Pamela J. Reid and Tristan Rehner-Fleurant The number of dogs entering shelters is declining across the United States (Hawes et al. 2019; Rowan and Kartal 2018). In the first edition of this text, Reid and Collins (2015) noted that shelter professionals were expressing concern that, with the continued success of spay‐neuter and other safety net programs, shelter populations would soon consist primarily of animals presenting with medical and behavior problems that jeopardize their adoption. While the reasons animals end up in shelters are varied and complex, problematic behavior continues to figure as a top cause of relinquishment (see Chapter 6) and, anecdotally, shelter professionals across the United States describe dealing with an increasing percentage of incoming animals with behavior problems, as well as more extreme and varied behavior problems. Furthermore, as Reid and Collins pointed out in 2015, a strengthening of state and federal laws and the resulting heightened attention on animal cruelty crimes by law enforcement agencies have led to an increase in the confiscation of animals from abusive and neglectful situations, poorly run commercial breeding facilities, hoarders, overpopulated sanctuaries, and dogfighters. As an example, since the ASPCA first partnered with the New York City Police Department in 2014, animal cruelty investigations have increased 200% over pre‐partnership years, when only a small number of animal control officers were responsible for the five boroughs. The victims of animal cruelty tend to be poorly socialized to humans, fearful, and in the case of fighting dogs, aggressive to other animals. Thus, agencies sheltering confiscated animals are experiencing an increased need for behavioral intervention in these populations—to ward off decline during long‐term legal holds, to improve quality of life, and to help the animals become appropriate candidates for adoption (see Chapter 21). The growing demand for specialized behavioral interventions has figured prominently in the animal sheltering field’s push toward a more holistic approach to care. A holistic approach elevates the importance of psychological well‐being and emphasizes the parity of medical and behavioral health care (Washington Post n.d.). Dr. Jacklyn Ellis and Melissa Shupak of Toronto Humane Society concur, stating that “it is possible that as a greater spotlight is being shone on behaviour problems and psychological well‐being more generally in animal sheltering, behaviour problems are simply being identified and taken more seriously” (personal communication). Thus, more and more shelters are establishing programs dedicated to providing specialized training and behavior modification to their animals. In this chapter, the authors describe a variety of interventions and protocols shared by a sampling of North American organizations with well‐developed behavior programs. Many shelters offer obedience training classes to the public. Fees generated from these classes contribute to the shelter coffers, but the primary aim is to keep owned dogs out of shelters and to prevent the return of adopted dogs by improving behavior in the home (Patronek et al. 1996; see Chapter 6). Shelters, particularly those with an average length of stay beyond 7–10 days, often extend basic obedience training to include shelter dogs prior to adoption. The goals of in‐shelter training programs are to improve dogs’ adoptability and psychological quality of life and to prevent behavioral decline while dogs are in the shelter. Shelter training programs for dogs up for adoption emphasize basic manners, such as “sit,” “down,” “wait,” “four on the floor,” loose‐leash walking, interacting with people without jumping on them, and sitting at the front of the kennel to greet people. An example protocol for teaching “four on the floor” appears in Box 12.1. Some shelters teach additional behaviors intended to facilitate positive interactions with potential adopters, such as name recognition, eye contact, hand targeting, and trick training (e.g., “shake”). Some shelters that house dogs for longer periods also include more complex behaviors like “stay,” walking past other dogs without reacting, waiting to eat food or pass through doorways until released with a cue, settling into a crate or onto a bed or mat, “drop it,” “leave it,” and sitting automatically in front of doors/gates or when people approach. Ideally, training occurs while dogs remain available for adoption so that they don’t miss out on opportunities to be seen by potential adopters. However, shelters such as Kanawha‐Charleston Humane Association, have found it beneficial to send their more rambunctious dogs to a 10‐week prison program for intensive one‐on‐one training. The return rate for adopted dogs who completed the prison program is only 4%, compared to 16% for the rest of their dog population (J. Hypes, personal communication). Increasingly, shelters employ dedicated behavior staff who focus exclusively on training, behavior modification, and coaching sheltering staff and volunteers to promote good psychological quality of life for dogs. However, many shelters, particularly municipal agencies, lack the budget to hire specialized behavior staff and rely instead on volunteers to conduct training, often within the context of walking and socialization sessions. A popular model is to offer a tiered volunteer program (Bright and Hadden 2017). Lower‐level volunteers focus on socialization and teaching simple tasks, such as sitting and lying down on cue. In contrast, higher‐level volunteers employ their advanced skills to take on sophisticated training projects, including agility, nosework and cooperative care training for