dog’s behavior, and whether aggressive behavior was seen in association with the method used. Owners were also asked to indicate the source of each recommendation. One-hundred-and-forty surveys were completed. The most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers”. Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43%), “growl at dog” (41%), “physically force the release of an item from a dog’s mouth” (39%), “alpha roll” (31%), “stare at or stare [dog] down” (30%), “dominance down” (29%), and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26%) elicited an aggressive response from at least a quarter of the dogs on which they were attempted. Dogs presenting for aggression to familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to the confrontational techniques “alpha roll” and yelling “no” compared to dogs with other presenting complaints (P < 0.001). In conclusion, confrontational methods applied by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive responses in many cases. It is thus important for primary care veterinarians to advise owners about risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems.
Aggression to Owners: Alpha Dog vs. Anxious Dog
British Small Animal Veterinary Congress 2006
J. Neilson, DVM, DACVB
Animal Behavior Clinic
Portland, OR, USA
18283503
Dominance is a term that almost every dog owner has encountered. Another term for a dominant dog is an ‘alpha’ dog–the alpha implying that they are in the lead position in the pack. Many behavioural problems ranging from aggression to coprophagia are blamed on ‘dominant’ or ‘alpha’ behaviours. Behaviours such as rushing out of an open door, which occur due to pure positive reinforcement from the dog’s perspective, have been labelled incorrectly as ‘dominant behaviour’. In fact, appeasement behaviours such as jumping up to lick the face have been misconstrued as dominant behaviours. Perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions is that aggression equates with social dominance. In fact, the opposite is true; dominance rank is not positively correlated with aggressive events; in fact higher-ranking wolves have few aggressive encounters. Dogs with aggression are often labelled as dominant or alpha despite obvious fearful postures during or after an event. Unfortunately, overuse and misuse of the idea of dominance has resulted in needless canine suffering and death.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of labelling these wide range of behaviours as ‘alpha’ behaviours is the subsequent actions and reactions that humans feel compelled to employ to correct the ‘dominance’. Such labelling gives relative licence to be pushy/forceful/abusive to the dog. Forceful actions are taken to correct the dog. At best the dog may become conditioned to avoid further aversive actions from the owner; at worst the dog will become more fearful, more aggressive, dangerous and perhaps even be euthanased. This may be due to a misunderstanding about the true motivation behind the behaviour.
One question that may arise with the human-dog relationship is whether there really is a pack dominance hierarchy ever formed between these different species. Considering humans and dogs ‘speak’ different languages, there may be a fundamental barrier to establishment of a true hierarchy. When was the last time a person put their ears back in communication with a dog? And recent research supports the idea that canine hierarchies are more flexible than previously considered and that they are based primarily on appeasement behaviours–essentially active displays of submission and deference keep the peace. When a dog trembling/growling/snarling over a Kleenex tissue is extrapolated to its being a ‘dominant’ dog the jump is big and probably wrong. Firstly, the dog didn’t steal the Kleenex as an act of defiance/ leadership, it stole the Kleenex for the immediate benefit of tasty human nasal secretions or perhaps attention. And yes, that dog wants to retain access to that Kleenex. But it is in a highly aroused/emotional and perhaps even fearful state–yelling/physically punishing the dog may make it more nervous/aggressive next time it finds an off-limits valuable treat. The dog is getting conditioned to respond aggressively due to the human action/reaction and its basic desires; this does not make the dog a dominant dog, it makes it a trained dog (trained to do the opposite action of what most owners desire).
Despite this, dominance aggression is frequently diagnosed in the canine population, ranging between 20 and 59% of behavioural caseloads. In cases of dominance aggression, family members or very familiar people are usually the targets of the aggression. The dog is often described as having a superior position in the social hierarchy and the dog is using aggression to manage situations where his/ her status is threatened. However, when cases of dominance aggression in dogs are examined, these dogs are often fearful or submissive. Owners report signs that are ambivalent or submissive surrounding attacks.
