Anxiety and Fear Responses in Domestic Canines

Anxiety Responses When Training Domestic Canines

Overview:

Anxiety and fearful responses are common occurrences on the dog training field. Both at least initially result in avoidance but the reasons for either anxiety or fear, and the ways in which to rectify the problems, are very different. The two issues have very different origins although anxiety, when mishandled, frequently leads to a fearful response and an escalation of avoidance behaviour.

A handler needs to clearly understand the differences between the two and to be able to implement the correct handling procedure in order to rectify the dog’s behavioural pattern. The purpose of this paper is to:

1. Provide the handlers of dogs with the necessary information to be able to recognise the differences between the two mentioned states.

2. Provide the knowledge of how to best proceed with their training of an anxious dog so as to minimise the recurrence of this state and to minimise the long term behavioural problems which can be associated with this state.

Anxiety

Anxiety and fear are both negative emotions, anxiety is frequently described as a form of fear in Psychological literature. This would also be considered to be technically true by the author but it impacts on the dog in an entirely different manner and as a result should be viewed separately from fear as a distinctly different negative emotion. Anxiety would be described as a fear of the unknown or an intangible fear. It is not the environment or action involved in that is particularly frightening rather it a fear of what might happen if……. With a true fear reaction or tangible fear reaction it is the environment which is giving cause to the dog’s fearful state.

To further the distinction of the two emotions, fear is highly successfully treated by systematic desensitisation, that is to say the dog is exposed to the stimulus in small but increasing doses until it can cognitively work out for itself that the fear was unfounded. Anxiety on the other hand is highly resistant to such an approach. The most common anxiety in adult humans is examination anxiety. It does not matter how many exams people suffering from this condition go through they are still anxious about taking an exam, the what if scenario is highly resistant to extinction if you simply try to desensitise the subject. Rather the subject must be supported to confront and over come their anxiety and then it is progressively observed to be less intense on each succession. A supporting approach to tangible fear will on the other hand actually act as a reinforcer and lead to the behaviour becoming more permanent in nature.

Anxiety is frequently misinterpreted as tangible fear; it is not. However a high state of anxiety does frequently transpose itself into a true fearful state. Anxiety occurs when the dog is in conflict between what it is being asked to do and, usually, either its comprehension of the task at hand or its lack of confidence in its own ability to complete that task.

As such anxiety is normally expressed when the dog’s innate social drives (genetic predisposition) have been engaged, that is to say the dog is in social mode. As a result it would be fair to say that handler error has a great deal to do with the anxious state. Handlers who are innately dominant, yet not forceful, frequently illicite an anxious response from dogs with very low social thresholds; especially one’s which have a high to extreme innate social predisposition. This is believed to be due to the conflict within the dog of wanting to please the handler, but being concerned about possible rejection if the desired task is not completed. There is a big difference between the dog having concern of rejection and being fearful of the handler’s reaction. Forceful handlers are not dominant they are forceful. The difference is that a dominant handler uses the power of his/her will to achieve the objective not the strength of their body or the use of corrective equipment. Dominant handlers project a sense of confidence and not a sense of threatening repercussions.

Anxiety is frequently seen in training when any handler is trying to teach a dog a new behaviour. It is most frequently seen when a dog begins to negotiate agility equipment or any other unfamiliar physical obstacles. The dog will begin to avoid the task; this avoidance is frequently misinterpreted as the dog being scared. Avoidance actions, however, are very different to those of fear. An anxious dog will usually avoid, but at a lesser intensity than the truly fearful dog. They are really trying to avoid completing the task and not trying to avoid the whole situation/environment. Simultaneously, when requested to complete the desire action, the dog frequently seeks contact with the handler as a means of avoiding the desired action. The dog will frequently jump up on the handler sometimes displaying a fearful like body position and others will display a slightly reserved but happy disposition. Even with a fear like body position it is suggested that the dog is still not fearful; rather it is trying to express its inner conflict and avoid any repercussions for its avoidance of the action from its social superior (the handler). Hence the position is actually more one of submission than fear. This could also be seen as a mimicking of the submissive posture of a subordinate wolf to its superior. Such fear like body positions are usually seen when the dog is handled by a confident and dominant handler. But a true fear reaction is caused if the handler is prone to correct the dog by forceful means when it is unsure of what is required. The forceful handler is more likely to have the dog rapidly switch from a high anxiety status to that of a fearful status, than the dominant handler, due to their methods of correcting the problem. With a forceful handler the dog has learnt from previous experience that displays of this nature (anxiety fear like body posturing to seek reassurance) are met with forceful corrections, hence the switching to the fearful state and the subsequent engagement of the dog’s innate defensive potential (defence mode). This is easily identified by an increase in the dog’s avoidance response, the dog now is not trying to simply avoid the action it is now attempting to avoid the environment in which the requested action is to take place.