low‐stress handling and husbandry, or to work with more behaviorally challenged dogs (see Box 12.2 for an example of teaching body targeting). Shelters can also establish mutually beneficial relationships with local dog trainers, who donate their time to help shelter dogs and, at the same time, acquire experience training a variety of dogs. Shelters can maximize the benefits to dogs by having behavior specialists and trainers provide direct coaching to their volunteers, as Howard and DiGennaro Reed (2014) showed that in‐person coaching by a trainer is superior to written or video instructions for effectively teaching volunteers how to train basic manners. Since the first edition of this textbook, the trend toward using reward‐based techniques for training new skills and discouraging unwanted behaviors has continued. The popularity of such methods is in line with repeated findings that dogs are less stressed by, and, in some cases, more responsive to training procedures that use appetitive over aversive incentives. (For a review of studies comparing training methods, see Guilherme Fernandes et al. 2017; Ziv 2017.) Reward‐based training is also thought to foster more positive relationships between dogs and people (Deldalle and Gaunet 2014; Rooney and Cowan 2011), although Vieira de Castro et al. (2019) found no significant difference in dogs’ attachment to their owners as a function of training method in the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test. While an in‐depth discussion of the appropriateness of exclusive reliance on reward‐based methods is beyond the scope of this chapter, the authors feel strongly that shelter dogs deserve access to effective and efficient interventions that are intended to improve overall quality of life. Adhering to this philosophy may sometimes mean the judicious, careful use of aversives. Food is the most common form of reward used in shelters—with good reason, as Feuerbacher and Wynne (2012) demonstrated that social interaction (praise and petting) was an ineffective reinforcer for shelter dogs. Conditioned rewards (a “marker,” such as a clicker or a specific word paired with food) are used by some. Thorn et al. (2006) observed quicker responsiveness and better retention with the use of a verbal marker over the clicker when teaching shelter dogs to sit. However, Dorey et al. (2020) found that preceding rewards with either a clicker or praise did not enhance learning of a simple behavior (wave) in shelter puppies and may, in fact, have impaired subsequent acquisition of the “stay” behavior. Whether shelter dog training programs have the desired effect of staving off behavioral deterioration is still an open question. Numerous studies have confirmed that, at least in the short term, shelters are stressful environments for dogs (Coppola et al. 2006; Hennessy et al. 2001; Hiby et al. 2006; Passantino et al. 2014). However, some dogs do seem to adapt to the shelter within a few days to weeks, thus evidence of decline while in the shelter for lengthy periods of time is mixed. (For reviews, see Protopopova 2016 and Chapter 21.) Nevertheless, regular human contact in the form of socialization, play, and obedience training is clearly beneficial for many shelter dogs (Conley et al. 2014; Coppola et al. 2006; Hennessy et al. 2002; Menor‐Campos et al. 2011; Tuber et al. 1996). To improve quality of life in the shelter and facilitate adjustment to a new home, Tuber et al. (1999) recommend daily human contact in a “real‐life room,” combined with teaching dogs to relax quietly in crates and to sit when people approach their kennels (Figure 12.1). Figure 12.1 These timid dogs are learning to interact with people in a home‐like real‐life room. Studies focused on how the behavior of shelter dogs influences adopters continue to produce conflicting findings. Some have found that, for shelter dog adopters, physical appearance trumps behavior (Luescher and Medlock 2009; Protopopova et al. 2012; Protopopova and Wynne 2016; Protopopova and Gunter 2017). However, Wells and Hepper (1992) report that when choosing a dog to adopt, people say they would place more emphasis on the dog’s behavior than on its appearance. The respondents said they would prefer dogs that come to the front of the kennel, sit, interact, and refrain from barking (Wells and Hepper 1992). In a study with just three shelter dogs, undergraduate students viewed video footage and rated the dogs as more adoptable after the dogs completed a training program in which unruly behavior in the kennel and pulling on‐leash were replaced with a sit response (Winslow et al. 2018). Weiss et al. (2012) discovered that some adopters were even attracted to dogs that jumped up on them. Although it seems logical to assume that teaching basic manners to shelter dogs will make them more appealing to adopters, some “impolite” behaviors that can be interpreted as affectionate gestures may actually be desirable in a shelter dog. It might be advantageous for staff to avoid discouraging any inherently social behavior. Some studies, however, have demonstrated that training programs, in conjunction with other interventions, improve dogs’ chances of adoption. Braun (2011) reported that the number of dogs remaining long‐term in one Viennese shelter was reduced by half after the shelter instituted a dog‐walking program. The volunteers who walked the dogs were coached by a professional trainer, which suggests that the dogs probably received training during their walks. Certainly, the rise in adoptions could also have been due to increased exposure to potential adopters or changes in behavior resulting from the social interactions, sensory enrichment, and physical exercise experienced