These behaviours are in conflict with a truly dominant/confident personality. Also they often first see the signs at a fairly young age, 6 months or less. These puppies are often easily trained in certain settings: often labelled the ‘smartest’ dog in their puppy class. If they are astute students at learning ‘good’ behaviours, they will also be astute students at learning what we may consider ‘bad’ behaviours; it is all operant conditioning.
If the dog is not dominant, then what is occurring? Pending rule-outs of underlying medical disease such as hyperthyroidism, consider that the dog may actually be anxious. Dogs that bite owners may do so in contexts related to social dominance but their motivation may be based almost entirely in anxiety. Two broad groups emerge: dogs that reach anxiety threshold and resort to default of aggression to control situation; and dogs that are unsure of their social role and use aggressive behaviours to deform the social system to get badly needed information about expectations.
Since aggression is often very successful at terminating the uncomfortable situation, the dog learns that aggression is a good way to manage situations of conflict.
If the motivation behind the aggression is anxiety and not an overly confident/dominant dog, then the treatment plan must reflect this. This may explain why neutering these dogs often has little effect on aggression; reducing testosterone is unlikely to alter fear/anxiety. Domination techniques (e.g., alpha roll over) in response to conflict aggression are contraindicated, as they would only serve to increase the anxiety of the dog. Many owners report an escalation in the aggression when they attempt these domination techniques and this is understandable if the dog is truly in a state of anxiety/fear. Employing these techniques will only serve to escalate the fear/anxiety and subsequently escalate the aggression.
Important treatment principles for the dog with conflict aggression include avoiding confrontation, having a safe way to handle the dog and establishing consistent dog-owner interactions. If there is a specific trigger situation, desensitisation to that trigger can be implemented.
Many owners are concerned that if they avoid confrontations, they are letting the pet ‘win’. However, this is not the case. Any animal in a highly aroused emotional state is not a good candidate for learning. The dog will be taught acceptable behaviour when he is calm and relaxed. The owners also want to avoid being placed in situations where the dog’s aggression is successful, thereby reinforcing the unwanted aggressive behaviour. By avoiding triggers for aggression, this unwanted learning will not occur. To avoid aggressive situations, sometimes the owners will have to modify their behaviour (e.g., don’t get near the dog when he is eating) or modify the environment (e.g., if the dog has been aggressive with toys, remove them from environment).
To establish consistent dog-owner interactions, it is often necessary to terminate all casual interactions between the dog and the owner. Predictable, structured interactions can become the mainstay of owner-dog interactions. Generally, owners are instructed to give the dog a command prior to all interactions. If the dog responds appropriately to the command, the interaction can proceed. If the dog does not respond, the owner should ignore the dog. In addition to these lifestyle interaction changes, the dog and owner should practise obedience training that rewards obedient, relaxed behaviour in the dog. A benefit of a well run obedience programme is that it provides another source of structured, predictable interactions where the dog is reinforced for relaxed, obedient behaviour. But caution is necessary, not all obedience is created equal–poor timing, aversive techniques etc. may actually sabotage improvement.
If a specific trigger for the aggression is identified, a gradual desensitisation and counterconditioning to that trigger can be implemented. The dog is being conditioned to respond in a different way to the trigger stimulus. It is not learning to be submissive or less dominant, it is being taught that the ‘threat’ is no longer a threat.
In anxious dogs, drug therapy may be helpful in reducing anxiety and associated aggression. Low serotonin has been associated with aggression. In one study, aggressive dogs had lower metabolites of serotonin in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), suggesting lower levels in the brain. A study of fluoxetine administered to dogs exhibiting aggression to owners showed a reduction in the aggression with drug therapy. A study on the effects of clomipramine in cases of owner-directed aggression did not show benefits over that of a placebo. Serotonin-enhancing drugs, such as fluoxetine (0.5-2.0 mg/kg q12h), paroxetine (0.5-2 mg/kg q24h), amitriptyline (2.2-4.4 mg/kg q24h) or sertraline (1-3 mg/kg q24h) can be considered as an adjunct to behavioural modification in these cases. Diligent monitoring is advised when using drug therapy as there is the potential for worsening of the aggression or other unexpected side effects.
