Dogs' Personality Traits Vary With Age (and Dogs Tend to Be Like Their Owners)

Dogs are most trainable during middle age, and there are some fascinating links between the personality of dogs and their owners, research shows.

Photo: dezy/Shutterstock

Do you ever think much about the different personalities of dogs? New research looks at the personality profiles of dogs (and their owners) and finds that dog personality seems to change with age.

As well, the owner’s personality is linked to the dog’s personality. The study, by Dr. William Chopik and Dr. Jonathan Weaver (both Michigan State University) is published in Journal of Research and Personality.

The results show that some personality traits are more pronounced in dogs in middle age (6-8 years).

This was the case for responsiveness to training, which peaked at age 7.44. Younger dogs were rated as less responsive to training, and older dogs were not much different from middle-aged ones. As well, dogs scored higher on this trait if they were trained by their owners.

Aggression towards people was lower in young dogs, but peaked between 6 and 7 years (age 6.69) and then remained steady. Aggression towards people was lower in female dogs, dogs that had been spayed/neutered, and purebred dogs.

Older dogs are less aggressive towards other animals. Aggression towards other animals peaked between 7 and 8 years (age 7.74) and then began to decline with increasing age. This trait was lowest amongst dogs that had been spayed/neutered and that are purebred.

As you might expect, young dogs tended to be more active and excitable. Dogs who had been to obedience class and/or were trained by their owner were more likely to be active and excitable.

There was no effect of age on fearfulness, which could affect dogs of any age. Dogs that had been to obedience class, were spayed/neutered, and were purebred, were less likely to be fearful.

Not surprisingly, when the researchers looked at whether or not the dogs had bitten a person, this was more likely in dogs that were rated as aggressive towards people. It was more likely in dogs that had been trained by the owner, which may be surprising but perhaps means the owner tried to train the dog following the bite (this is not clear from the data). Older dogs and male dogs were also more likely to have bitten someone.

The results for aggression are interesting because earlier research has shown that aggression towards people and aggression towards animals are distinct. In other words, a dog that is aggressive towards other dogs is not necessarily aggressive towards people and vice versa. The new study did not distinguish between aggression towards family members and aggression towards strangers.

As well, the finding that some personality traits vary with age is in line with a previous study that suggests there is a developmental onset to some behaviour problems in dogs, at least in Guide dogs.

The new study also compared the personality traits of owners with the personality traits of the dogs. Of course the Big 5 personality traits for people do not exactly correspond with the five personality traits for dogs. However, there were some similarities.

The scientists write,

“Some of the most intriguing results found were instances of personality “compatibility” between owners and their dogs. For example, extraverts rated their dogs as more active/excitable; conscientious owners rated their dogs as more responsive to training; agreeable owners rated their dogs as less aggressive; neurotic owners rated their dogs as more fearful.”

Earlier research has also found a link between the personality of dogs and of their owners. One study published last year had broadly similar results for personality; it also found that choice of dog training methods does not mediate the link between dog and owner personality, but that there is a link between depression in men and the likelihood of using aversive methods.

Finally, the scientists found that reports of a better quality relationship were linked to people who scored highly on agreeableness, and also higher for women than for men. Canine characteristics associated with a better relationship quality were being more responsive to training, more active and excitable, and also if the dog was older.

As with other such research, this new study is just a snapshot in time and so it does not tell us whether people are choosing dogs with personalities similar to theirs, or if, by sharing their lives together, dogs become more like their people.

1,681 people completed a questionnaire that included the Big 5 personality questionnaire for themselves as well as ratings of their dog’s personality. As well, they were asked about the dog’s health, whether the dog had ever bitten someone, and their relationship with the dog.

Dogs aged 1.5 weeks to 16 years were included in the study, and about half of them were purebred.

The results of this study are fascinating, and it would be nice to see some longitudinal research to follow this up.

The scientists write that in future, they would be interested to look at how different training experiences affect canine personality traits.

What kind of personality does your dog have?


If you love Companion Animal Psychology, subscribe by email, support me on Ko-fi, or check out my Amazon store.

Reference
Chopik, W. J., & Weaver, J. R. (2019). Old dog, new tricks: Age differences in dog personality traits, associations with human personality traits, and links to important outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 79:94-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.01.005

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Cats Trained to Use Their Carriers Find Vet Visits Less Stressful

Training cats to go in their carrier and for a short car ride leads to less stressful visits to the vet, study shows.