by the dogs during walks. Similarly, in Italy, implementing a program that included training and socialization, a public campaign to promote shelter dogs, and pre‐ and post‐adoption counseling resulted in 27.5% more adopted dogs than a comparable shelter that did not implement the program (Menchetti et al. 2015). After determining that the behaviors of lying next to potential adopters and playing with them during out‐of‐kennel interactions were more likely to lead to decisions to adopt (Protopopova and Wynne 2014), Protopopova et al. (2016) employed a structured meet‐and‐greet process. First, potential adopters were taken to a small outdoor area and encouraged to invite the dog to play using the dog’s favorite toy. Then, the experimenter rewarded the dog for lying near or at least staying in proximity to the adopter. Control dogs met potential adopters in a large outdoor enclosure containing various toys while the experimenter stood passively by the gate. Dogs in the structured meet‐and‐greet group were 2.5 times more likely to be adopted than control dogs. Unfortunately, after training staff in nine US shelters on the structured meet‐and‐greet program, Protopopova et al. (2020) discovered significant deviations in protocol implementation several months post‐training, and there was no demonstrable increase in adoptions compared to the period before protocol introduction. Other studies have also failed to find higher adoption rates or shorter lengths of stay as a result of training shelter dogs. Reasoning that social, friendly dogs would appeal to adopters, researchers at a Florida shelter looked at the effect of teaching dogs to make eye contact with people (Protopopova et al. 2012). Dogs received 15‐minute daily sessions over the course of six days from 10 different trainers to encourage generalization. Although researchers confirmed that dogs in the training group learned the eye contact response, they were no more likely to be adopted than control dogs. There was also no effect on their length of stay in the shelter. Dogs at an Ohio shelter were taught a set of desirable behaviors, such as sitting, making eye contact, and coming to the front of the kennel, while undesirable behaviors, such as jumping up and barking, were discouraged. Confirming that the training was successful, these dogs were more likely to sit and lie down and less likely to jump up or bark than control dogs. However, like the previous study, this study failed to demonstrate any impact of training on adoption rates (Herron et al. 2014). Perry et al. (2020) compared adoption rates between dogs that received walks plus 15–20 minutes/day of manners training (sit, down, loose‐leash walking) and dogs that received one of three types of daily enrichment (walks, walks plus a food‐filled KONG® [KONG Company, Golden, CO] toy or walks plus a petting and massage session). They found no difference in the percent of dogs adopted or the length of stay across the groups. However, this result is likely due to the fact that almost all (98%) of the dogs participating in the study were adopted, 80% within the first day they were available. Many shelters provide basic training to all of their dogs but target specific subgroups for more intensive training. Dogs with minor or moderate behavior concerns, such as those prone to jumping up, becoming highly aroused, or mouthing people, are the ones most likely to be assigned to training programs. Some shelters choose instead to focus on dogs that are challenging to place for reasons unrelated to behavior, such as pit bull type dogs (Cain et al. 2020). Patronek and Glickman (1994) proposed that increasing public demand for dogs more than one year of age would have the most significant impact on adoption rates. A public relations example is the Animal Protective Association of Missouri’s Grown‐Ass Adult campaign to showcase adult and senior pets (Animal Rescue Site by Greater Good n.d.). If Patronek and Glickman (1994) are correct, shelters with training programs might be wise to focus on older adolescents and adults. Studies that examine the impact of training programs on adoption rates for specific subgroups may yield more compelling results to support the role of training to enhance adoptability. Conversely, rather than look at adoption rate or length of stay, it might be most informative to evaluate the effect of training programs on return rates. Few of the shelters we surveyed explicitly compare return rates for dogs that received intensive training before adoption with those that did not (P. Reid, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data). Dogs that are more challenging to place may also be at greater risk of re‐relinquishment after adoption, but few researchers have looked at the relationship between basic manners training and the likelihood of returns (Wells and Hepper 2000). Shelter dog populations can present with the full gamut of behavior problems. Information about a dog’s behavioral tendencies should be obtained from the owner at intake, if available, and by everyone interacting with the dog during the dog’s stay in the shelter (Chapter 9). Shelter professionals report aggression to people as the most serious behavior problem when it comes to limitations for adoption (D’Arpino et al. 2012). In an informal email survey of shelters with behavior programs, few shelters reported working with dogs that are offensively aggressive to people (P. Reid, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data). One notable exception is mild to moderate food guarding, which, while often highly responsive to treatment, seems to not be a significant concern for adopters (Marder et al. 2013; Mohan‐Gibbons et al. 2012). In