Pheromone therapy may also be helpful. Dog-appeasing pheromone (DAP) is a synthetic analogue of a pheromone produced by the lactating bitch and it is supposed to calm the nursing puppies. The DAP diffuser can be plugged into an electrical outlet for a constant diffusion in the environment.
Alternative therapies such as homoeopathic remedies, special diets, pressure body wraps, touch therapies, etc. have been advocated by some but lack strong research to support the claims. That said, consideration of these techniques may be valuable in the right client/pet.
It is important for clinicians to consider the possibility that most dogs presenting with aggression are not confident/dominant dogs but anxious, fearful ones, since it has a huge impact upon the treatment plan. Kind, gentle and consistent handling will reap more rewards than harsh, challenging and threatening behaviours in these dogs in conflict.
References
- Donaldson, J. The Culture Clash. Berkeley: James and Kenneth Publishers, 1996.
- Francis, RC. On the relationship between aggression and social dominance. Ethology 1988; 78: 223-237.
- Lockwood, R. Dominance in wolves: useful construct or bad habit? In: Klinghammer, E ed. Symposium of the Behavior and Ecology of Wolves. North Carolina: Garland STPM Press, 1979; 225-244.
- Reisner, IR; Mann, JJ. Comparison of cerebrospinal fluid monoamine metabolite levels in dominant aggressive and non-aggressive dogs. Brain Research 1996; 7(14): 57-64.
- White, MM; Neilson, JN; Hart, BL; Cliff, KD. Effects of clomipramine hydrochloride on dominance related aggression in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association; 1999: 215(9)1288-1291.
Author Information
(click the author’s name to view other papers and abstracts submitted by this author)
J. Neilson, DVM DipACVB
Animal Behavior Clinic
Portland, OR, USA
Canine Aggression: What’s New in Diagnosis and Treatment–A Small Group Discussion (HO-3)
Western Veterinary Conference 2008
Debra F. Horwitz1, DVM, DACVB; Jacqueline C. Neilson2, DVM, DACVB
1Veterinary Behavior Consultations, St. Louis, MO, USA; 2Animal Behavior Clinic, Portland, OR, USA
18290826
Objectives of the Presentation
To help veterinarians understand the diagnosis and treatment of aggression.
Discuss treatment plans that include management techniques to increase safety and techniques to teach pets new behaviors.
Help practitioners assess prognosis and help owners make decisions about how to proceed.
Key Clinical Diagnostic Points
A motivational diagnosis (why the dog is exhibiting aggression) is important to establish as it allows for a targeted treatment plan.
Focus on these four areas to arrive at a diagnosis:
Dog’s health status–underlying illness may cause or contribute to aggression.
Dog’s general temperament–confident, shy, fearful.
Dog’s aggressive events–triggers/targets, behavior, recovery.
Evolution of the aggressive behavior over time.
General diagnostic consideration:
In the popular media, aggressive dogs have often been characterized as dominant. While aggression can be a component of dominant behavior, the circumstances where it is utilized are often during ritualized events with conspecifics where the dominant dog is very confident and controlled. Most dogs that present in as patients for aggression do not fit this description. In fact it is now believed that the majority of dogs that exhibit aggression do so secondary to fear. (GA) The reason that it is so important to dispel the dominance myth is that people are likely to use force or domination to “treat” a dominant dog. These techniques are contraindicated in a fearful dog.
While many dogs may appear very offensive (lunging, growling, snapping, biting) in their actions during an aggressive event, the underlying motivation for that aggressive event is often a defensive strategy, essentially “fight or flight.” If the dog feels that it can’t flee or that it by fleeing certain resources would be jeopardized, the fight (aggressive) option may become the chosen response. When utilized as a defensive maneuver to a perceived threat, the fight response is often successful, thus establishing it as the default response in similar future situations.
