The end for shock collars?

Something puzzles me about the arguments made by shock collar advocates. On the one hand they claim the e-collar doesn’t hurt, and on the other they say it’s a last resort to prevent ‘dead dogs’ due to recall and chasing problems. Surely the second justification casts doubt on the first? Two new scientific studies funded by the UK’s DEFRA address both arguments, and conclude that e-collars are unnecessary and detrimental to animal welfare.

Shock collars (including invisible fences) are already banned in many countries because of welfare concerns. The DEFRA studies aimed to investigate the welfare of dogs trained using e-collars. The results will surely add to calls for shock collars to be banned in England and Scotland (they have been illegal in Wales since 2010), and elsewhere. 

The first study (Defra AW1402) included extensive pilot work, an investigation of the electrical resistance of wet and dry dogs (conclusion: wet dogs get zapped more), and a comparison of the features of several purchased shock collars. 

Only a handful of instruction manuals stated that vocalizations indicate the shock is too high. They did not explain all features well, particularly the warning tone or vibration which is meant to precede a shock (not all models had a warning tone). Most manuals suggested use of the continuous shock option that is stopped when the dog does the required behaviour, rather than a momentary stimulus (for quadrant enthusiasts, this is using the collar as R- rather than P+). One of the collars, bought over the internet, turned out to be a counterfeit with no cut-off for the continuous shock, and two of the genuine collars had faults.

The manuals assumed people were using the collars to teach general obedience, but some also mentioned particular problem behaviours. The scientists conducted a survey that found almost all dog owners who use shock collars use it for problem behaviours, particularly recall and/or chasing. Owners were not able to explain properly how they had used the collar in training. Particularly worrisome is that “some end-users either fail to read the instructions, misunderstand or deliberately disregard the advice in the manuals.” (p25)

Owners reported that 36% of the dogs vocalized (e.g. yelped) the first time the e-collar was used, and 26% of dogs vocalized on later use(s) of the e-collar. Six per cent of owners said they started at the highest shock level the first time they used the collar, and either stayed at this level or adjusted down from there. The scientists say that “some of the reported use was clearly inconsistent with advice in e-collar manuals and potentially a threat to the dog’s welfare.” (p25)

The scientists collected saliva and urine samples from the dogs that had been trained using e-collars and a matched sample that had not, plus an extra set of controls. The samples allowed them to check for physiological signs of stress at various points in data collection. They also did behavioural and training tests on the dogs, including to the fitting of a dummy (inactive) e-collar and having both owner and researcher conduct training sessions. 

They tested whether there were differences between when the dogs were not wearing the dummy collar compared to when they were were, with an extra control group of dogs who never wore the dummy collar.

In the e-collar-trained dogs, salivary cortisol increased significantly when they were wearing a collar, compared to dogs trained only using positive reinforcement. The researchers say this “suggests a negative association with anticipation of stimulus application.” (p28). The e-collar-trained dogs also had a significant increase in tense behaviour, compared to the other dogs. They were very attentive to their owner whilst wearing the collar, to the extent that the researchers could not do the training task with some of these dogs. During training, the control group (including those trained using positive reinforcement only) were significantly more attentive to their trainer than the e-collar dogs. 

The first study concluded that “for a subset of dogs tested, the previous use of e-collars in training are associated with behavioural and physiological responses that are consistent with significant negative emotional states; this was not seen to the same extent in the control population. It is therefore suggested that the use of e-collars in training pet dogs can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using this technique.” (p4).

Because so many owners used the shock collars in a way that was not consistent with the manuals, the second study (DEFRA1402DWa) was designed to investigate what happens when a shock collar is used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. This includes a warning cue prior to the shock, so that it can be cancelled if the dog responds to the warning, and checking the level of shock to use for each dog. The Electronic Collar Manufacturer’s Association assisted with the design of the training protocol, and suggested the trainers who used the e-collar, who were also experienced in using other methods of training such as rewards.

Three groups of dogs were tested, with 21 dogs in each group. All of the dogs were referred because the owner said they had problems with recall and chasing (e.g. of sheep, cars, bicycles). This issue was chosen because it is one for which those trainers who use shock collars often recommend them.

Group A were trained using e-collars by dog trainers who had completed industry training. Group B were trained by the same trainers, but not using any shock and using lots of positive reinforcement. Group C were trained by members of the UK’s APDT (Association of Pet Dog Trainers) using no shock and lots of positive reinforcement. 

The APDT (UK) has a code of conduct which states that “coercive or punitive techniques and/or equipment should not be used, recommended, advertised or sold by members” and this includes the shock collar which they describe as an “abusive device”. (N.B. APDTs in other countries have different policies).