Photo:eAlisa/Shutterstock

When it’s time for cats to go to the vet, many owners struggle. It can be almost impossible to get the cat in the carrier (or even locate them if they flee at the sight of it). And this stress is a bad start to a vet visit that will likely be stressful in itself.

But research by Dr. Lydia Pratsch and colleagues at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna shows there is something that can be done: Train the cat to use their carrier.

In a blinded, randomized controlled trial, 11 cats were trained to use the cat carrier, while 11 cats were in a control group that was not trained. All 22 cats had a mock visit to the vet. The results showed cat carrier training reduces stress.

The scientists write,

“Training proved to be effective in reducing stress during the car ride and led to a shorter veterinary examination. Owners should be encouraged and instructed to carrier train their cats to reduce stress around veterinary visits.”

The cats live at the University of Vienna and a realistic pretend veterinary clinic (complete with the smells of disinfectant and other animals) was set up for the purposes of the study. One of the researchers acted as the owner of the cat, while another was the driver and vet.

Each cat had 28 training sessions which (on average) lasted 8 mins each and involved the cat getting 4 treats a minute. A range of treats were used as positive reinforcement depending on the cat’s taste, including tuna, meat sticks, and various cat biscuits.

The training plan had seven stages, starting from teaching the cat to go into the bottom part of the carrier and building up to going in the carrier for a very short car ride of 50-90 seconds.

Each cat progressed from one stage of training to the next if they had achieved the goal of that stage or if they had had 6 training sessions.

Only three of the cats completed the training. Six cats reached the seventh stage but did not complete it, and two cats reached the sixth stage but did not complete it.

Photo: Sean Locke Photography/Shutterstock

Before and after the training period, all cats (both control and training group) had a mock visit to the vet. This started with the cat being put into their carrier and being fed treats during a 10-minute car ride (unless they kept not eating them, in which case treat delivery stopped). Then the cat had a vet exam that included checking the eyes and ears, listening to the heart and lungs, and taking the temperature rectally.

Rectal temperature-taking was the part of the exam cats appeared to dislike the most, and was the only reason why some cats in the study had to have their vet exam stop early.

Video of the cats in the basket, in the mock waiting room, and during the exam was analysed for signs of stress or relaxation. The scientists then calculated differences between the two visits.

The scientists looked at Cat Stress Scores (scores on a standardized scale), behaviour during the car ride, and how well the cat complied with getting in the carrier and being examined at the mock veterinary clinic. As well, they took the cat’s ear temperature, and looked for signs of stress like vomiting, urination, and how fast the cat was breathing.

The cats who took part in the training showed fewer signs of stress than the cats in the control group. Cats who had had the training did not hide or pant in the car ride.

During the first vet visit, the majority of cats in both groups did not eat during the car ride. However, at the second visit, eight cats in the training group ate compared to four in the control group.

The scientists took care to use a style of cat carrier that is especially suitable because, as well as the opening at the front, it has a hole in the top which cats can go through. As well, the top and the base of the carrier can be separated, which means the top can simply be removed for the exam.

Cat carrier with an opening in the top. Photo: Monkey Business Images

During the vet exam, most cats went to the bottom of the carrier, suggesting that this was a ‘safe’ place for them. The scientists say,

“Our findings should encourage veterinary personnel to work “slowly” with cats and to provide them with a safe place to retreat.”

Cats in the training group had to move on to the next stage of training at a set point, even if they had not completed that stage. This means they might have been fearful during later stages of training. This is recognized at stage 7, where the cat was either rewarded for good behaviour or counter-conditioned with food. (See more on desensitization and counter-conditioning).

It seems likely that a more individualized training plan that allowed the cat to complete a stage before moving on to the next would be even more effective. This would be nice to see in future research.

It would also be nice to see research on how best to teach owners to train their cats to like the carrier, as no doubt many owners have tried and not succeeded.

If you would like to train your cat to use their carrier, there is a set of videos by Dr. Sarah Ellis (co-author of The Trainable Cat).

As well, I have a blog post with links to resources for less stressful vet visits for cats and dogs.


You might also like: Enrichment tips for cats (that many people miss) and the best way to train cats is with food.

Subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology to learn more about how to have happy dogs and happy cats.


