By Sophia Yin, DVM, CAAB, MS Animal Science (1966-2014)>
Question:
The neighborhood feline has made our yard his personal litter box. We have to remove kitty poop almost every day and have unsuccessfully tried spraying the affected areas with a mixture of water and bleach to deter the fellow. Do you have any suggestions ?
H. Wong of Contra Costa
Answer:
Whether it’s neighborhood dogs leaving landmines for your walking pleasure or cats graffittiing your house with their pungent yellow perfume, other people’s pets-and their owners who fail to manage them responsibly-can be annoying.
Often it starts as a minor irritation—an occasional cleanup in your rose garden or a mild disruption at night. But when it happens over and over, it’s time to take action. First you try the sprinklers, but after using your yearly allotment of water on day one, you opt for plan B: pet-safe repellent. Unfortunately, they either don’t repel or they need to be replaced more frequently than the batteries on an 4th grader’s Game Boy. Not to mention the fact that the culprit always finds the one repellent-less spot for his despicable deposit.
For the average homeowner these failures say wave the white flag, but for the persistent proprietor, it’s time for the ultimate animal-safe weapon: the ScareCrow, a motion detecting, water emitting, device designed to outwit even the wiliest trouble-making trespassers. Here’s how it might work.
It’s the dead of night and a sleek cat named Sylvester heads to “the little boy’s room”- a lush patch of dirt between the tomatoes and zucchinis – in your backyard. He strides over with the confidence of Shaq heading down the center for a slam dunk and then “SHHPOP! chooka, chooka.” A wet surprise sends the startled Sylvester packing for home.
Sounds too good, but it’s true. This sneaky sprinkler can detect both large animals, such as giant breed dogs, as well as smaller animals, such as cats and chickens, up to 35 feet away and within a 100 degree arc. The sudden sound coordinated with the quick burst of water is enough to deter even water-loving animals such as dogs and geese, and larger animals, such as deer.
Says Dr. Carol Popolow, a veterinarian from Croton-On-Hudson, NY who uses it primarily to keep deer away, “I can tell almost exactly how far the water sprays (or the ScareCrow detects) from the height of the plants. My friend also uses it and her Hostas (a favorite deer snack) are lush and beautiful within the ScareCrow area and eaten to the nubs in the area around it.”
The ScareCrow also sprays Popolow’s cat who prefers to avoid the sprinkler-protected area. And I can personally attest that the device works wonderfully for keeping the average dog or chicken out of restricted areas.
As an added bonus, the ScareCrow is easy to install, even for the mechanically impaired. Just add a 9 volt battery, attach it to a garden hose, and push its supporting stake into the ground. The only down sides are that it doesn’t work in winter if the temperatures get below freezing – ok, not a problem for most Californians – and the battery does need to be replaced every few months.
By Sophia Yin, DVM, CAAB, MS Animal Science (1966-2014)>
“The client, an elderly couple, had a 6-year-old male, neutered Rhodesian Ridgeback that was aggressive to dogs” describes Dr. Jennie Jamtgaard, an applied animal behavior consultant and behavior instructor at Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine. “They had watched Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan and seen Millan place aggressive dogs in with his group of dogs and then hold them down on their sides or back if they were aggressive. So they brought their dog to the dog park and basically flooded him [immersed him in the aggression-inducing situation].”
Not surprisingly, they didn’t get far.“The female owner was trying to make the dog lie down while she stood on the leash, while all the dogs came up to hover and sniff. Her dog growled, then another dog growled back, and her dog (who probably weighed the same as she did) started to lunge and she couldn’t stop it. Then she was bitten while breaking up the fight that ensued. She could not have done an alpha roll if she had wanted to, though she did lament her obvious lack of being in the ‘pack leader’ role.”
In this case, the bite was an accident. But it’s not always so.