addition, food guarding in the shelter does not appear to be predictive of food and/or chew bone guarding in the adoptive home (Marder et al. 2013; McGuire et al. 2020). Finally, choosing not to assess for food guarding in the shelter does not pose an increased safety risk to staff or volunteers (Mohan‐Gibbons et al. 2018). For these reasons, few shelters bother to modify food guarding but instead make food‐guarders available with full disclosure to potential adopters. David and Woytalewicz (2017) described a rehabilitation program for shelter dogs with a bite history to either humans or dogs. The program’s treatment plans were intensive and lengthy. The behavior modification protocols, which had to be executed by highly experienced behavior staff, involved desensitization and counter‐conditioning (DSCC) to triggering stimuli, teaching safety and warning cues, and training alternative behaviors and bite inhibition. Of the three case studies they presented (from nearly 300 dogs that went through the program), the shortest length of stay was one year and the longest was three years. Overall, they claimed an 87% success rate, as defined by adoption with no subsequent report of biting. For the three case studies, the shortest follow‐up was six months and the longest was two years (David and Woytalewicz 2017). In addition to the potential ethical and liability concerns with treating and placing dogs like these, most organizations simply can’t devote their limited resources to treating serious human‐directed aggression, which might take years to resolve. In terms of safety risk, resource requirements, and prognosis for improvement, it is the authors’ opinion that problems such as intraspecific aggression, excessive arousal, and fear are more feasible to treat in the shelter environment. Dogs that show aggression toward other dogs pose a significant challenge. They can be difficult to manage in the shelter environment and they require special placement considerations to ensure that adopters are willing and able to accept the responsibility of owning a dog‐aggressive dog. According to a survey conducted by the Center for Shelter Dogs, aggression toward other dogs ranks in the top three reasons why private shelters refuse admittance to dogs (D’Arpino et al. 2012). Respondents to a survey of 43 Canadian animal shelters indicated that 20–49% of dogs entering their shelters exhibited intraspecific aggression (Orihel et al. 2015). Many shelters do not attempt to modify aggression toward other dogs, but those that do often rely on obedience training techniques that will allow adopters to manage the behavior. Dogs are taught to walk calmly on‐leash and/or to maintain eye contact with a handler while in the presence of other dogs. Some shelters go one step further by using DSCC to condition dogs to relax and anticipate good things when other dogs are near. Variants on this approach, such as Behavior Adjustment Treatment (Stewart 2016) and Play Way (Cook 2017), merge gradual exposure to stimulus dogs with some combination of extinction and reinforcement contingencies. In addition to rewards, such as the opportunity to explore the environment or to engage in play with people, the aggressive dog may also receive negative reinforcement in the form of moving away from the (presumably aversive) stimulus dog for brief periods when they perform the desired, non‐reactive response. Orihel and Fraser (2008) remain the only researchers to have published empirical data on the effectiveness of a DSCC program for intraspecific aggression in shelter dogs. They identified 16 dogs who exhibited aggression to other dogs in a standardized behavior evaluation. Nine treatment dogs received daily 30‐minute sessions in an outdoor area. During each session, the dogs were repeatedly approached by stimulus dogs and rewarded for sitting or making eye contact with their handler. Aggressive behaviors were interrupted using a leash and a head halter (Halti Headcollar, Company of Animals, Broomfield, CO) to direct the dog’s head and body away from the stimulus dog. Seven control dogs spent 30 minutes each day in the same outdoor area; they were simply released into the area with toys and a person present but received little or no interaction from the person. After 10 days, all dogs were reassessed by an observer who was not blind to whether the dog had been in the treatment or control condition. However, a naïve observer also rated a random selection of video footage from both before and after treatment as a means of detecting potential bias, and none was reported. Seven of the nine treatment dogs were rated as less aggressive on retest, whereas five of the seven control dogs were significantly more aggressive. Twelve dogs that were still in the shelter 1 week later were retested again and, unfortunately, there was no sustained reduction in aggression once treatment was ceased. While this report suggests that the severity of dog‐directed aggression can be reduced or at least not worsened with behavior modification, continued treatment is necessary to maintain any improvement in behavior. Regrettably, 30‐minute daily sessions that require two handlers are infeasible for many shelters, and there is no guarantee that adopters will continue the treatment. Some shelters address dog‐directed aggression problems by implementing a playgroup program, such as Dogs Playing for Life™. Providing shelter dogs with repeated socialization opportunities is thought to teach them to relax, interact, and sometimes even play with other dogs, while also reducing the incidence of stress‐related behaviors while they are in their kennels (Belpedio et al. 2010). Dogs that are potentially aggressive to other