Groups B and C were both control groups, as neither was trained using shock collars. The reason for two controls? Group B is a useful control because they are the same trainers as Group A, but they are not blind to the purposes of the study, so it is possible they could unintentionally affect the results. Also, since they usually rely on shock collars they may not be as experienced in using reward-based methods as the trainers in Group C, who never use shock collars. 

All of the dogs were evaluated on a number of standardized tests prior to the start of training, and the dogs in each group were closely matched. Of course, researchers can’t shock people’s dogs without their permission, so for Groups A and B the dog owners were allowed to express a preference. Only two owners did this, one wanting their dog to be in the shock collar group and one wanting it not to be. It’s to the credit of the experimenters that they did not just swap these two dogs; in fact each one was swapped with another well-matched dog, to ensure matching between the groups.

Each dog was trained over a period of five days, although occasionally the trainers declared training complete after four days. The training took place in a field with a livestock pen in it; although the field used for Group C was different than for Groups A and B, the set-up was closely matched. At the end of the training, owners were brought in to have the training explained to them, so that they could continue as necessary at home. All of the training sessions were video-recorded, and various other measures (such as salivary cortisol) were taken during and after the training.

Stills from the videos were assessed by reviewers who were blind to the aims of the study, and to which group the dogs were in. You are probably thinking it will have been obvious which dogs were in the shock group, as the collars are visible, but the researchers thought of that: they had some e-collars de-activated, so that dogs in all three groups wore a collar (and therefore looked the same), but only Group A had the active collar.

So as you can see the design of the study was very careful to make sure that any results would be due only to the method of training. The dogs also returned to the training centre for further tests and observations three months after the training period, to assess any longer-term effects.

When examining the results, the researchers had to combine variables (where appropriate) and adjust the statistics to take account of the fact that they were conducting a large number of tests.  They also double-checked that the groups of dogs were matched on physiological variables; here the only difference was that dogs in Group C (APDT trainers) had higher levels of salivary cortisol at the start of the study, potentially indicating that they were more stressed before the study began.

Some of the results showed differences in training style. The dogs spent more time sitting, interacted less with the environment, and the trainers issued more commands, for Groups A (e-collar) and B compared to Group C (APDT rewards-based). Lip licking associated with food was higher in Group C than for Groups A and B (this makes me wonder if fewer treats were delivered to Group B although this is not reported on).

The results also showed some welfare concerns. The dogs in Group A (e-collar) were more tense, yawned more (a sign of stress) and spent less time interacting with the environment than the dogs in Group C (APDT rewards-based). For dogs in Group A, the number of yelps and other vocalizations increased with higher levels of shock. 

At three months after the training, dogs in Group A had higher salivary cortisol levels than dogs in Groups B and C when they arrived at the training centre, which may suggest the anticipation of e-collar use. Most owners from all groups were satisfied with the results of the training. 

The report says “the study did find behavioural evidence that use of e-collars negatively impacted on the welfare of some dogs during training even when training was conducted by professional trainers using relatively benign training programmes advised by e-collar advocates.” (p4) They also found that the e-collar was not more effective than rewards-based training for recall and chasing, even though this is the scenario that e-collar advocates particularly recommend it for.

Unfortunately we can’t say that no dogs were harmed during the course of this research, as the findings are clearly that e-collars can have negative welfare consequences. However the research was conducted following ethical guidelines, dogs were monitored carefully, and for ethical reasons intentional misuse of the e-collar was not studied. While the owners who used e-collars did not follow manufacturer’s guidelines, it is worth noting that the three dog trainers who took part in pilot work on sheep chasing did not follow the guidelines either. 

Previous studies have also found welfare issues with the use of e-collars (e.g. Schilder and van der Borg 2004; Schalke et al 2007; Herron et al 2009). A large survey of 3,897 dog owners in the UK (Blackwell et al 2012) found that 3.3% reported using an e-collar in training. Amongst the owners of dogs who had had recall and chasing problems, those who had used e-collars reported significantly less success than those who had used rewards-based methods. 

The first Defra study found wide variability in how e-collars were used, and showed that owners either did not read or did not follow the advice given in the manuals. There were significant negative welfare findings in some dogs trained using the e-collar. The second study, designed to use the e-collars by trained professionals, according to industry standards, and for only a short period of time, also found a negative effect on animal welfare.  