Reference

Pratsch, L., Mohr, N., Palme, R., Rost, J., Troxler, J., & Arhant, C. (2018). Carrier training cats reduces stress on transport to a veterinary practice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 206, 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.025

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Breed Specific Legislation Had No Effect on Dog Bites in Odense, Denmark

In 2010, Denmark banned 13 breeds of dog. It made no difference to hospitalizations for dog bites.

Photo: sanjagrujic/Shutterstock

One approach that some countries or municipalities take to attempt to reduce injuries from dog bites is to ban certain breeds, known as Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). A new study by Dr. Finn Nilson  (Karlstad University) et al investigates the effects of BSL in Denmark’s third-largest city, Odense. The results show that it had no effect on hospitalizations for dog bites.

In 2010, Denmark banned the ownership, breeding and import of 13 breeds of dog, including the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero and American Bulldog.

Two of those breeds, the Pitbull Terrier and the Tosa Inu, had to be euthanized.

Any existing pets of the remaining 11 breeds could be kept, but they had to be muzzled and leashed in public.

Dr. Finn Nilson told me in an email,

“The findings in our article largely support previous studies on the subject of whether banning certain breeds of dog will lead to less individuals requiring emergency care for dog bites. In similarity to other studies we can show that banning certain breeds in Denmark did not reduce the number of dog bites being seen at a large regional hospital. Due to the Danish ban being slightly different to previous bans, we could use considerably more advanced methods. Put simply, we could test both the long-term effect of banning certain breeds as well as the short-term legislation on muzzles in public spaces on the same breeds. Neither seem to have an effect. The results reiterate the problem of identifying so-called dangerous breeds in the attempts to reduce dog bites.”

The study looked at data on people visiting the emergency department in Odense from 1st January 2002 and 31st June 2015. During this time, there were 2622 dog bite injuries.

There are some problems with simply looking at the number of dog bites before and after a ban. For one thing, in cases like this where some breeds are euthanized, the total number of dogs has gone down, which means any change could simply be because there are fewer dogs overall.

As well, it is possible there would be other changes over the time period. One such change mentioned in the paper is that the number of injuries tends to go down anyway (although I note that this is not always the case – in the UK, which also has BSL, hospitalizations for dog bites have gone up).

The scientists used some sophisticated statistical techniques, called Monte Carlo models, to get round these issues.

And they paid attention to whether dog bites happened in public or private spaces.

Photo: Grigorita Ko/Shutterstock

Since 11 of the banned breeds had to be muzzled and leashed in public, you would expect an immediate difference in public dog bites if BSL was effective. Whereas you would expect a more gradual difference in dog bites in private spaces as the number of pet dogs of these breeds slowly went down.

But that’s not what happened.

The results showed no effect of Breed Specific Legislation on hospitalizations for dog bites.

They did show something else very interesting: Of the 2622 dog bites, 874 occurred in public spaces. In other words, the majority of dog bite injuries (67%) occurred in a private space such as someone’s home.

This shows that programs to reduce dog bites need to target private places, not just focus on what happens in public.

"Put simply, we could test both the long-term effect of banning certain breeds as well as the short-term legislation on muzzles in public spaces on the same breeds. Neither seem to have an effect."

One limitation to the research is that it only considers data for 4.5 years after the introduction of BSL. However, the legislation would have been expected to have an effect in this time, which was not found.

This study joins a number of others in finding that Breed Specific Legislation does not work. If you want to know more, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has a summary of the available research on BSL.

Unfortunately BSL means that well-behaved dogs have to be muzzled or euthanized when they have not done anything wrong.

The alternative to BSL is to encourage responsible dog ownership and enforce it with strong laws or bylaws.

Dog bites are a complex problem, and this study adds to the evidence that breed specific legislation is not the solution. As well, it shows that we need to pay attention to the context in which bites occur.


The paper is open access and you can read it via the link below.

You might also like: Stereotypes and breeds of dog and the effects of owner experience and housing on Argentine Dogos.

Reference
Nilson, F., Damsager, J., Lauritsen, J., & Bonander, C. (2018). The effect of breed-specific dog legislation on hospital treated dog bites in Odense, Denmark—A time series intervention study. PLoS one, 13(12), e0208393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208393

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

New Study Identifies our Different Ethical Beliefs about Animals

New research finds four ethical orientations towards animals, and some surprising links to cat and dog ownership and to other behaviours such as eating “welfare-friendly” meat.