If such a scenario (forceful correction for anxiety responses) is continued the dog will lower its defence threshold to the point where almost any anxiety provoking situations will immediately result in a fearful response of major avoidance or, if avoidance is unavailable, a directed but fearful, aggressive response (subject to the innate potential of the defence drives). In this case the dog has been conditioned to exhibit fear as soon as it is unsure of itself. The handler’s efforts to tough out the situation have in actuality caused the dog to exhibit more extreme reactions. Unfortunately such reactions will begin to occur with a greater frequency and are highly resistant to treatment. In such cases the trust and respect between the dog and handler have been eroded. The longer this situation is allowed to continue the worse the dog’s reactions will become and the greater the likelihood that such reactions will become part of the dog’s permanent repertoire of behavioural responses, i.e. when in doubt become fearful. It must be acknowledged by the handler that the conditioning of this dog to a fearful response is the result of their inability to correctly interpret and handle the dog and not as a result of its breeding.

An anxious dog needs support, clear and concise instruction with no ambiguity and positive interaction prior to, during and at the completion of the desired action. The handler should also project an air of positivity that the action is well within the abilities of the dog and the handler, wherever possible, should avoid becoming stationary regardless of the actions of the dog. A stationary position by the handler will tend increase the dog’s anxiety and frequently leads to a fearful response as the dog perceives that a conflict between itself and the handler is inevitable. To illustrate this point consider that the handler is being taught a new movement by someone they feel is very superior to them. During the initial learning process the handler makes a mistake and then is held in position by their superior, who has turned to face them bodily and engaged very direct eye contact. The immediate response be it from man or dog is that you are about to be chastised. In the example we have left out the verbal and/or lead corrections which all too frequently are used when the dog, in an anxious state, seeks to avoid the action. If these are added there is little wonder that the dog becomes fearful.

If a dog begins to exhibit an anxious response the handler should immediately seek to improve the communication between the dog and themselves. This can be achieved by clearly demonstrating what it is the dog is expected to do (going right back to the basics and clearly showing the dog what is required) and providing continual confident support to the dog that what it is doing (intended action) is highly desirable. The handler should keep progressing through the desired action without inadvertently adopting a dominant and possibly threatening body position (becoming stationary with direct eye contact). Upon successful completion of the task the handler should express a great deal of praise for the dog’s efforts, even if they have not been absolutely correct. Whilst this would go against most of the traditional training principals taught to handlers, the handler should consider that they are praising the dog for its best effort under circumstances where the objective is not clearly understood or known. In such circumstances all a handler can honestly expect is for the dog to try to complete whatever is being asked of it (trial and error learning). Thus as a result it is fair to consider that any action which is not avoidance should be considered to be praiseworthy. In anxious dogs avoid a conflict and improve communication, in order to lessen the doubt in the dog’s perceptions, and a rapid improvement of the dog’s avoidance behaviour in the intended task is seen.

High anxiety levels do effectively block all prey potential. This is often the first indication the handler has that their dog is actually in the anxious state. Food rewards or prey play which the dog may have happily engaged in on other occasions will be totally ignored if the dog is experiencing high levels of anxiety. If the subject has happily taken food rewards on previous occasions and refuses to take them when it is being taught a new exercise it would be considered to be a good indication that the dog is actually anxious. This does make it a little more difficult to effectively reward the dog’s correct actions. However if the dog has engaged its social potential when it is in the anxious state, the praise of the dog’s superior is a particularly special event and as such does have a significant impact on being able to lower the anxiety level. With this in mind the handler should be effusive with praise and make sure there is no doubt in the dog’s mind that its superior was very happy with its efforts. Then the handler should repeat the exercise and in the majority of cases the anxiety exhibited from the dog will have noticeably lowered.