Jamtgaard describes another case, an Australian Cattledog mix with severe aggression (lunging, growling, barking) directed at other dogs whenever they came into view, even hundreds of feet away:
“The dog was fine with people and had never been aggressive to people before this bite. The owners were Millan-watchers, and dealt with the dog in a completely punishment-based way. They thought this was what they were supposed to do, but felt uncomfortable and frustrated. They repeatedly tried to physically subdue the dog whenever it was aggressive, a technique they had done for months. They admitted to knowing things weren’t improving but didn’t have other ideas. Finally, at PetSmart, the dog growled and lunged, and when the female owner—5 months pregnant at the time—tried to force the dog down, she was bitten on the arm. The bite was tooth depth punctures. That was when they called me.”
Bite Incidences Come as No Surprise
Unfortunately, these bite incidences are not surprising.According to a new veterinary study published in The Journal of Applied Animal Behavior (2009), if you’re aggressive to your dog, your dog will be aggressive, too.
Says Meghan Herron, DVM, lead author of the study, “Nationwide, the number-one reason why dog owners take their dog to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior.Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them, or intimidating them with physical manipulation, do little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”
Indeed, the use of suchconfrontational training techniques can provoke fear in the dog and lead to defensively aggressive behavior toward the person administering the aversive action.
For the study, Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative, or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior, and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed. 140 surveys were completed.
Some Techniques Triggered Aggression
The highest frequency of aggression occurred in response to aversive (or punishing) interventions, even when the intervention was indirect:
Hitting or kicking the dog (41% of owners reported aggression)
Growling at the dog (41%)
Forcing the dog to release an item from its mouth (38%)
“Alpha roll” (forcing the dog onto its back and holding it down) (31%)
“Dominance down” (forcing the dog onto its side) (29%)
Grabbing the jowls or scruff (26%)
Staring the dog down (staring at the dog until it looks away) (30%)
Spraying the dog with water pistol or spray bottle (20%)
Yelling “no” (15%)
Forced exposure (forcibly exposing the dog to a stimulus – such as tile floors, noise or people – that frightens the dog) (12%)
In contrast,non-aversive methods resulted in much lower frequency of aggressive responses:
Training the dog to sit for everything it wants (only 2% of owners reported aggression)
Rewarding the dog for eye contact (2%)
Food exchange for an item in its mouth instead of forcing the item out (6%)
Rewarding the dog for “watch me” (0%)
Who Uses Punishment-Based Techniques?
“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by television programs, books, and other punishment-based training advocates,”says Herron.
For instance, Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan – the popular National Geographic Channel television series – routinely demonstrates alpha rolls, dominance downs, and forced exposure, and has depicted Millan restraining dogs or performing physical corrections in order to take valued possessions away from them.
And like their previous bestselling books, Divine Canine by the Monks of New Skete focuses on correcting bad behaviors using choke chain and pinch collar corrections rather than proven non-aversive techniques.
These sources attribute undesirable or aggressive behavior in dogs to the dogs striving to gain social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack leader role.
But veterinary behaviorists, Ph.D. behaviorists, and the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) – through its position statement on The Use of Dominance Theory in Animal Behavior Modification – attribute undesirable behaviors to inadvertent rewarding of undesirable behaviors and lack of consistent rewarding of desirable behaviors.
Herron stresses, “Studies on canine aggression in the last decade have shown that canine aggression and other behavior problems are not a result of dominant behavior or the lack of the owner’s ‘alpha’ status, but rather a result of fear (self-defense) or underlying anxiety problems. Aversive techniques can elicit an aggressive response in dogs because they can increase the fear and arousal in the dog, especially in those that are already defensive.”
Owners Often Fail to See the Connection
Herron points out that, interestingly, not all owners reporting an aggressive response to a particular aversive technique felt that the training method had a negative effect on their dog’s behavior. For instance, while 43% of owners who hit or kicked their dog reported aggression directed toward them as a result, only 35% of owners felt that the technique had a negative effect.
Herron explains that one reason owners may have difficulty making the connection is that aversive techniques may temporarily inhibit reactive or undesirable behaviors – so that it appears the behavior has improved – but it’s not a long-term fix. In addition, owners may not have recognized non-aggressive fearful responses to the correction and may have felt the technique was indeed helpful in the particular context. However, increasing the dog’s fear can also increase defensive aggression in the same or other situations.