Some common categories of aggression are described below:
Fear related aggression:
Often targeted at a group or class of individuals such as men, unfamiliar people, unfamiliar dogs, large dogs, veterinarians or children. It may also be associated with certain events such as grooming, car rides, etc.
The dog often exhibits some postures either before, during or after the aggressive event that are consistent with fear such as a tucked tail; active retreat; ears pulled back; bimodal piloerection.
Historical accounts of early aggressive events may include more fearful postures/retreat behavior.
Conflict aggression:
This term is often used to describe a state of conflict that the dog experiences which results in aggression. A typical conflict situation may be the dog in resting comfortably on the sofa and the owner trying to get the dog to move off the sofa. A resting spot is a valuable resource and the dog is torn between protecting that resource and responding to the owner’s demands. If the owner becomes more confrontational, the dog may become more threatened and resort to aggression to resolve the situation. The presence of the conflict triggers aggression. Some of these dogs may be confident but the majority of dogs are probably fearful/anxious/uncertain about the outcome of that interaction. Other typical conflict triggers include: possessions, food and physical contact.
Since those well known to the dog are most likely to initiate interactions that place the dog in a state of conflict, known people are most often the targets of conflict aggression.
Territorial aggression:
Threats of territorial intruders trigger an aggressive display.
Aggression most pronounced where the dog perceives territorial boundaries (fence lines, doors, car).
Pain related aggression:
The anticipation of pain or painful insults trigger an aggressive response.
This may be considered an act of self preservation and be secondary to underlying anxiety/fear.
Individual pain thresholds vary widely.
Status related aggression:
An unstable hierarchy may result in aggressive displays over resources.
Maternal aggression:
Protection of offspring against potential threats.
Predatory aggression:
This type of aggression lacks the conflict present in other types of aggression and is associated with the act of chasing/capturing/killing/consuming.
Often targeted at cats, squirrels, livestock.
The chasing portion of the predatory sequence can be triggered by fast moving objects like bicycles, cars, joggers in some dogs.
Key Etiologic and Pathophysiologic Points
In many cases the aggression may not be abnormal, just unacceptable to the owners.
Normal aggression may respond well to management and behavioral modification.
Abnormal aggression (rooted in excessive fear/anxiety or with poor impulse control) will also require management and behavioral modification but may also benefit from additional therapy such as pheromones or drugs.
Since aggression can be heritable, dogs with aggressive tendencies and/or unstable temperaments should not be bred.
Since many aggressive responses are based in fear, appropriate and continuous socialization may be protective against the development of aggressive behavior. In addition, consistent and calm leadership within a household may help to provide a predictable environment that protects against the development of aggression.
Any medical problem can contribute to irritability and aggressive responses. Chronic diseases may be controlled but aggressive responses may still remain due to learning or residual fear or anxiety.
Although hypothyroidism is often linked with behavioral conditions, including aggression, robust data to support the causative link is lacking. In fact a controlled study at University of Pennsylvania did not find an association between hypothyroidism and aggression.
Aggression based in fear is associated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the consequential cascade of hormones and neurochemicals that elicit the fight/flight response.
Studies have linked low serotonin levels with increased aggressive behavior.
Expression of the aggression and the subsequent consequences is almost always likely to promote additional aggression through operant conditioning. Therefore management to prevent aggressive displays is paramount in the treatment protocol.
Key Therapeutic Points
Management is an important first step to prevent further aggressive episodes:
The first step is to provide safety from the aggressive pet. After separating the pet from individuals, use confinement, muzzles, leashes, and head collars, as needed, to create a safer environment.
Keep the pet away from either the triggers and/or the victims and block visual access.
Confinement must be secure: a crate, a room with a lock, a locked yard with a fence the dog cannot jump or climb. An adult should put the pet into confinement.
Many dogs are unaccustomed to confinement, training to be confined must be part of the plan for it to be a realistic and workable option.