Anxiety is also frequently encountered when a dog is handled by an unfamiliar handler. It matters very little whether this person is known to the dog because, unless the known person is considered to be a member of the dog’s own pack, the dog has little to gain from the interaction in a pack sense. That is to say that whilst the dog may consider the handler to be superior to it, it cannot gain the additional status increase by interaction with its handler as it would if the handler was from the dog’s own pack. This type of anxiety is frequently seen in the conformation ring where many dogs have a great number of handlers throughout their career. If the dog is a dog which has expressed any anxiety with a handler from its own pack it is sure to exhibit greater anxiety when handled by an outsider.

Case studies: To give practical examples of the major causes and treatments for anxiety disorders in dogs the author has detailed below several actual case histories. Whilst each of the case histories is a variety of Belgian Shepherd it is not the intention of the author to suggest that this breed is more anxious than any other. Although the breed in general does tend to have high innate social potentials with low thresholds which can, as described above, be a mitigating factor in anxiety responses. It should also be noted that the Author owns, breeds, trains and competes with all four varieties of Belgian Shepherd and as a result is frequently sought when a person has difficulty with this breed.

The first case study is a classic example of the extreme social innate potential coupled with a low threshold creating an almost pathological need to please the handler. This was further complicated by the dog being forced into an omega position during a critical period of development and left under such circumstances for many months.

Case 1:

Belgian Groenendael bitch 18mths old. Recently re-homed with a very confident and dominant handler.

Known history:

Bitch was known to have been very dominant with other dogs during the juvenile stage. As a result of forcing other dogs to submit she was placed back in a pen with her dam (dominant bitch). This caused the bitch to have to accept a lower position or risk attack by a far stronger animal (forced omega position). Bitch does have a history of not fully bonding with her handlers and is known to be difficult to handle. The bitch had lived with the breeder for most of her life but had once before been unsuccessfully re-homed. The bitch had throughout her life been shown in conformation and had been awarded the title of Champion. The bitch was sedated by the breeder for shipment to the new owner; this was done with the full knowledge of the new owner. (Drug used, ACP)

Innate potential/reactivity evaluation:

Extreme social potential (high drives), low to very low threshold (highly reactive). Prey potential non-existent due to constant anxious state. Defence innate potential, moderate with high threshold (low reactivity).

Observations:

Initially the bitch was given time to adjust to her new home. Walks on lead in quiet and non distracting yet interesting environments were undertaken. The bitch whilst showing some enjoyment of interaction with the handler conducted herself in a preoccupied manner to the extent where by, regardless of how interesting the surroundings were (freshly mown paddock), no prey behaviours like searching were seen. The bitch also would not take food from the handler at all. Her appetite was good and did eat when the food was placed in her bowl and the handler had left the area. Bitch also displayed displacement activities such as chewing on her water bowl virtually daily and always at night.

The bitch was started on Agility training to build her own confidence. Initially the bitch displayed low level avoidance typical of an anxious dog, when the handler continued to proceed with the desired action the bitch would move behind the handler and stand on her rear legs, leaning on the handler’s back. Once the avoidance was overcome with patient handling, the bitch would complete the task quite slowly and carefully. Each subsequent repetition of the action brought with it a lessening of the avoidance and an increase in the speed of her actions. After several repetitions the bitch would pre-empt the command for the action and would complete it with no hesitation. During initial training for each specific exercise the bitch would display a highly submissive body position, at the completion of the exercise this body position would have altered slightly to one where by the dog was expressing at least a degree of enjoyment, frequently jumping up on the handler once the action was completed. By the time the bitch was pre-empting the handler’s command the dog was expressing overt happiness in her ability to complete the task.

Each link in the chain of behaviour (in this case each new obstacle) had to be learned thoroughly and carefully. For instance even if presented with the same type of obstacle (ie a hurdle), in a different setting / order, it would still create a new and in the dog’s perception unfamiliar required action. This was particularly evident when several obstacles were run in succession and even more so if the order of the said obstacles was changed. Constant movement did lessen the severity of the avoidance and, whilst moving, the bitch’s body position was not seen as the same submissive type as the body position she adopted as soon as movement was ceased.