More Resources
Learn More about Dominance: What It Is and What It Isn’t. Download the free book chapter here.
What Methods Can Be Used Instead?
These results highlight the importance of using positive reinforcement and other non-aversive methods when working with dogs, especially dogs with a history of aggression.Indeed, such non-aversive methods, which focus on rewarding desirable behaviors and changing the dog’s emotional state, work well for aggressive dogs. (See video links below for examples of positive reinforcement.)
So what about the Australian Cattledog and Rhodesian Ridgeback we met at the beginning of this post?
Says Jamtgaard about her cases,“The Australian Cattledog improved dramatically at our consultation, being calm during situations the owners had never witnessed before, such as the neighbor dogs barking at her only a few feet away.I think seeing what just a few minutes of work could accomplish by changing approach gave them the hope that it could work.
Within 4-6 weeks they began to be able to go on normal walks with her, with dogs at normal distances. I continued following up by phone with the owners every few days at first, then weekly for the first 3 months. They felt so good that they could treat her differently (more kindly). The owner now competes with her dog in weight-pulling contests and can be in close contact with other dogs they meet during contests and on the street, whereas before, the dog was reactive from over a hundred feet.”
This calm behavior has continued well beyond the first months of training. Jamtgaard states, “I saw the owner 2 years after the consult, with toddler in tow, and things were continuing to go well.”
“The elderly couple with the Rhodesian Ridgeback also achieved their goals in that 6-8 week range, structured similarly to the above as far as consults,” says Jamtgaard. They were able to walk their dog safely and have him remain calm when they encounter other dogs. The dog can sit while they talk to the other dog owners. They do walk him on a Gentle Leader, but that helps with the safety issue of his size relative to their weight, should a situation happen. At last communication, approximately 6 months after our initial consult, things had continued to go well.”
Here is an example of training an alternate behavior in order for the dog to form a positive association around other dogs.
By Sophia Yin, DVM, CAAB, MS Animal Science (1966-2014)>
shanti
On an episode of “It’s Me or the Dog,” a show on Animal Planet, British dog trainer Victoria Stilwell tackled the problem of a bull terrier that exhibited mounting behavior. The first solution was to send the dog for a time-out when he mounted. However, the mounting was so severe that the trainer finally recommended neutering, which solved the problem. This case raises two questions: What other behavioral issues can neutering help address, and what is the rate of success?
In general, it would be expected that spaying or neutering most likely affects sexually dimorphic behaviors — those that are more characteristic for one gender or the other. This is exactly what a 1997 study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital found.
Perfect Puppy in 7 Days
With over 400 color photos, Perfect Puppy in 7 Days is a step-by-step recipe for potty training socializing, and providing your puppy with life skills. Dr. Yin’s approach guarentees proper bonding and communication skills to better prepare you pup for life!
Misbehaving Male Dogs
This study evaluated how neutering adult male dogs affected such problem behaviors as urine marking in the house, mounting, roaming, fear of inanimate stimuli as well as aggression toward family members, strangers, household dogs, unfamiliar dogs, and human territorial intruders.
Fifty-seven dogs that had exhibited one or more of these problems before being castrated at 2 to 7 years of age were included in the study. Follow-up revealed thatcastration was most effective at reducing:
urine marking
mounting
roaming
The decrease was marked.
These behaviors decreased by 90% in 40% of the study dogs
And decreased by 50% in the remaining 60% of the study dogs
No relationship existed between the effect of neutering and the age of the dog or duration of the problem behavior before castration.
Neutering also affected aggression toward canine and human family members, but to a lesser extent and in fewer dogs, with 25% of the study dogs improving by more than 50%.
Surprisingly, 10% to 15% of dogs showed less aggression toward unfamiliar dogs and territorial intruders. Therefore, neutering can likely provide marked improvement for many dogs that are exhibiting marking, roaming or mounting behavior, and may offer some improvement in dogs that are aggressive toward people and other dogs. Neutering seems to be less successful in reducing other types of aggression, although improvement is possible.