We all have different views about what we think are ethical ways to treat animals. New research by Dr. Thomas Bøker Lund et al. (University of Copenhagen), published today in PLOS ONE, finds four different ethical orientations that are commonly held by the general public.

The results show just how complicated our ethical beliefs about animals are – and include some surprising results.

Two of the different orientations will probably be familiar:

Anthropocentrism – the idea that “human beings matter most”. This view may stem from religious beliefs or from beliefs that humans and animals are different, with humans being considered rational and more important than non-human animals.

Animal rights – this approach values all animals and argues that as sentient beings, animals also have rights and should be treated accordingly. This is the opposite view to anthropocentrism.

The other two ethical orientations are not academic but more likely reflect the views of ordinary people:

Animal protection – this means animals are seen as needing protection, but may be used so long as they are treated humanely and do not suffer. This view can be seen in regulations to protect the welfare of farmed animals, for example.

Lay utilitarianism – the idea that animals can be used so long as the benefits to humans outweigh any suffering by the animals. For example, according to this approach, the use of animals in medical research (even if the animals suffer) is considered acceptable so long as there are benefits to people.

The scientists conducted a series of three studies. In the first, they developed a questionnaire to investigate these four approaches, and tested it on Danish university students. This confirmed the questionnaire worked the way they expected.

Then they tested it on three groups of people: ordinary Danes from a range of backgrounds; Danes who tend towards veganism or vegetarianism; and Danes who work in some way in the meat industry.

These results confirmed the results of the previous study, with the exception of one question that was removed (more on this later).

“It is a remarkable and ironic finding… that a stronger animal protection orientation does not make people more likely to consume animal welfare-friendly meat.”

Finally, they gave the questionnaire to a large sample of Danes along with some other questions about their behaviour towards animals, such as whether they own a dog or cat, and how often they visit the zoo. This sample was intended to be representative, and since it was in some ways but not others (like level of education) they used some sophisticated statistics for the analysis.

And here’s where it gets really interesting.

Dog owners are less likely to be anthropocentric in their views. Is this because anthropocentric people are less likely to get dogs, or is there something about having a dog that makes people be less anthropocentric? This is a question for future research.

Cat owners are less likely to have the animal protection or lay utilitarian views. Why are cat owners less likely to be in what could be considered the middle ground? This is puzzling, and the researchers do not have an explanation for it.

Another finding is that the results are in line with something called the “underdog” effect that has previously been found in an American study. Women and those with lower levels of education were more likely to value an animal rights approach. It has been suggested that members of groups with less power in society are more likely to sympathize with animals.

One surprising finding relates to eating “welfare-friendly” meat.

The scientists say,

“It is a remarkable and ironic finding… that a stronger animal protection orientation does not make people more likely to consume animal welfare-friendly meat.”

Since they had expected the opposite to be the case, they did a bit more analysis. It turns out the most important reason is a lack of concern about animal welfare. Feeling that existing laws were good enough, and so the extra protections of “welfare-friendly” meat weren’t needed, was also part of the reason.

As for the one question that turned out not to fit in the second study, it related to the statement, “It is acceptable for humans to put animals down if it is done painlessly.” This suggests that attitudes to this are separate from the four main orientations considered here.

"Dog owners are less likely to be anthropocentric in their views."

Psychologists have known for a long time that attitudes do not necessarily predict behaviour, and the new scale highlights these tensions when it comes to our treatment of non-human animals.

Prof. Peter Sandøe, one of the authors of the study, told me in an email,

“Based on three studies conducted in Denmark, the four orientations were successfully identified and although not exhaustive, they represent distinctive accounts of the ways that animals matter. At one end of the spectrum, the anthropocentric orientation stresses that humans are the centre of the moral universe. At the other end of the spectrum, the animal rights orientation claims that sentient animals are entitled to the same rights as humans. The animal protection orientation is interpreted as a mainstream sentiment emphasizing that the welfare of animals is important in its own right, and that animals must be treated humanely and without unnecessary suffering while lay utilitarianism offers a more cynical take on animal welfare: all forms of animal use are in principle acceptable as long as the human benefits outweigh the disadvantages for the animals involved.