Of particular difficulty was the tunnel, where to complete the action the bitch was required to loose sight and contact with the handler. This obstacle did generate considerable avoidance and other behaviours such as urination when attempted. Constant verbal support and movement on the handler’s part did see this obstacle overcome but the bitch was not entirely comfortable with the actions required. Difficult and fear provoking obstacles such as raised walks, see saws, steep incline A frames caused no increase in her avoidant behaviours.

Another interesting point with this bitch was that failure of an obstacle even when she had impacted with it heavily did not increase her avoidance behaviour as it would a fearful dog; eg. the bitch attempted to jump over the whole hoop jump, frame and all, and impacted heavily with the steel cross member. The handler remained calm and requested the bitch went through the hoop, exaggerating the arm usage to clearly show the bitch where she was meant to go. The action was completed with no hesitation on this subsequent attempt.

The bitch’s actions in the kennel were not consistent; at times she was happy to greet the handler and yet at other times was down the back clearly displaying a submissive position. The bitch was also clearly wary and submissive to the bitch kennelled next to her. If the handler went into the kennel the bitch always moved to the back and would only come forward with significant coaxing, again displaying submissive body positions, yet not urinating. When a lead was fitted and the bitch removed from the kennel she displayed happiness provided the handler kept moving.

Obedience, when started, was extremely difficult with the dog’s returning to a highly anxious state. Stationary actions like sit, stand and drop caused the major problem but were by and large overcome with very careful, patient and succinct handling. Again the bitch displayed a lessening of the anxious state provided the handler kept moving. The lack of options to engage in prey play or to use food as a positive reinforcement were probably the greatest limiting factors. Progression was slow and very careful. The bitch did progress up to being allowed off lead in an unenclosed paddock and after several visits and attempts at socially based games such as hide and seek and chase me did begin to loose her anxiety and exhibit very strong innate prey potential. This leads to the belief that whilst the bitch does have high prey drives, she must have a moderate or even high threshold (low reactivity). The lack of any defence behaviours tends to infer that the bitch does have low innate potential in this area and the lack of anxiety to fear switching leads to the assumption that the threshold for these drives must also be high (low reactivity)

Treatment:

As suggested above the handler of this bitch needed to “paint the picture” for the bitch any time he asked her to complete a new or slightly different action. This was facilitated by exaggerated hand signals, constant and happy verbal support and an almost excessive amount of tactile praise at the completion of each link in the chain until the dog began to pre-empt the handler’s desires. Corrections, either by lead or voice were totally removed. To facilitate a means by which the dog could be physically prevented from avoiding the desired action a harness was used so that gently and firmly the dog could be guided through the desired action. This also allowed the handler to continue their forward movement which also lessened the dog’s anxious state as described above. The prey type play at liberty was increased to a daily session of around an hour so as to give the dog the opportunity to relax whilst in the presence of her superior. Training sessions were also kept very short, no more than 10min in duration and no more frequently than three sessions per day. Work was also done on feeding the dog by hand within the kennel complex with the dog at liberty, this was and to date still is an ongoing treatment which has considerably improved the bitch’s behaviour in the kennels but is still to produce truly consistent results.

Conclusion: This bitch did improve overtime (at the time of writing the bitch is 8 weeks into the treatment program) and may in the near future make her debut in the agility and or obedience competitions (as she was purchased to do). This case study shows that whilst it is easier to write off such a dog as unsuitable, with a concerted effort and patience, given the time such dogs can work to a high standard. Provided that the anxiety is not escalated with what are in effect unwarranted corrections the anxious state will rarely escalate to that of fearful even with a very dominant handler. The positive side to this type is that they are very easy to control as they have the need to please and obey almost hard wired to their very existence.

The second case study is given as an example of how anxiety can transform into fear and how important consistency is when dealing with an anxious dog. It also provides a forum for the demonstration of the interaction between the three main areas of the dog’s modal or innate drive system.

Case 2:

Belgian Tervueren male 7mths returned to the breeder displaying overt aggression when in a submissive/fear like body position.