dogs often need a gradual introduction to playgroups. They are first exposed to carefully selected dogs that are especially tolerant and resilient. They may require correction for inappropriately pushy or threatening behaviors, and they may need to be muzzled, at least initially, to ensure safety. The goal is for socializing with dogs to become so reinforcing that the dog is no longer motivated to behave aggressively (Dogs Playing for Life n.d.). To date, there is no systematic analysis of the efficacy of the playgroup experience for resolving intraspecific aggression. See Chapter 13 for a detailed discussion of playgroups for shelter dogs. Increasingly, shelter behavior professionals report that excessive or high arousal is a significant behavior concern leading to increased length of stay and reduced likelihood of adoption. The term “excessive arousal” is often used interchangeably with “impulsivity,” “hyperactivity,” “hyperarousal,” or “reactivity” and is generally characterized by a dog’s increased responsiveness to stimuli in the environment, exaggerated emotionality and reduced behavioral inhibition (Sforzini et al. 2009; Wright et al. 2011). Behaviorally, these terms are applied to a suite of potentially problematic behavior, including repetitive behavior in the kennel (pacing, circling, spinning, bouncing, barking) and unruly, rambunctious behavior when exiting or outside of the kennel (jumping up on people; mouthing or play‐biting people; grabbing and/or tugging on the leash, people’s clothes or objects; pulling on the leash; crashing into or leaping onto things; snatching treats and toys). Certain dogs are also inclined to redirect aggression toward nearby people or animals when in a high state of arousal. In addition to these behaviors being undesirable to potential adopters and potentially unsafe for shelter staff, they can have a deleterious effect on other animals’ shelter experience. Barking, in particular, is highly “contagious” and, therefore, disruptive to the entire shelter population (Coppola et al. 2006). Behaviors consistent with excessive arousal are believed to be indicative of poor well‐being (Coppola et al. 2006; Cussen and Reid 2020). Over their first five days in Australian shelters, a sample of 38 owner‐surrendered dogs were observed to engage in high arousal behaviors, encompassing 15% of the total time the dogs were monitored (Clay et al. 2019). However, it is unclear the extent to which excessive arousal in shelter dogs is an artifact of the environment. Admittedly, shelters are considered inherently stimulating. However, some dogs more than others seem to become physiologically and behaviorally aroused by the shelter environment, and we don’t know if these same dogs exhibit problematic behavior outside of the shelter. Engaging in highly active, repetitive behavior in their kennels may simply be a tactic that some dogs adopt for coping with confinement and stimulation (Denham et al. 2014). We do know that high arousal behaviors are not observed solely in shelters. Hyperactivity and arousal are reported reasons for owners surrendering dogs (Clay et al. 2019). Some dogs are described as highly impulsive by their owners—for instance, they are reported to “act without thinking,” are prone to overreacting, and persist with a behavior even in the face of punishment (Shabelansky and Dowling‐Guyer 2016; Wright et al. 2011). Small dogs, such as terriers, and young dogs tended to be described as impulsive more often than toy breeds and mature dogs. In another study of owned dogs, adolescents, especially, were found to be more active, intolerant of frustration, and prone to impulsive behavior (McPeake et al. 2019). Even though age appears to be a risk factor (Brady et al. 2018), Riemer et al. (2014) reported evidence to suggest that impulsivity may be a stable trait in dogs, persisting over the six years their dogs were studied. The good news is that shelter dogs were no more likely to be rated as impulsive by their owners than dogs acquired from breeders (Wright et al. 2011). However, this study did not control for the possibility that dogs exhibiting high arousal in the shelter were never adopted. And, given the reported increase in problematic behavior in shelter dog populations, this finding may not be representative of current shelter dog populations. Few published studies have focused exclusively on preventing or reducing high arousal behavior in the shelter. Amaya and her colleagues (Amaya et al. 2020a, 2020b) compared the effect of three types of enrichment (lavender, dog‐appeasing pheromone, and music) on arousal behaviors in kenneled shelter dogs and found that slow tempo piano or violin music resulted in less barking, more resting, and increased heart rate variability, implying reduced arousal and stress. The two types of enrichment activities often recommended for reducing high arousal behavior in kennels can seem paradoxical because on the one hand, dogs are encouraged to engage in energetic behaviors and, on the other, they are encouraged to behave calmly. One line of reasoning is that if exercise provides a physical outlet for energy, daily exercise outings should result in dogs that are calmer in their kennels afterward because they are fatigued. Alternatively, providing calm, quiet interaction with people is also thought to encourage relaxed behavior in kenneled dogs. Protopopova et al. (2018) compared the impact of these two activities on in‐kennel behavior before and after daily enrichment sessions. Some dogs were exercised by playing retrieve games or running on leash for 15 minutes each day. (Bear in mind that 15 minutes of exercise is unlikely to fatigue most dogs.) Other dogs were taken to a