We argue that the developed measure can help detect the ethical orientations that have an impact on various types of behaviours that include animals, thus drive a more nuanced understanding about the attitudinal sources and justifications of different forms of animal use.”

This is fascinating research that captures the complexity of people’s beliefs about ethics and animals. It will enable future studies to explore the reasons behind differences between what people believe in and what people actually do when it comes to their ethical beliefs about animals.

The full paper is open access and can be read at the link below. Update: Dr. Marc Bekoff has interviewed the authors of the study and it is well worth a read to find out what they think of the results, what it means for animal welfare, and how this research can be used in future.

Which of the four ethical orientations most closely reflects your own beliefs about the treatment of animals?


Reference
Lund, T.B., Kondrup, S.R., and Sandøe, P. (2019) A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation – Developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public, PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211656

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Fellow Creatures: A New Post

I have a new post at my Psychology Today blog Fellow Creatures about a study that looked at whether a dog walking program has benefits for people with intellectual disabilities who live in supported housing.

The results of this exploratory study found there were more friendly interactions with other people when a dog was present. Read more here.

Photo: dawnie206/Pixabay

Dogs, Cats and Humans: The Best Sleep Partner...?

Women whose dog sleeps on the bed report better sleep than those with a human or feline sleeping partner.

Photo: Julie Vader/Shutterstock

Whether or not pets should be allowed to sleep on the bed is an age-old question. Some worry it will lead to a disturbed night’s sleep, while some old-fashioned dog trainers still claim it will spoil the dog. The latter argument is based on out-dated ideas about dominance and dog training and can be easily dismissed, but the issue of sleep quality is starting to get researchers attention.

A new study by Dr. Christy Hoffman (Canisius College) et al and published in Anthrozoös asked women about who sleeps in/on the bed with them and how good they thought their sleep was over the previous month.

The results show dogs are a less disruptive sleep partner than another human, while cats are just as disruptive as humans. Dogs are perceived as providing more comfort and security than another human, while cats provide even less.

Not only that, but women with a dog (or a dog and a cat) go to bed earlier and get up earlier than women with just a cat. They also have more regular sleep/wake times throughout the week, perhaps because of the need to provide toilet breaks for the dog. Regular sleep/wake times have been linked to better sleep quality in other research.

Dr. Christy Hoffman says,

“Ordinary dog and cat owners should know that there is still much to explore about the impacts that pets have on their owner’s sleep quality (and vice versa!). While our data suggest that women commonly perceive their dogs to be better bed partners than cats or adult humans, some dogs may make terrible bed partners and some cats may positively contribute to their owner’s sleep. We need more information to sort out the situations under which a pet in the bed may enhance an individual’s sleep quality and the situations under which it detracts from sleep quality.  

I hypothesize that findings from follow-up studies may be a bit mixed. That is, I anticipate we will find that pets may facilitate relaxation, which may be particularly beneficial for individuals who tend to feel they are vulnerable when they sleep; however, pets may also be associated with some night time disturbances, some of which we might not even recall the next morning.”

962 American women took part in the research. The vast majority of participants had a pet, and just over half lived in New York State. They completed a validated questionnaire about sleep quality (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) and questions about how they perceived their sleep had been affected by human, cat and dog bed partners in the last month.

57% of participants had a human sleeping partner, 55% shared their bed with a dog (or dogs) and 31% with a cat (or cats).

When women let their pet sleep on the bed, responses varied as to whether they slept better, worse, or no different if the pet slept in contact with them. Amongst the dog owners, a majority thought their dog spent at least 75% of the night on the bed, but responses for cats were more spread out and suggest cats spend less time on the bed than dogs.

Many participants had deficits in sleep quality, but the rates were the same for pet owners and non pet owners.

In case you are wondering, men were welcome to take part in the research but very few chose to do so, which is why these results focus on women. Researchers often find men are less likely to take part in research than women. Earlier studies have found women report sleeping less well than men, so this is an interesting topic for research.

These results are fascinating but raise many questions about co-sleeping with pets. The extent of disruption at night as well as feelings of comfort and security are all important. Women with a pet (dog, cat, or both) in the bed report higher levels of comfort and security than those without a pet in the bed.

People’s self-reports about sleep quality may not be entirely accurate, as some disturbances may not be remembered in the morning. The scientists are already investigating how to use accelerometers to assess how much time dogs spend resting or active.