Confinement must occur every time the trigger for the aggression might be encountered; many families are unable to ensure this happens.
The pet does not have to go to all places; if problems occur on walks, in parks, in the car etc. these areas must be avoided until new tasks are learned. Walks can occur in industrial complexes instead of neighborhoods and parks.
Behavioral modification:
The first step in trying to change an unwanted behavior is to teach the pet to settle and relax on a verbal command.
This is not a simple obedience task. The goal is for the dog to be calm and quiet as evidenced by physiologic changes, such as slower respiration and relaxed body postures and facial expressions.
Change the pet-owner relationship to include a command-response relationship. The pet is to earn all things by performing a command including access to food, outdoors, attention, play etc.
Physical and verbal reprimands must be avoided. They often increase rather than decrease emotional arousal and can cause fear and anxiety as well as an escalation of aggression.
Head collar and leashes should be used to manage pets indoors and remove them from situations.
Owners must never reach for an aggressively aroused pet, rather they should calmly leave the room if possible and allow the pet to return to a non aggressive state before interacting.
A reward gradient should be established for the patient. What are the favored rewards that the pet will work for? These can be play, food, petting etc.
A stimulus gradient must be established for the behavior. How does the behavior vary with various characteristics of the stimulus such as distance, speed of approach, size of stimulus, sound, location, etc.
Learning will not occur when the stimulus is strong enough to elicit underlying fear/anxiety or aggression.
Low level stimuli that the animal can learn to perceive as non-threatening are essential for learning to occur.
Three tasks are most useful when trying to change behaviors: “sit”, “watch me” and an escape command such as “back up” or “let’s go” or “go to your crate”.
These must be learned prior to any encounters with the stimulus. Once they are well learned both the pet and the owner will have more confidence and know what to do.
Once relaxation and control techniques have been learned, they can be used to begin desensitization exercises to the problematic target stimuli. To properly desensitize the dog, the target stimuli must be kept at a low enough intensity so that the dog can respond in this relaxed manner. This is accomplished by developing a stimulus gradient, including all the relevant details of the stimulus, such as size, location, speed of approach, and noise level. With success, the stimulus is gradually intensified until the dog can respond to the target stimuli in a relaxed manner.
Other techniques include classical conditioning-associating a pleasant stimulus with one that provokes an unwanted response, i.e., associating food with the approach of a stranger. Hopefully over time strangers will predict food and the underlying emotional state will change.
Owners must be very aware of the reactions of the dog and stop training and leave the situation before the pet becomes emotionally aroused, anxious or aggressive.
Pheromone and drug therapy:
Synthetic analogues of pheromones (e.g., Dog Appeasing Pheromone®) may be helpful in fear related aggression cases.
Serotonin enhancing drug therapy (see chart below) may be indicated in cases that have an underlying anxiety/fear component or poor impulse control.
Key Prognostic Points
When a dog chooses to bite, it becomes evident that biting is a behavioral strategy the dog is willing to use at least in that circumstance. This may mean that dog presents a higher risk for future biting than one that never has bitten.
Biting behavior is rarely cured, rather it is controlled, and with safety precautions may become less of a risk but still may occur.
Generally bigger dogs do more damage when they bite. In a study of risk factors (Reisner et al) for euthanasia of dogs that were aggressive toward family members, those weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb) were more likely to be euthanized especially if the aggression was shown in “benign dominance challenges such as petting and bending over the dog.”
Later research of risk factors for dog bites to owners in a household setting found that small dogs posed a higher risk of biting family members when compared to larger dogs (Guy et al).
Predictability is also important when attempting to determine the prognosis. Reisner et al found that dogs whose aggressive behaviors were unpredictable were more likely to be euthanized than dogs that were predictable. If the dog always growls when someone tries to move him, that dog may be more likely to remain in the home compared to a dog that sometimes growls and sometimes stands up, lunges, and bites in the same situation. The predictability makes it easier for some owners to avoid the triggers and subsequent injury.