In addition, excellent results were achieved by using rewards-based training, which shows the e-collar is unnecessary. Of course, the many people who have already trained a strong recall using positive reinforcement will not be surprised by this. However, it will surprise some shock collar advocates, and they should be encouraged and supported to learn modern dog training techniques.

These studies will increase the pressure on governments to ban the use of e-collars, particularly in the UK where taxpayers funded this research. Since dog training is an unlicensed profession, owners should check the credentials of dog trainers carefully, especially since trainers who use shock collars may not make this clear on their website. In the UK, the APDT is against aversive methods, and around the world (including the USA) the Pet Professional Guild is committed to force-free training.

What do you think about these results? Do you think shock collars should have warning labels? Or do you think they should be banned?

References

Blackwell, E., Bolster, C., Richards, G., Loftus, B., & Casey, R. (2012). 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 Veterinary Research, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-93  
Defra AW1402 (2013) Studies to assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs. University of Lincoln / University of Bristol / Food and Environment Research Agency.  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).

Defra AW1402a (2013) 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. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman and Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln).

Herron, M., Shofer, F., & Reisner, I. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117 (1-2), 47-54 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011  
Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., & Jones-Baade, R. (2007). Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 105 (4), 369-380 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.002  
Schilder, M., & van der Borg, J. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85 (3-4), 319-334 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004

Homing and Re-homing Fido: How many newly-adopted pets are still kept six months later?

When people adopt a new pet, why do some of them re-home the pet before six months is up? And how many actually still have the pet in the home? These are the questions asked in a new survey for the American Humane Association, funded by PetSmart.

Every year in the US, 3 to 4 million homeless dogs and cats are euthanized. Understanding how many pets are not kept, and the reasons why, is essential to finding ways to solve the problem of pet overpopulation. The problem is not unique to the US. A sizeable proportion of animals arrive at shelters as owner surrenders (e.g. rabbits (Cook and McCobb, 2012); cats (CFHS, 2013), and there are animal welfare issues, as well as economic costs (Stavisky et al 2012).

The AHA survey is the second phase of a three-part study. The first part investigated barriers to the adoption of dogs and cats, and the next stage will consider possible interventions.

The survey took place in three mid-sized cities that have both an animal control shelter and a private shelter: Charlotte, N.C., Denver, C.O. and Fort Worth, Texas.  People who had adopted a cat or dog from either the shelter or animal control about six months earlier were contacted and asked to take part. The response rate varied from 33% in Fort Worth to 60% in Charlotte. This may not sound very high, but is actually good for this kind of survey, and highlights one of the problems of conducting research on real-life issues.

In total, 572 people took part. Approximately half of the participants had adopted a cat and half had adopted a dog; half of the pets were male and half were female. Most of the homes did not have children living in them, although some did. For almost a quarter of the participants, this was the first time they had owned a pet as an adult.

Six months after adoption, 10% of the pets were no longer in the home. Of these, 42% had been returned to the shelter; the rest had been lost, died, or given to someone else. Nearly two-thirds of the animals that were not kept were given up within two months of the adoption. In fact, a quarter had left within two weeks of being adopted.

This tells us that any policies or interventions designed to improve retention rates need to be aimed at the very beginning period after adoption. One possibility might be to improve the information that goes home with the pet when it is first adopted, or for the shelter to keep in touch with new adoptees during the first couple of weeks.

Some animal behaviour problems were related to surrender, including soiling, barking, being disobedient, destructive, or unfriendly to humans. This ties in with other research. For example, a recent study found that behavioural problems are a common reason for dogs to be surrendered (Kwan and Bain 2013). Most shelters already identify potential behavioural issues and provide advice at the point of adoption, but perhaps there could be ways to improve it or encourage people to follow it. Kwan and Bain's paper also found that people who surrender dogs have lower attachment than people who are keeping their pets, suggesting that advice could emphasize building the bond between a new owner and their pet.

Another interesting piece of information from this survey relates to where people turned if they needed advice on their new pet. People who asked friends and family, or their vet, were very likely to keep the pet, but those who asked the shelter were much less likely to keep it. At first glance this may sound like the shelters were not giving good advice, but the likelihood is that the shelter was a ‘last resort’ for advice before returning the pet, or something people felt they ought to do before returning it.

If shelters are aware that these calls for help mean the pet is at risk of return, they can concentrate on helping the person find a solution. For example, it may be difficult for shelter staff to find the time to spend on these calls during a busy day, so perhaps one member of staff should have responsibility for this and specialize in providing counselling. 