Misbehaving Male Cats
For cats, the story may be even more promising. “Regarding behaviors that are more specific to male animals, castration seems to be more effective [in modifying behavior problems] in cats than in dogs,” says Melissa Bain, DVM, assistant professor of clinical animal behavior at U.C. Davis School of Veterinary Medicine/
A study conducted at U.C. Davis in the 1990s found thatin 90% of male cats, castration greatly reduces or eliminates
urine spraying
roaming
fighting with neighborhood males
Fifty percent of the cats showed a dramatic decrease (80% decrease) in the spraying, roaming, and fighting in the first week, although the remaining study cats demonstrated a more gradual decline.
For Females the Effects May be Different
The study results for male dogs and cats make the course of action clear. But for female dogs, the findings on the effects of spaying on behavior were unexpected.
According to Katherine Houpt, VMD, PhD, DACVB, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Cornell University Hospital for Animals, spaying may actually contribute to behavioral problems. In a cooperative study with the Institute of Animal Medicine at Gyeongsang National University in Korea, Houpt and her colleagues found that ovariohysterectomy (spay) in healthy German Shepherds bred as working dogs led to increased reactivity.
In the study, 14 healthy German Shepherd bitches at the Korean Air Force Dog Training Center were studied. Half of the study dogs were spayed at 5 to 10 months of age, and the other half were intact. The dogs were littermates and were split equally into both groups to control for genetics. The dogs all lived in the same kennel environment and received similar handling. Their behavioral reactions were tested at 4 and 5 months after surgery.
Each dog was tested separately in its outdoor kennel while the rest of the dogs remained indoors. An unfamiliar human with an unknown dog walked within 1 meter of the target dog’s kennel, and the kenneled German Shepherd’s response was recorded.
In each of four different recordings for each dog, researchers recorded
barking or growling
lunging
jumping
snapping
head high
ears forward
eyes staring
lips lifting or curling.
Dogs were scored as follows
Score of 3 if they exhibited all 10 behaviors
Score of 2 if they exhibited 7 of 10 behaviors
Score of 1 if they exhibited 5 of 10 behaviors
Score of 0 if they exhibited less than 4 of the behaviors
“Ideally we would have scored the dogs before they were spayed, too,” says Houpt. “Regardless, the results were dramatic. Dogs that had been spayed were significantly more reactive, with most receiving scores of 2 and 3, whereas the unspayed littermates received reactivity scores of 1.”
These scores decreased in two of the seven experimental dogs on repeat testing, but by the final testing phase, five of the seven dogs still received a score of 2 or higher.
Houpt emphasizes that military dogs would be expected to exhibit more aggressive behaviors and such behavior on command may be desirable. These dogs would not, however, be appropriate as pet or guide dogs or for pet therapy. Although the study was small,Houpt suggests that veterinarians should consider performing a hysterectomy rather than an ovariohysterectomy for preventive health reasons in aggressive pet female dogs.
Such decisions on whether to perform surgery or not should be made with all the facts in hand since failure to remove the ovaries can increase the incidence of mammary cancer. Female dogs spayed after their second heat have a 26% higher risk of developing mammary cancer than those spayed before their first heat.
“Of course, theoretically, the real cure would be to spay and then give progestins,” Houpt added. “This was done years ago and worked well until the dogs became diabetic and had increased appetites. Sometimes you could cure the territorial aggression, but then they became food-aggressive. It is not something we recommend now.”
References
1. Neilson JC, Eckstein RA, Hart BL. Effects of castration on problem behaviors in male dogs with reference to age and duration of behavior. JAVMA 1997;211(2):180-183.
2. Hart BL, Eckstein RA. The role of gonadal hormones in the occurrence of objectionable behaviours in dogs and cats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1997;52:331-344.
3. Im HH, Yeon SC, Houpt KA, et al. Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German shepherd dogs. Vet J 2006;172(1):154-159.
The original version of this article originally appeared in Veterinary Forum in November 2008.
By Sophia Yin, DVM, CAAB, MS Animal Science (1966-2014)>
DrKrisImage24
Haicheng, China, 1975. A massive earthquake hits. Buildings are demolished, roads destroyed, but thanks to an evacuation several hours earlier, thousands, possibly tens of thousands of human lives are saved. The Chinese claimed they’d predicted an earthquake within hours of its occurrence. Their forecasting system: animals.