quiet room to spend 15 mins with a person who did not engage with the dog but simply read aloud from a book. Regardless of the type of intervention, dogs engaged in what adopters report as desirable behavior (less moving back and forth and more facing forward; Wells and Hepper 1992) when the experimenter stood in front of their kennels prior to the sessions. After the sessions, however, behaviors in the kennels that Protopopova et al. (2014) found to be correlated with longer lengths of stay and lower adoption rates increased. Dogs that had been exercised were more active, spending more time moving back and forth, in the presence of the experimenter in front of their kennel. Dogs that had been read to exhibited a mix of desirable and undesirable behaviors that suggested they found the experimenter less interesting. They were less likely to face the experimenter or spend time at the front of the kennel, and they were less likely to jump on the front of the kennel and bark at the experimenter. The researchers propose that these enrichment interventions might be most beneficial at the end of the day so potential adopters see the more social pre‐session behavior rather than the more active or asocial post‐session behavior. Luescher and Medlock (2009) did not target high arousal behavior per se but instead taught randomly selected shelter dogs to approach the front of their kennel and sit when people approached. These dogs were 1.4 times more likely to be adopted than untrained dogs, although there was no effect on length of stay. Protopopova and Wynne (2015) compared the effectiveness of two different procedures intended to reduce undesirable in‐kennel behavior. One, a response‐independent procedure commonly known as “drive‐by treats,” paired the presence of a person in front of the dog’s kennel with food. The other was a response‐dependent procedure in which the person waited for the dog to refrain from exhibiting undesirable behavior (leaning against or jumping up on the walls, facing backward or staying in the back of the kennel, barking, etc.) before giving a treat. They found that both procedures were equally effective at reducing undesirable kennel behavior (Protopopova and Wynne 2015). In a subsequent study, though, they discovered that adopters were just as likely to choose control dogs that had not been exposed to the response‐independent drive‐by treats procedure (Protopopova and Wynne 2016). In an effort to encourage calm, quiet behavior in their dogs, some shelters have incorporated an automated treat delivery device, called Pet TutorTM (Smart Animal Training Systems, Indianapolis, IN), but as yet no efficacy data have been published (Figure 12.2). Figure 12.2 A dog waits for the Pet TutorTM to deliver food. Source: Reproduced with permission of San Diego Humane Society. Treatment interventions for out‐of‐kennel arousal behavior typically include a combination of enhanced environmental enrichment, including physical activity, such as shelter dog running programs (Lausch 2014) and treadmill running, along with impulse control/frustration tolerance exercises, such as tug‐and‐release, delayed‐reward training, and reinforcement for calm behavior (i.e., Click to Calm, Parsons 2012). Applied research on effective treatment and management interventions for excessive arousal in the shelter is a ripe area for future work. It is the authors’ experience that the most insidious behavior concern among shelter dogs is fear because, even though fear can result in severe suffering, it may be overlooked by shelter staff. Fearful dogs are often behaviorally inhibited or even completely shut down in the shelter, which means that they can be relatively easy to care for and may not garner as much attention. The term “fear” encompasses many manifestations of social and non‐social fear and anxiety, including fear of being handled or restrained, fear of people, fear of other dogs, fear of being alone (isolation distress or separation anxiety), fear of certain environments, activities, or objects, fear of loud noises, and fear of anything unfamiliar (neophobia). Fearful responses include trembling, panting, freezing, withdrawing, hiding, attempting to escape, and defensive aggression (Gähwiler et al. 2020; Voith and Borchelt 1996b). Chronic fearfulness can have devastating effects on a dog’s quality of life, health, and even lifespan (Cussen and Reid 2020; Dreschel 2010; McMillan 2013). Shelter interventions for fearfulness consist of various behavior modification procedures, including DSCC, operant conditioning, and occasionally flooding. DSCC works to change a dog’s response to a frightening stimulus by repeatedly presenting the stimulus at such a low level that fear is kept to a minimum, thereby setting the dog up to tolerate the exposure, and by pairing the stimulus with something the dog likes, such as food, play, or enjoyable touch. The fearful responses that were originally elicited are “countered” as the dog comes to anticipate the new, pleasurable outcome. The goal of operant conditioning is to train the dog to perform specific behaviors when in the presence of a feared stimulus or while enduring a feared experience. Flooding involves prolonged exposure to a feared stimulus or experience until the dog eventually habituates to it (in learning theory lingo, until the dog’s fear extinguishes). Concrete examples of interventions for specific fears are provided in various applied animal behavior texts (Landsberg et al. 2012; Lindsay 2005; Voith and Borchelt 1996a). Simple forms of behavior modification that may benefit fearful dogs can be administered across the board to all dogs in a shelter. Conley et al. (2014) introduced an additional two minutes