There were no differences in retention rates of pets who had a visit to a vet compared to those who didn’t. Also – and this will surprise some people – there was no difference in retention rate between people who had spent a long time on research before the adoption, and those who acted on impulse. It's possible that some people do research because they already have doubts about adopting an animal.

Sleeping on the bed was a good sign, as these pets were more likely to be kept than those who slept somewhere else in the house. (Interestingly, sleeping outside was not a risk factor for surrender).

Animal shelters and rescues want to find good homes for animals, and usually have a contract that specifies they should be returned to them if they are not kept. While a rate of ten per cent of dogs and cats no longer being in the home six months after adoption is high, it should be remembered that there are no comparative figures for animals obtained from other sources, such as pet stores or internet ads. Many dogs and cats are acquired from places with no return policy or option, which leaves them in a vulnerable position should something go wrong. This is especially worrisome since a recent study found that puppies from pet stores are more likely to have behavioural problems.

The full report from the AHA is available to read at the link below, and has a list of suggested strategies for animal shelters and rescues that includes working to reduce barriers to pet ownership and offering behavioural support to improve the relationship between people and their pets.

Have you ever adopted a pet on impulse?

References

American Humane Association (2013) Keeping pets (dogs and cats) in homes: A three-phase retention study. Phase II: Descriptive study of post-adoption retention in six shelters in three US cities. Available online at: http://www.americanhumane.org/petsmart-keeping-pets-phase-ii.pdf

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (2012) Cats in Canada: A Comprehensive Report on the Cat Overpopulation Crisis. Available online at the CFHS http://cfhs.ca/athome/cat_overpopulation_crisis/.

Cook, A., & McCobb, E. (2012). Quantifying the Shelter Rabbit Population: An Analysis of Massachusetts and Rhode Island Animal Shelters Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 15 (4), 297-312 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2012.709084  
Kwan, J., & Bain, M. (2013). Owner Attachment and Problem Behaviors Related to Relinquishment and Training Techniques of Dogs Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16 (2), 168-183 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2013.768923  
Stavisky, J., Brennan, M., Downes, M., & Dean, R. (2012). Demographics and economic burden of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK: results of a 2010 census BMC Veterinary Research, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-163

Is attachment to pet dogs linked to their behaviour?

Some people are more attached to their dogs than others.  Recently, we wrote about a study that found that people who relinquished their dog to animal shelters had lower attachment to them than people who were keeping their dog. This week, we discuss a new study by Christy Hoffman et al that asks whether there is a link between a dog’s behaviour and how attached the owner is to the dog.

The study involved a questionnaire that was completed by 60 adults and 92 children from sixty dog-owning families. As far as we know, this is the first study to look at attachment in children as well as their parents. The families completed the questionnaire as part of a wider long-term study of childhood and adolescence.  Most of the adults were female (88%), and they ranged in age from 30 to 62. The children were from 11 to 18 years old. On average, families had owned their dog for almost five years.

The dog’s behaviour was rated using a widely-established questionnaire called the C-BARQ.  Participants also answered questions about their attitudes to pets in general, their responsibility for the dog (such as feeding and walking it), and their attachment to the dog. A small group of participants completed the questionnaire again a few months later to check for test-retest reliability. 

For both children and adults, more positive feelings about pets in general, and taking more responsibility for the care of the dog, were both linked to higher attachment to the dog. This is not surprising. After controlling for this statistically, the authors found that attachment to the dog was higher if the dog was rated as higher on the scales for trainability and for separation problems. In other words, attachment is higher if the dog is well-behaved and likes to spend time with its humans. 

Interestingly, there was no effect of the dog’s stranger-related aggression or fear on attachment.  However it should be noted that all of the dogs scored well on this and so none of them presented serious problems.
 

Adults were more attached to their dog if it was rated highly for attention-seeking, but this made no difference for children. Children’s attitudes to pets and levels of attachment were both strongly correlated with those of their parents. There was moderate agreement between children and parents about how trainable the dog was, and on some but not all of the other categories of the dog behaviour questions.

The study also looked at the effect of demographic characteristics, although because of the sample size they classified race as either Caucasian or not Caucasian. In terms of dog excitability there was an effect of race; amongst Caucasians, attachment was lower for more excitable dogs, whereas for non-Caucasians there was no effect of excitability on attachment. However, the authors say it may not be race that is the important factor here, but other differences such as whether dogs were kept mainly in the house or yard. There were no gender differences in attachment.

This study looked at the relationship between attachment and dog behaviour at one point in time; it isn’t possible to draw conclusions about the direction of the relationship. For example, it could be that taking responsibility for the dog’s care is a process that leads to higher attachment, but it is also possible that those who don’t feel particularly attached pass on responsibility to other members of the family. 