Known history:

The dog was homed at 8 weeks and had not displayed overt dominant behaviour prior to this time. He was homed into a single dog family which had very little experience in handling dogs and the owners had adopted a very permissive ownership style. Within a matter of weeks the young pup was running the house and began displaying fear like aggression to avoid completing tasks. By the time this dog was returned to the breeder (4mths later) such behavioural responses were frequent and formed the dog’s basic pattern of behaviour when attempting to avoid any action. The breeder is known to be very forceful especially when handling what they perceive as a dominance problem.

Innate potential/reactivity evaluation:

The dog was evaluated to have high social innate potential (high drives) with a moderate threshold (moderately reactive), his prey potential was high to extreme with a very low threshold (highly reactive to prey type stimuli) and his defence drives were also high to extreme with a low threshold. The dam of this particular dog also has a low defence threshold with high defence drives which manifests itself in a tendency to show aggression anytime the dog felt fear (not necessarily directed at the dog personally). This personality trait was also noted in all the other pups in the litter to varying degrees when they were presented at training. It was as a result assumed that the bitch did carry and indeed pass on a genetically low threshold for the defensive drives.

Observations:

The dog was observed at the training ground to frequently display aggression directed almost exclusively towards other dogs with no discrimination of gender or age. When engaged in prey type play with a handler the dog was highly focused on the task at hand and held its concentration for very long periods. He was also highly aggressive in tug of war games but would yield to reasonable control measures and quickly learnt what behaviour was expected. The owner was highly resistant to the use of tug of war games in the training of this dog, perceiving such as a lessening of their own social position. Over a period of two months the dog displayed an increased disposition to display aggression, still largely directed towards dogs with the mentioned lack of discrimination. Whilst the owners were spoken to, on many occasions, their own preconceptions regarding the cause of the dog’s problem behaviour could not be altered and the dog ceased to attend training. The owner was observed on many occasions resorting to physical force in an attempt to control the dog and was excessively hard (use of force) on the dog which continued to increase the frequency and speed of the dog engaging its defence potential (further lowered the threshold)

Treatment:

Due to the owner’s inability to understand the dog’s problem and outright rejection of the planned treatment program this dog has remained (1 year later) largely unassisted. The initial problem was one of anxiety, the young dog recently displaced from a home containing over 20 dogs found itself in a new environment in which there was virtually no structure. Its new owners gave into its every whim and clearly showed submission when the dog made aggressive advances.

In such a young dog the position of being the Alpha dog is simply too great a pressure for a young mind to cope with, the dog did not have the knowledge base to know how to survive but it did know that it had to survive. The innate reactivity of this dog is given as to the reason why this anxiety began being transposed into true fear. The moderate threshold for the dog’s social potential was higher and thus harder to activate than the low threshold for defence. Anxiety in the main occurs when the dog has engaged its social drives and is unsure what is required. The low defence threshold was then almost instantaneously tripped when the dog attempted to resolve its inner conflict (not knowing what to do). That is to say it became scared of what was happening. The high defence potential meant that the dog would react strongly to the feelings of fear and it is surmised that it would have attempted to avoid an environment and, being prevented from doing so, reacted with aggression. This aggression achieved the desired result; it was not made to comply (permissive ownership style). Over a very short period of time this behaviour was seen by the dog as being a highly successful was to resolve any internal conflict the dog felt.

The indiscriminate displays of aggression were the first indication that this was not a problem of dominance. In the dominant dog displays of aggression are not required when they are clearly in the presence of a beta or omega type dog. Also dominance aggression especially in unfamiliar surroundings is usually gender specific. The dog was also highly reactive to correct handling procedures with no resistance offered to reasonable corrective measures. The dog was attached to the owner (bonded) but the owner’s actions did not provide this dog with a feeling of security rather the actions added to the dog’s feelings of insecurity which is the basis of the majority of anxiety disorders.