of human socialization to the daily husbandry routine of cleaning and feeding for a group of small breed shelter dogs. The person engaged in quiet interaction with the dog in their kennel; some dogs were also encouraged to play with a toy. These dogs were subsequently more likely to approach familiar and unfamiliar people standing outside of their kennel than control dogs who didn’t receive the socialization sessions. Most of the shelters informally surveyed by the authors treat dogs with fearfulness, and those with more robust behavior programs even dedicate a quieter section of their housing—usually five to seven runs—for these dogs (P. Reid, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data). A group of researchers in Turkey (Demirbas et al. 2017) moved eight adult dogs, formerly free ranging in an urban environment before being captured and placed in the shelter, into a separate area for focused behavioral treatment. Four of the dogs exhibited fearful or defensively aggressive behaviors toward people at the beginning of treatment, while the other four were either friendly or neutral. The standardized treatment plan consisted of one week to habituate and then six weeks of daily social interactions, basic obedience training and acclimatization to a home‐like environment. One extremely fearful dog required additional DSCC to people before the standardized protocols. At the end of the program, one of the defensively aggressive dogs still reacted aggressively toward unfamiliar people. The extremely fearful dog was still unwilling to approach familiar or unfamiliar people. None of the four fearful dogs was comfortable in the home‐like environment, which is not surprising given that these were urban street dogs. However, all the dogs were judged to have improved behavior and welfare in the shelter over the course of treatment. The ASPCA Cruelty Recovery Center devotes a separate area to dogs on legal hold that need treatment for moderate to extreme fearfulness (Zverina and Cussen 2020). Despite it being a makeshift emergency shelter (see Chapter 21), this area has specially designed kennels, treatment spaces, and play yards that minimize the need for leashing and handling. Human activity in the area is limited, and handling of the dogs is restricted to designated handlers who specialize in low‐stress interactions. Social and environmental enrichment is provided daily. Behavior modification sessions involving standardized treatment protocols developed at the ASPCA Behavioral Rehabilitation Center (BRC) are conducted by skilled behavior staff. Under the guidance of a veterinary behaviorist and staff veterinarians, the dogs are also on a consistent regimen of fluoxetine and gabapentin. During the period 2017–2019, 66 fearful dogs were enrolled in the program; no more than 10–12 dogs at a time. The dogs were seized as evidence in animal cruelty cases, including institutional hoarding (sanctuary) (n = 19), backyard breeder (n = 15), dogfighting (n = 13), individual hoarding (n = 11), and puppy mills (n = 8). Twenty‐four dogs (36%) improved to the extent that they met adoptability guidelines and, once their legal hold was up, were adopted into homes. Another 29 dogs (44%) showed improvement but still needed intensive treatment at the BRC before being successfully adopted. Dogs that were likely to benefit the most from treatment at the emergency shelter were classified as moderately fearful; the extremely fearful dogs needed transfer to the BRC for intensive treatment at a facility dedicated to the rehabilitation of fearful dogs. Increasing numbers of shelters are using psychotropic medications to treat dogs suffering from moderate to extreme fear. Indeed, all the shelters the authors interviewed incorporate psychopharmaceuticals into their behavior treatment plans in anywhere from 10–90% of their cases (P. Reid, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data). However, the value of this type of intervention remains unclear. Monitoring the effectiveness of drug therapy can be more challenging in the shelter environment than in a home because subtle changes in behavior are harder to detect and undesirable side effects may go unnoticed (Marder 2013). Drug therapy should always be used in conjunction with other strategies, such as behavior modification and environmental modifications (e.g., the use of visual barriers, the provision of a hiding spot or relocation to a quieter kennel area). But that means that with these other variables in play and a reliance on non‐blinded reports from staff, assessing the efficacy of a specific medication can prove impossible. Furthermore, depending on the choice of drug, dogs may not be held in the shelter long enough to experience the full benefits (Marder 2013). Finally, some shelters will not put dogs up for adoption until they have undergone a proper weaning procedure—a policy that increases length of stay for medicated dogs but, in many cases, may be warranted in order to predict quality of life post‐adoption. For an in‐depth discussion of the use of behavioral pharmacology in shelter animals, see Chapter 22. Little research exists on the effectiveness of behavior modification for shelter animals. Few shelters have the staff resources to collect and publish objective data on behavior change. Likewise, following up with adopters to determine if behavioral improvements stick is not a simple task. Follow‐up calls or home visits are time intensive. If adopters are reached, owner reports are not considered highly reliable because the layperson’s interpretation of a question about behavior often does not match the interviewer’s intent. However, the use of a validated questionnaire, such as