It is very interesting that perceived trainability was linked to attachment and this raises lots of possibilities for future research. A recent meta-analysis of whether dog personality traits are stable over time found that responsiveness to training was one of the least stable traits in puppies, but was more consistent in adult dogs. Further research into this trait is warranted, and it should also be remembered that humans can learn to improve their training abilities. 

Would you say your dog is very responsive to training, or not so much?

Reference

Fratkin, J., Sinn, D., Patall, E., & Gosling, S. (2013). Personality Consistency in Dogs: A Meta-Analysis PLoS ONE, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054907
Hoffman, C.L., Chen, P., Serpell, J.A., & Jacobson, K. (2013). Do dog behavioral characteristics predict the quality of the relationship between dogs and their owners? Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1 (1), 20-37

Interactions between shelter dogs: some new research

Some animal shelters house dogs in pairs or small groups. This can enrich their lives, but it could also potentially be a source of stress if the dogs are not well-matched. A new paper by Irena Petak, of the University of Zagreb, Croatia, examines the communication patterns between dogs housed in groups.

At the Dogs Trust in Salisbury, England, there is a sanctuary for long-term residents.  There is a ‘mountain area’ with an artificial mountain and three kennels, and a tree area with grass and trees. There is also a small introductory pen for new dogs who are coming in to the sanctuary. The sanctuary is enriched with a sand box, tunnels through the mountain, ramps and toys for the dogs to play with. During the day, the dogs are allowed to run free in the enclosure, and at night the dogs can choose one of the three kennels to go into. 

At the time of the study, there were twelve dogs in the sanctuary and two in the introductory pen. All of these dogs were neutered males who had been re-homed several times. The time they had spent at the sanctuary varied from one week to seven years, and their estimated age varies from seven to twelve years.

The dogs were observed for 162 hours, during the day-time, over a period of seven weeks, always at times when the care-takers were not there so the dogs could interact as they wished. Interactions during this time were recorded, although a few were missed because it was a large area (for example, sometimes trees were in the way).

The results showed that dogs interact with the other dogs in different ways. This is as expected, but it emphasizes the need to be careful in selecting dogs to share housing, as different dogs have different preferences. 

The interactions between pairs of dogs were grouped into proactive neutral, proactive aggressive, and reactive scent-marking (reactions to the scent-marking of other dogs). Aggression was characterized by things like growling, snarling, mounting, attacking and chin resting.  Group interactions were classified as vocal, visual or olfactory, according to the behaviour of the dog that initiated the interaction.

The most common type of interaction was proactive neutral, followed by reactive scent-marking. Aggression was the least common type of behaviour. Individual differences included one dog that tried to initiate many proactive neutral interactions, a couple of dogs that were responsible for most of the aggression, and one dog that didn’t really interact with the other dogs. There were also two dogs who barked the most, and often other dogs barked in response to hearing them. Some dogs were more active than others in exploring the environment and participating in social behaviours.

There was an interesting pattern in that the dogs who started olfactory interactions with other dogs tended also to receive this kind of behaviour at other times. On the other hand, dogs who initiated visual or vocal group interactions were not also the recipients of such behaviour.

There was a typical pattern to interactions between two dogs. It was “usually initiated by one dog approaching another dog and was followed by sniffing body parts. Recipients frequently did not try to stop the initiator from sniffing them and did not try to sniff the initiator.” There was also a lot of scent-marking and sniffing of places where other dogs had urinated. The frequency of scent-marking and sniffing was such that Petak suggests that olfactory communication should be considered as enrichment activity.

The patterns of interactions between the dogs are very complex, and do not support the idea of a dominance hierarchy. The scent-marking that was observed also cannot be linked to dominance or aggression. 

It is interesting that the two dogs that most often initiated aggression were also most likely the recipients of it. This suggests that some dogs can have relationship problems over a long period of time. However, it should be remembered that these encounters were rare, and not serious.

The results suggest it is important to match dogs carefully, and this would apply to group-housed shelter dogs and to people adopting a second dog as a friend for one they already have. Matching activity levels is important, as if one dog is too boisterous it may make the other dog unhappy. Similarly, if one dog vocalizes a lot, this may stress another dog.

This study shows that housing dogs in groups enables them to engage in normal, social behaviours.  Many shelters already house dogs in pairs or groups, and other shelters may wish to follow suit.

For anyone interested in reading the full paper, it is freely available for a limited time (along with some other papers about animal shelters) thanks to a collaboration between the ASPCA, the Animals and Society Institute, and the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science.  Just click on the link below.