This success sparked the interest of the U.S. Geological Survey. What were animals cuing in on? How did their detection systems work? Could answers to these questions lead to the development of a high-tech earthquake forecasting system?
Dr. Benjamin Hart, a veterinary behaviorist at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, was on the front lines. “I received a call from the USGS,” says Hart. ” `Can you tell us what it is that animals respond to in an earthquake?’ the caller asked, almost expecting that I knew the answer already. I told him that I hadn’t the slightest idea and that I was sure none of my colleagues knew either. First tell me what the stimuli are.”
Early Warning Signs
The caller rattled off different types of stimuli—radon gas, magnetic lines, electron particles, seismic foreshocks. While animals have remarkable senses, Hart knew of no examples of animals responding specifically to earthquake stimuli, so he suggested a meeting of geologists and experts in sensory systems in animals. And so it was. A think tank of scientists ranging from seismologists to experts in pigeon homing and hearing in lizards convened to ponder how or even whether animals might detect earthquakes.
Says Dale Lott, professor of conservation biology at UC Davis, “I was pretty skeptical about animals having a specific earthquake detection ability. In evolutionary terms, why should animals care if there’s an earthquake? So the Earth shakes a little. The food still grows, and the streams still flow.”
But Lott and the others did feel that animals might detect precursors as something odd without knowing specifically that an earthquake was coming. In this case, you would expect to see a species-specific anxiety or fear reaction.
The symposium brought forth many ideas and a call for research. Hart and Lott teamed up with geologist Ken Verosub and proposed several projects, one of which received funding—an interview of earthquake victims just after an earthquake.
Their first research opportunity was the 1977 earthquake in Willits (Mendocino County).
Posing as an earthquake survey team so they wouldn’t bias the interviewees, they questioned victims about damage to their homes first. Then, well into the interview, they asked, “Did you have any idea this was going to happen? Did anything unusual occur before the earthquake?”
Usually if they were going to get anything about animals, they’d get it here. The results were quite interesting.
“It was a melange,” says Lott. “Ben would do some interviews and get a lot of positives, and then I would do some and get nothing and vice versa.”
Positives were marked: A cat that normally entered the house about 7:30 a.m. to eat and sleep continually paced, entering and leaving the house repeatedly. The owners had discussed the unusual behavior before the earthquake.
A 2-year-old Doberman that normally slept in the morning shadowed her owner continually from 8 a.m. until the earthquake, sometimes whining and pacing. The owner wondered whether the dog needed a tranquilizer.
Clusters of Awareness
When the researchers finally were informed of the exact epicenter, they examined the mapped interview locations and found that the positives were clustered around the epicenter. An incredible 50 percent of the households around the epicenter reported strange animal behavior, whereas the baseline for positive answers far away from the epicenter was only 10 percent.
Both Lott and Hart were impressed with the pattern. Maybe they were onto something. But the excitement ended there.
Disappointing Discoveries
Over the next year, they studied six more earthquakes spanning North, Central and South America and came up with nothing.
Their conclusion was that animal earthquake detection works sometimes but not often. Some earthquakes are preceded by cues that some animals can detect, but since this phenomenon is not consistent, it’s not reliable enough to be useful in predicting earthquakes.
While the findings may have been disappointing, they were still valuable. Says Lott, “It stopped the folklore about animals having specific earthquake-predicting abilities and allowed the geologists to go on to study other forms of earthquake prediction. It was an idea that had to be rigorously tested.”
And what of the Haicheng earthquake? Turns out that it was a propaganda act by the Chinese government during the Cultural Revolution madness. The government never produced scientific evidence supporting its claim. Furthermore, shortly before the Haicheng earthquake, there had been many smaller earthquakes in the area. General warnings were issued many times, and people were encouraged to stay outdoors. One such warning happened to coincide with the Haicheng earthquake.
A more recent earthquake in southwest China, in 2008, left 87,000 people dead or missing.