By the time the dog was presented for treatment the dog would almost instantly switch from anxiety to fear and illicit an aggressive response with no avoidance behaviours observed. When handled by the author, clearly shown what was required, and rewarded with prey type play when the action was completed this dog did train very well and its ability to focus was a huge benefit to the training process. Unfortunately as stated the owners refused to engage in competitive prey play as a means of lowering the social threshold. This is achieved by frequently starting and stopping the game and only continuing when the dog ceases its prey behaviours and succeeds to the handler’s desires (facilitates a switch back to engaging the dog’s social potential). The use by the handler of physical force rather than relieving the dog’s anxiety actually increased the anxiety to a level where by it activated the dogs defence threshold thus transposing to the truly fearful state, when it behaved in the manner it had learnt would resolve its anxiety and/or fear it was physically hurt. This resulted in an increase in the aggressive behaviours rather than the desired reduction and the dog learnt to omit the usual behavioural indicators which precede aggression. In plain terms the dog learnt not to telegraph its intentions and to react with a very high level of aggression right from the onset before it would be hit for being aggressive. In this way the dog was still able to resolve its internal conflict by intimidating or physically harming anything which it perceived to threaten its security or itself, and thus reduce its state of conflict and simply succeeded to the owner’s superior force (being struck) without actually having to accept their authority.

The total extinction of the ritualised behaviours prior to a full attack is frequently seen when the initial problem is not actually fear based but is anxiety based. In a fearful state the dog doesn’t actually wish to combat, it is after all scared. The tactics employed by true fearful dogs are usually full of threat and only result in actual violence when all other measures have failed and when ever the opportunity presents itself the dog will take flight (providing the flight can be completed without the dog being harmed: dog’s perception). In anxious dogs the whole basis of the problem is different, they don’t know what they should do, and they are in conflict and will seek ways of addressing this conflict (Freudian defence mechanism model). Such dogs experiment by using trial and error learning until they find a means of achieving their objective which is to avoid what they don’t know or understand. If such behaviours are successful they are remembered and reused becoming more permanent the more frequently they are successful. As the original aim of the dog is to avoid, fear and a true defensive reaction occur only when they are prevented from doing so. They become not only confused but scared as well, they feel trapped. Subject to the innate predisposition of the dog for the thresholds and the innate potential of the social and defence areas the highest level of innate potential with the lowest threshold for activation will dominate. This is to say that if this dog had extreme social drives with a lower threshold than its defence counterpart, it is doubtful that the dog would have displayed aggression at all. As in this case the Defence drives were of greater intensity and coupled with a lower threshold than the social drives and thus the dog engaged its defence drives rather than remaining in the weaker social position.

The whole situation was further complicated by the owner’s total lack of consistency. The owner would swing rapidly from the polar extremes of being authoritarian (brutally so) to permissive. Such switches back and forth were noticed so frequently during the handling of this particular dog and were so resistant to correction that the whole training/treatment process began to actually worsen the problem. The owner could not comprehend that they were making the problem worse and were due to their resistance to change unsuitable to handle this particular individual. When the owners were told of the likely behavioural results of their handling performance for the dog they reacted with scepticism and out right rejection. The trainer handler bond was eroded to the degree where by further training was not only useless but counter productive.

Conclusion:

When last seen (17mths) at a social gathering of dogs and people, this dog’s behaviour had deteriorated to the levels expected. It was highly volatile and gave no warning at all prior to launching an attack at anytime it was either concerned as to what was expected of it or felt its social status was not duly recognised. As also expected the dog had begun to express its aggression towards people as well as other dogs. The dog’s behaviour had degenerated to such a degree where by it caused embarrassment to the owners. They removed the dog from the environment of the social gathering and made the flippant comment of the dog being a problem child, thus projecting the blame entirely onto the dog rather than acknowledging their significant contribution to the problem. It is expected as the maturation process continues that this dog will continue to worsen behaviourally and become increasingly dangerous especially as the masculinisation of the brain proceeds.