Do you have more than one dog? If so, how do they get along?

Reference
Petak, I. (2013). Communication Patterns Within a Group of Shelter Dogs and Implications for Their Welfare Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16 (2), 118-139 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2013.741001

Dogs can haz brainscanz and EEG?

Canine cognition is a hot topic these days, using experiments and brain imaging as research tools. The trouble with brain imaging work is that it is invasive, to the extent that animals may have to be sedated or anaesthetized for the study. All that changed with the amazing work of Gregory Berns et al and the first-ever fMRI study on awake, unrestrained dogs last year. Now Miiamaaria Kujala et al in Finland have shown that it is also possible to do a non-invasive EEG with dogs.

An EEG measures brain activity by placing electrodes across the scalp. These pick up oscillations in electrical activity, which can be measured for changes. One common use of EEG is in assessing epilepsy in dogs (and people). We aren’t talking about veterinary EEGs here, however, but those designed to learn something about how a healthy brain works.

If animals have to be anaesthetized for an EEG to occur, it’s a problem because a drowsy brain does not function in the same way as an alert brain. Awake animals are typically restrained. For example, Hanlu Ma et al (2013) anaesthetized cats and surgically implanted metal tubes through which electrodes could be inserted. After the cats were given a couple of weeks to recover from surgery, the electrodes were used to test the cats’ responses to meows and to human voices making vowel sounds. 

The cat’s body was wrapped in a cotton bag and its head was immobilized while the sounds were played. The cats were trained for this (though the paper doesn't say how) and monitored for signs of distress. The results showed which parts of the brain were activated, and found no significant difference in response to meows and vowels.
 

In this study, the cats were awake. But it is still invasive, since they had to be operated on and were restrained for several hours at a time. Could there be another way?

Since dogs are easily trainable using operant conditioning, Kujala et al in Finland thought it might be possible to train dogs for EEG. Using positive reinforcement, they trained eight beagles to take part in their study.
 

The beagles were purpose-bred for laboratory work and live in a group kennel environment. First of all they took part in training. For the study, their heads had to be shaved, cleaned and prepped so that electrodes could be applied. They wore seven electrodes on the head, one in each ear, and a ground electrode on the back. Then they had to lie still and look at a TV screen while measurements were taken. At the same time, they also wore eye-tracking equipment.  



A beagle in the study. Source: PLoS One

The experiment itself took place in twenty-minute sessions over four days for each dog, so that they did not get too tired. Of course, it took much longer to train the dogs to get used to the laboratory and the equipment in the first place, with twice-weekly training sessions over one and a half years.

The dogs were shown photographs of human and dog faces, mostly the right way up but with some upside-down. They were shown a batch of photos, then had a short break in which they were rewarded with some food, then led to settle down and watch another batch. The authors point out that the experimental set-up is very similar to that used in human studies. 

The results showed a change in a type of electrical activity called the beta range (15-30Hz); oscillations in this band were suppressed when the dog was looking at a face, compared to the rest period. This probably reflects the activity of a part of the brain called the occipital cortex. In addition, the researchers found a suppression of activity at the 2-6Hz range. This coincided with the beginning of looking at an image, and was noticed most in the sensors at the front of the head. The authors say this may relate to eye movements as the dog looks at an image that has just appeared on the TV.

There were individual differences between the dogs which is not surprising, as this is also the case for humans. 

The authors conclude that “the study opens the possibility to implement cognitive neuroscience studies with dogs and to examine the evolutionary background and divergence of brain function associated with cognition.”

This is similar to the study by Gregory Berns et al that was published last year. They trained two dogs – Callie the rescue feist and McKenzie the agility-loving border collie – to take part in an fMRI. They began training the dogs using a mock-up of the equipment before moving on to the real version. After two months, they were able to take part in the fMRI study. Each dog had to keep absolutely still; if they moved by as little as 3mm, it would make the data useless. 



Source: PLoS One

The picture shows Callie during a training session (A) and McKenzie during the study itself (B).

 

The study found that the reward centre of the brain lit up when the dog saw a hand signal that meant a treat would soon be forthcoming. 

These EEG and fMRI studies are a tremendous achievement on the part of both the humans and dogs that took part. So how were the dogs trained? They did not use electric shocks or ‘corrections’ or punishment. Instead they relied on positive reinforcement.  (You will have noticed ongoing positive reinforcement in the EEG study, with pauses in which the dog was given a treat before returning to the experiment).

These two studies were designed to find out about the canine brain, but they also show the effectiveness of training using positive reinforcement.