the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C‐BARQ), should alleviate this worry (Hsu and Serpell 2003). Fortunately, shelters with longstanding rehabilitation programs suggest that the majority of owners don’t ask for support and report being satisfied with their adopted pets (Center for Shelter Dogs 2021). Some owners relate never experiencing the original problem behavior at all post‐adoption, while others report dealing with the concern during the first weeks after adoption but rarely after the 3‐month mark (A. Marder, personal communication). Follow‐up conducted by the ASPCA also confirms that few owners regret the decision to adopt behaviorally rehabilitated dogs (P. Reid, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data). This dedication may reflect shelter staff’s early identification of potential adopters truly committed to taking on a pet with problems. We know that many owners do not consider behavior problems, even serious concerns such as aggression, justification for relinquishing or returning a pet (Marder et al. 2013; Zawistowski and Reid 2017). The concern still exists, however, that some adopters, even though they are committed to keeping these dogs, continue to experience the behavior problem to such a degree that their lives are negatively impacted. Most shelters do not separate out return rates for dogs who had received behavior modification from the regular adoption population. The few that do, however, report mixed results. Some acknowledge that their return rate is higher, while others report fewer returns of their treated animals. Dr. Alicia Buttner, Director of Animal Behavior for the Nebraska Humane Society, says, “One might expect that dogs needing behavior modification would be more likely to be returned, but we don’t see that in our shelter. In fact, we see the same or slightly lower return rates compared to dogs in our general adoption program, depending on the time frame. We screen adopters to ensure the dog is a good fit for their home, then provide specialized behavior counseling at the time of adoption and provide post‐adoption support. We are transparent with the dog’s behavioral issues and needs, and we do whatever we can to support them once the dog is in their home” (personal communication). Rhea Moriarity, Training and Behavior Department Manager for Longmont Humane Society, reports that for 2019, 1% of dogs that had received behavior modification were returned, as compared with a general return rate of 16% (personal communication). Could it be that adopters of rehabilitated dogs are more tolerant of problems? Or perhaps the additional screening and extra attention paid to special adoptions result in a reluctance for owners to report to the original shelter when they have given up on an animal? It is possible that behaviorally challenged dogs are relinquished to a different shelter, rehomed, or euthanized at a rate comparable with general shelter dogs. Of course, the hope is that behavior modification of behaviorally challenged dogs is successful in significantly reducing or eliminating behavior that, before treatment, prevented adoption. At this point in time, we simply do not know. While still rare, a handful of shelter and rescue organizations in the United States have dedicated behavior staff and special facilities for housing and rehabilitating dogs with severe behavior problems. After a successful pilot study, the ASPCA’s BRC in Weaverville, North Carolina, opened its doors in 2018. The authors believe this to be the first shelter facility specifically designed and dedicated solely to the treatment of undersocialized, fearful dogs. The dogs originate primarily from cruelty and neglect cases nationwide. Criteria for acceptance into the program are as follows: the dogs’ fearful behavior is severe enough to restrict placement options and/or to impair their ability to function as a companion animal; they are physically healthy; they do not have additional behavior problems such as resource guarding, separation‐related anxiety or offensive aggression toward people or dogs. Manifestations of fear that dogs display on intake range from moderate responses such as avoidance, immobility, and mild defensive aggression to extreme responses such as anal gland expression, escape behavior, and catatonia. Specially trained staff conduct targeted behavior modification sessions. Each dog receives one 15‐minute treatment session per day, five days a week starting two weeks after their arrival. Interestingly, the project’s pilot study revealed that delaying treatment by two weeks resulted in dogs needing fewer treatment sessions to complete the program than dogs who started treatment immediately (although incorporating the delay resulted in the same length of stay for these dogs) (K. Collins, ASPCA, New York, unpublished data). Treatment protocols focus on four categories: fear of people, fear of handling, fear of leashing and leash walking, and fear of novelty. Sessions take place in the dogs’ kennels, in rooms designed to resemble normal household environments (“real‐life rooms”), in outdoor and indoor play yards, on walking paths, and in other outdoor areas. As dogs progress, they are taken offsite to experience typical suburban surroundings and interactions.
12
Training and Behavior Modification for Shelter Dogs
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Structured Training Programs
12.3 Behavior Modification Programs within the General Shelter Environment
12.3.1 Intraspecific Aggression
12.3.2 Excessive Arousal
12.3.3 Fearfulness
12.4 Success of Behavior Modification in Shelters
12.5 Dedicated Behavior Rehabilitation Facilities
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