This case, as the reader may expect, is not seen as the author’s finest hour but serves not only illustrates how the dog’s innate dispositions can facilitate a switching from anxiety to true fear, but also the degree to which a handler can further complicate matters by being inconsistent. It is an unfortunate illustration, for those entering into behavioural treatment as a career, that you cannot effect change for the dog’s benefit unless you obtain the owners co-operation. This career is highly enjoyable but it does have moments of extreme frustration when you are sure you can assist a dog but the pride or espoused knowledge of the handler negates the prescribed treatment or in fact continues to exasperate the original problem. The prognosis for this dog will be, in the author’s opinion, destruction. It is doubtful that even if the dog was placed in intensive behavioural treatment that it would now be effective due to the developmental periods in which these events have taken place and the obvious success the dog has had with its strategy of dealing with its inner conflict. The dog has narrowed its defence mechanisms (Freudian model) to the degree where by only a single option aggression appears to achieve the desired result. The dog is now classically maladaptive. Truly maladaptive at this advanced stage is highly resistant to treatment as the individual concerned must be taught that its preferred method of dealing with the conflict is unsuitable and then it has to relearn all the options it has previously discarded as being ineffective. Only when the individual can objectively look at what options are available and then weight up the benefits or disadvantages of each option can they cognitively come to a conclusion as to which is the best option for that particular situation.

In case three the example is of a dog that has progressed through the training at a very rapid rate. This individual was performing and completing exercises without having thoroughly learnt what the commands were. The indication of such became apparent as soon as the command for a specific action was used outside the familiar context.

Case 3:

Belgian Tervueren male, 18mths old. Owned by the current handler since direct purchase from the breeder at 8 weeks.

Known History:

As Stated this dog has been in the same home for most of its life, the handler is very good and has worked through several minor problems with the dog. The largest problem the dog did have was a low innate threshold for defence coupled with moderate to high defence potential. This dog is the litter brother to case two.

Innate potential/reactivity evaluation:

This dog has high innate social potential with a moderate threshold, Extreme innate prey potential with a low threshold and as stated moderate to high innate defence potential with a low threshold.

Observations:

This dog trains well; with its extreme prey potential is easily rewarded and has excellent focus. With his moderate social threshold he can, if not motivated or if over motivated, become a little difficult to handle as he will in the presence of any thing which excites him rapidly switch to prey. The handler has done a great job since they have attended the school, the dog’s focus has improved dramatically and the dog is totally enjoying the work. The dog has progressed through basic and intermediate levels reasonably quickly and had begun more advanced type work.

On the drop on recall exercise however the dog began to show significant anxiety and with his low threshold in defence began to clearly demonstrate avoidance. The dog would respond to the recall command and then when given the drop command and signal prior to reaching the handler would clearly demonstrate that he did not understand what was being asked of him. He displayed a very confused expression and hesitant movements forward. When the handler moved forward to re-command, the dog would move back and begin to circle slowly in small circles. When it was obvious that he was still required to do something the low threshold for defence would engage and the dog would attempt to flee the training field with a highly submissive body posture. The dog simply did not comprehend the command in this context. The handler had been shown the French changes of position and if this had been thoroughly trained it would be doubtful that this situation would have occurred, as this exercise requires the dog to drop when at a distance from the handler. This dog would happily perform the drop from the heel position on the first command every time so it is very easy to see how the handler assumed the dog actually knew the command rather than had learnt the command only in a single context.

This situation lead to another problem and that was the dog began to hesitate to respond to the recall. This indicated that the handler, who later agreed that it was the case, had worked recalls almost exclusively with a drop being requested when the dog had been called. The dog had begun to become anxious about being recalled as it perceived, in this case correctly, that there was again going to be the request which it simply did not understand. This situation, if left, would have been very damaging to the dog handler bond. Recalls are an excellent indicator of the strength of the dog handler bond. If they are slow or the dog hesitates it indicates that there is a problem, most commonly this is over training if the handler is fair and consistent but it can mean inconsistent handling or a handler with a predisposition to using force (the former being the case here). Even fearful dogs still wish to rejoin the security of returning to their superior. Moderate or high social threshold dogs can be a bit more reluctant but this manifests itself in a more classical disobedience. Low threshold prey dogs can also become very distracted and begin prey behaviours such as searching but this is seen more as a lack of control rather than a dominance issue. In this case the dog was concerned about doing the right thing and did not want to disappoint the superior, this anxiety over wanting to get it right was so profound in this dog that it transposed over into fear and the dog felt the need to take flight.