Some people (even some dog trainers) try to argue that positive reinforcement is not the right way to train a dog. And yet, it has been used to train dogs to take part in an EEG study and in fMRI without the need for sedation or restraint. Isn’t that amazing?! 

References

Berns, G., Brooks, A., & Spivak, M. (2012). Functional MRI in Awake Unrestrained Dogs PLoS ONE, 7 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038027
Kujala, M., Törnqvist, H., Somppi, S., Hänninen, L., Krause, C., Vainio, O., & Kujala, J. (2013). Reactivity of Dogs' Brain Oscillations to Visual Stimuli Measured with Non-Invasive Electroencephalography PLoS ONE, 8 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061818
Ma, H., Qin, L., Dong, C., Zhong, R., & Sato, Y. (2013). Comparison of Neural Responses to Cat Meows and Human Vowels in the Anterior and Posterior Auditory Field of Awake Cats PLoS ONE, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052942

Why do people surrender dogs to animal shelters?

Five to seven million companion animals arrive at animal shelters in the US each year, and about half of these are animals being surrendered by their owners. Why do people surrender their pets? To find out, a new study by Jennifer Kwan and Melissa Bain compared dogs being relinquished at three Sacramento animal shelters to those dogs that were there simply to receive their vaccinations.

The experimenter spent time at the shelters during the hours when relinquishments could take place, and when vaccination clinics were available. She approached people to ask them to complete the questionnaires, which were available in English or Spanish. A total of 129 people took part; 80 relinquishing owners, and 49 continuing owners. 

Some people were not approached to take part because their dogs seemed to be aggressive, and the experimenter would have had to hold them while the owner completed the questionnaire. In addition, if relinquishing owners seemed particularly upset or arrived requesting euthanasia of the dog, they were not asked to take part, so as not to exacerbate their distress. It is possible this had an effect on the results.

The questionnaire asked about demographic information, attachment to the pet, behavioural problems, and, in the case of relinquished dogs, the reasons why. Participants could rate potential reasons for relinquishment as ‘not a reason’, ‘somewhat of a reason’ and ‘strong reason’, so it was possible for multiple reasons to be given. The results from the three shelters were combined for analysis. 

Relinquished dogs and ‘continuing’ dogs were equally likely to have attended training classes. The relinquished dogs were significantly more likely to live as outside dogs all of the time, and were significantly older; amongst the male dogs, they were significantly more likely to be intact.

Relinquishing and continuing owners were equally likely to have used punishment-based techniques in training their dogs. There was a correlation between the use of prong and choke collars and problems in loose-leash walking. However, it is not possible to know if these were only employed because of difficulties training loose-leash walking, or if they contributed to the problems, for example by misuse or by owners assuming they didn’t need to train if using them.

Dogs in the relinquished group were significantly more likely to have problem behaviours than those that were being kept. Sixty-five per cent of relinquishing owners said that a behavioural problem was a contributing factor, and about half said it was a relatively strong influence. Aggression was the most common behavioural problem given as a strong reason for relinquishment.

Attachment to pets is a construct that includes knowledge about the pet’s needs, feelings of closeness to the pet, and time spent with them. Attachment scores were significantly lower for relinquishing owners compared to continuing owners. Although not surprising, this is the first time it has been shown using a standard measure of attachment. It would be interesting to know how attachment changes and develops over the duration of an owner’s relationship with their pet. 

About a third of owners said they were ‘very satisfied’ with their dog’s behaviour. Those who were not so satisfied also had significantly lower scores for attachment, suggesting a link between behaviour and attachment to dogs.

Although moving house was a common reason for animal relinquishment, many people had other pets that weren’t being relinquished. This doesn’t mean they gave incorrect information; many rental properties have rules about the number, height or breed of pets. This is also a potential reason for the numbers of pit bulls in the relinquished group, because they are often listed as one of the restricted breeds. While it is surprising to learn that people might relinquish some pets and choose to keep others, it is useful to know as future studies can make a point of learning about kept animals as well as relinquished ones.

The most interesting finding of this study is the frequency of behavioural problems as a reason for relinquishment. This is not surprising, but it underlines the need to help owners find better ways of preventing problems in the first place and managing them if they arise. Surprisingly little is known about people's information-seeking regarding behaviour and training issues, and unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation.

What are your favourite books or other resources for dog owners? (N.B. Please avoid posting active links because urls usually end up in the spam folder. Thank you!)