It also helps to consider the severity of the aggressive behavior and the choices that the dog had and made. Dogs in general have good control of their aggressive signaling. They can threaten (growl, snarl with or without a growl), they can snap (bite without making contact), bite without puncture or laceration, or they can inflict injurious damaging bites.
The household composition and the ability of the family to provide safety for victims must enter in to the prognosis. Some busy households, homes with small children, elderly persons, people with disabilities or illnesses may not be suitable to rehabilitate an aggressive dog. In other situations triggers cannot reliably be avoided and the risk of future injury will remain high.
More extreme responses and severe injuries requiring medical attention usually are associated with greater risk and poorer prognosis.
Some people feel that dogs who show very explosive aggressive responses, especially in response to low-level stimuli, are particularly dangerous.
Overview of the Issue
The incidence of dog aggression in the United States is hard to quantify since the majority of incidents go unreported. It has been estimated that about 4.7 million dog bites occur annually in the United States. Aggression is the most frequent reason owners seek the advice of board certified veterinary behaviorists, constituting about 70% of the caseload. Millions of dogs are relinquished to shelters each year and behavioral reasons for relinquishment include aggression. This aggression epidemic is most likely due to a constellation of factors including, but not limited to, living environments, exercise regimes, socialization, genetics, miscommunication and mismatched expectations.
The veterinarian’s role in canine aggression should involve prevention and intervention advice. When addressing aggression in a patient, the clinician should establish a diagnosis and determine if the aggression is abnormal behavior (excessive fear/poor impulse control) or normal behavior that is just unacceptable. Then a treatment plan that includes management, behavioral modification, pheromones and/or drug therapy can be implemented. If there is persistent significant risk to the safety of others, euthanasia or re-homing should be considered.
Underlying anxiety/fear
Summary
Not all aggressive behavior is abnormal but it is often unacceptable.
It is important to establish a motivational diagnosis before implementing treatment.
Most aggression is not a result of dominant dogs, but instead is fear based.
A management program to prevent further aggressive behavior is a critical part of therapy.
Once additional aggressive outbursts are avoided via management, a controlled behavioral modification program can be implemented in an attempt to change the dog’s response.
Drugs and pheromones may be part of the treatment program, especially is the dog has underlying fear or poor impulse control.
A realistic treatment goal in most cases of aggression is a reduction in the likelihood that a dog will use aggression in circumstances that currently trigger aggression. Complete resolution or “cure” is an unlikely outcome since aggression is a normal part of dog’s behavioral repertoire.
References
- Bradley Janis. Dogs Bite but Balloons and Slippers are More Dangerous. James and Kenneth Publishers, Berkely, 2005.
- Donaldson J. The Culture Clash James and Kenneth Publishers, Berkeley CA, 1996.
- Guy NC, Luescher, UA, Dohoo SE, et al. Risk factors for dog bites to owners in a general caseload. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 74:29-42, 2001.
- Radosta-Huntley, L. Comparison of total thyroxine, thyroid stimulating hormone, free thyroxine, thyroglobulin autoantibodies and triiodothyronine in aggressive and non-aggressive dogs in ACVB and AVSAB Scientific Paper and Poster Session Proceedings, Hawaii, July 2006, pp 15-16
- Reisner IR, Erb HN, Houpt KA. Risk factors for behavior-related euthanasia among dominant aggressive dogs: 110 cases (1989-1992). JAVMA 205(6):855-863, 1994.
- Reisner IR, Mann JJ. Comparison of cerebrospinal fluid monoamine metabolite levels in dominant aggressive and non-aggressive dogs. Brain Research 714 57-64 1996
Speaker Information
(click the speaker’s name to view other papers and abstracts submitted by this speaker)
Debra F. Horwitz, DVM, DACVB
Veterinary Behavior Consultations
St. Louis, MO, United States
Jacqueline C. Neilson, DVM, DACVB
Animal Behavior Clinic
Portland, OR, United States