Treatment:

Work on the changes of position exercise until this is successful with the handler some 15m from the dog. Don’t practice drop on recalls until such time as the dog listens to and recognises the drop command in a variety of different contexts. Remove the anxiety from the normal recall command but making the recall fun, that is to say recall the dog and then immediately engage the dog in prey play. Also work the dog with all of its commands outside the usual training settings, practice giving commands to the dog when not in any of the usual situations. This should be done slowly and all obedient responses should immediately be rewarded with prey play. If at any time the dog appears indecisive or confused guide the dog into the correct position without force and then engage in prey play and repeat the exercise without as much guidance.

Conclusion:

This is a common occurrence for dogs primarily being trained for competition. Not only do they learn the exercises but they also learn about the manner they are usually given in and if this is altered they can become confused as to what is required of then and thus exhibit an anxiety response.

Summary

All handlers will have to deal with a dog’s anxiety at one time or another, handlers are dealing with a different species which does not comprehend our language and can misinterpreted what is being asked of it. The important thing is how the anxiety is handled. Anxiety is painful; not physically but mentally. Consider that anxiety plays a major role in the majority of suicides in humans and a better understanding of just how painful a condition it is should be attained. A dog cannot suicide but they can loose the will to live or the enjoyment of life either is hardly the best alternative. It should be considered mandatory by all handlers to maintain the dog at its lowest possible anxiety level as a part of the normal husbandry practices, just like food, water and shelter.

Frequently in this paper it is mentioned that anxiety is an indication that the handler is doing something wrong. Whilst this is true it should not be taken as a reflection on the handler’s abilities. Dogs are individuals and as such can and frequently do perform better when handled by people of a comparable type, i.e. a submissive dog with a dominant handler will really stretch the handler to their limits whereby a more passive handler will have less anxious responses from the dog and find the dog easier to handler. This statement does not imply the passive handler is better just more suited to the dog in this case. Often the dog can have particular comprehension problems which will provoke an anxious response the handler. The handler should then go back to the very basic methods and clearly demonstrate to the dog what is required. Again this is not a reflection on the abilities of the handler rather that they may have been progressing too fast or assuming the dog had knowledge it actually didn’t have.

Anxiety in dogs is becoming more of a problem, arguably the biggest cause is that husbandry practices have improved a lot of the last 20 years. Subsequently young dogs are not as subjected, as they once were, to mild stressors which aided in the refining of their the adrenal response systems. This lack of stress during the developmental periods does tend to make more highly reactive dogs. Consider the work completed by Scott and Fuller, Fox, Dehasse and Vandergeten and look at what they have successfully done in making stock less prone to anxiety. It should become very clear that breeders have a responsibility to implement early learning programs to fully develop their stock at least as much as they have the responsibility to inoculate their stock. This is true of working show or pet lines.

Common causes of anxiety in dogs:

v Dogs with high to extreme innate social drives coupled with a low threshold (i.e. high to extreme genetic potential coupled with a high emotional reactivity to issues which the dog perceives as impacting on its security with in its pack environment)

v Dominant handlers with beta or omega type dogs

v Too rapid progression through training objectives without the dog learning thoroughly each link in the behavioural chain

v Under confident dogs

v Inconsistent handling practices

Common expressions of anxiety by the dog:

v Low level but persistent avoidance

v Seeking physical contact with the handler when attempting to overcome avoidance

v Relief expressed as overtly happy behaviour once the desired action is completed

v Disappearance of prey type behaviours (lack of interest in food rewards and/or play actions)

Common treatments for anxiety:

v Go back to clear and descriptive handling practices

v Make sure the dog actually knows what it is being asked to do

v Don’t progress through the training plan too rapidly

v Encourage a dog which is exhibiting anxiety but withhold praise until completion.

v Provide constant support to the dog

v Develop the dogs self confidence using activities such as agility

In conclusion it should be noted that many high level working dogs particularly in the French ring where the judging bias could be said to be on handler control, have a tendency, when handled poorly, to obtain an anxious state. Anyone who has had the privilege of watching these dogs work could not consider that they are lacking in character or have poor temperaments. This tendency is due to the high to extreme social drives coupled with a low threshold which is required for the rapid responses to handler commands (principally in the defence work) that the program demands. As such a tendency to anxiety should not be viewed as a weakness in the dog. Frequent displays of anxiety by a dog should be seen as an inability of the handler to adjust their style to that particular dog rather than a problem with the dog itself.

Return Home