Reference

Kwan, J., & Bain, M. (2013). Owner Attachment and Problem Behaviors Related to Relinquishment and Training Techniques of Dogs Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16 (2), 168-183 DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2013.768923

On Puppies, Pet Stores, and Behaviour Problems

If you buy a puppy from a pet store, could you be getting more than you bargained for? It has long been thought that puppies from pet shops might have behavioural problems. A new study by Franklin D. McMillan et al investigates this by comparing puppies from pet stores to those from non-commercial breeders.



The puppies that are for sale in pet shops originate from commercial breeding establishments, also known as puppy mills or puppy farms. These are large establishments that breed puppies for profit. The ASPCA says they “usually house dogs in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, without adequate veterinary care, food, water and socialization. Puppy mill dogs do not get to experience treats, toys, exercise or basic grooming. To minimize waste cleanup, dogs are often kept in cages with wire flooring that injures their paws and legs—and it is not unusual for cages to be stacked up in columns.”

 

A large number of dogs took part in this study: 413 dogs that were bought as puppies from pet stores, and 5,657 that were obtained from breeders. Although predominantly in the US, some were in other countries. Dogs from breeders were likely to have been obtained at around the same age as dogs from pet stores, and also to be purebred dogs, so they are a good comparison group to the pet store dogs.

Participants answered an online questionnaire that included the C-BARQ (Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire). This is a standardized questionnaire that assesses 14 behavioural factors as well as a number of miscellaneous items. 

The pet store dogs were significantly worse than breeder-obtained dogs on twelve of the fourteen scales (on the other two scales, they were about the same). The biggest differences were in terms of aggression. Looking only at entire/intact dogs, those obtained from pet stores were three times more likely to display aggression directed at their owner, and almost twice as likely to show aggression to other dogs they did not know, compared to dogs obtained from a breeder. This is terrible, because aggression can have serious consequences for both dog and owner. 

Other problems that were found significantly more often in dogs from pet stores are aggression to strangers, aggression to other dogs in the household, fear of dogs, separation problems, and touch sensitivity.  They were also more likely to have miscellaneous problems such as soiling in the house and mounting. They were more excitable, energetic, attention-seeking and, if they were not working dogs, they were also rated as less trainable.

The authors suggest several reasons for these findings. They say “the formative stages of the puppy’s life in the CBE [commercial breeding establishment] are periods where stress may exert an impact on brain development.” The puppies are likely stressed by their environment both prenatally and during the first eight weeks of their life. They may experience stress during transit when they are shipped to the pet stores. They also miss out on important early socialization experiences because they are not able to get used to a normal household environment during this time.

It is possible that other factors play a role, since people who get puppies from pet shops may be different from those who go to breeders; for example, they might be less knowledgeable about puppies and the importance of early socialization, or tend to use different training techniques. These were not assessed in the current study. 

This is not the first research to find problems with dogs from puppy farms. An earlier study of dogs that were used as breeding stock at CBEs and then re-homed found they had significantly more health and behavioural problems than a sample of non-puppy mill dogs that were matched for age, breed and gender.  And a study by Carri Westgarth last year showed that it’s best to see both parents before purchasing a puppy; if neither parent was seen, puppies were 3.8 times more likely to have a behavioural problem than if both parents were seen. 

 

Some places have banned the sale of puppies in stores. You can help by not purchasing anything from pet stores that sell puppies.  It’s also important to know that puppies from puppy farms are not just sold in pet stores; they are widely available via free ads and the internet, sometimes with semi-convincing cover stories about new pups that suddenly need to be re-homed. Warning signs include wanting to meet at a neutral location (instead of where the pup was raised); the same puppy photo appearing in different adverts; and the same phone number appearing in adverts for many different puppies.

If you want to know more about puppy mills, you can read the ASPCA’s FAQ, information from the BC SPCA, or join the Dogs Trust battery farmed dogs campaign. And please share the results of this research, so that people understand buying puppies from pet shops has risks of behavioural as well as health problems.

Are puppies for sale in pet stores near you?

Reference

McMillan, F., Serpell, J., Duffy, D., Masaoud, E., & Dohoo, I. (2013). Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 242 (10), 1359-1363 DOI: 10.2460/javma.242.10.1359  
McMillan, F., Duffy, D., & Serpell, J. (2011). Mental health of dogs formerly used as ‘breeding stock’ in commercial breeding establishments Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135 (1-2), 86-94 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.006  
Westgarth, C., Reevell, K., & Barclay, R. (2012). Association between prospective owner viewing of the parents of a puppy and later referral for behavioural problems Veterinary Record, 170 (20), 517-517 DOI: 10.1136/vr.100138