Dr. Marc Bekoff did a great interview with Dr. Christy Hoffman about this research. If you want to learn more, check it out at Psychology Today. You can follow Dr. Hoffman's research via the Canisius Canines Facebook page.

Does your pet sleep on the bed, and if so, how do you think your sleep is affected?

If you love Companion Animal Psychology, you can support me on ko-fi. Ko-fi is like a tip jar that lets you buy a coffee for creators whose work you like. And why not subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology to make sure you never miss a post.

Reference
Hoffman, C. L., Stutz, K., & Vasilopoulos, T. (2018). An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership and Bedsharing. Anthrozoös, 31(6), 711-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1529354

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Do dogs run faster for more treats or better quality treats?

Scientists find out which rewards dogs will run faster for, and the results explain why you need to use good treats in dog training.

Photo: Dora Zett / Shutterstock

Modern dog trainers use positive reinforcement to train dogs, and that reinforcement often takes the form of food (see the ultimate dog training tip to find out why).

When you want a dog to come when you call them, you want to use your best training treats as a reward.

But scientists have paid surprisingly little attention to what dogs consider worth working for – until now.

A recent paper by Dr. Stefanie Riemer et al, published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, looks at the relative effectiveness of quality and quantity of reinforcement as measured by how fast dogs run to the bowl they can eat it from.

Pet dogs were trained to run along a walkway that was 20 metres long in order to obtain food. The type of food (quantity or quality) was shown by the containers that were visible to the dog from the start position.

The first study compared one piece of dry food to five pieces of dry food. This was signalled to the dog by the presence of one or five blue bowls containing the food.

But dogs did not run any faster for a greater amount of the dry food.

In the second study, the scientists compared a piece of sausage to a piece of dry food. The type of reinforcement available was shown by the food being in a black or a white bowl.

Dogs ran significantly faster to get the piece of sausage than the piece of dry food.

Interestingly, they still ran fast when the reinforcement was changed to dry food instead of sausage, perhaps because it was a novel item. But the scientists note the pet dogs may have had prior life experience of sometimes receiving no or lower value reinforcement, and this could also explain this result.

The next question on many dog trainers’ minds will be about the effects of one versus multiple pieces of sausage. However this was not tested, so remains a question for future research.

Prior to testing preference by running speed, the scientists did a more standard preference test to see how much time dogs spent looking at, sniffing or attempting to lick the different food items when they were inaccessible behind a wire mesh.  These results, contrary to the runway task, showed a preference for both quality and quantity.

This is a small study as only 19 pet dogs completed all parts of the experiment, so more research is needed. But it is really nice to see researchers paying attention to this kind of question.

The results show that the quality of treats makes a difference to dogs. If you want good results in training, it’s important to know what motivates the dog.

If you love Companion Animal Psychology, you can support me on ko-fi.


Reference
Riemer, S., Ellis, S. L., Thompson, H., & Burman, O. H. (2018). Reinforcer effectiveness in dogs—The influence of quantity and quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 206:87-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.016 

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy associate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

A Short Petting Session Improves Wellbeing in Shelter Dogs

For shelter dogs, spending 15 minutes with a volunteer who will pet them when they want is beneficial according to both physiological and behavioural measures.

Photo: ESB Basic / Shutterstock

Dogs in shelters may be deprived of human company. Can a short petting session help them feel better? A study published earlier this year by Dr. Ragen McGowan et. al. and published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science investigated the effects of petting from a stranger and found positive results.

The scientists set out to answer the question, “Does one 15-min petting session make a positive difference for shelter dogs?”

And the answer was yes.

The report concludes,

“As predicted, positive physiological and behavioral changes were evident in shelter dogs even after only a single 15-min petting session with an unfamiliar volunteer. A complete understanding of the human-animal bond from the dog’s perspective is still in its infancy, however this work contributes to the mounting evidence that humans play an important part in the emotional wellbeing of companion animals. As a result of this study it is clear that: “Yes, 15 min can make a difference” for many shelter dogs when that time includes close interaction with a person petting and speaking to them in a calm manner. “

55 shelter dogs took part in the study at a county animal shelter in Maryville, Missouri.

A handler took each dog individually to a small observation room where one of five volunteers – who had never been to the shelter before – was waiting to begin the 15 minute session. The volunteer either sat on a chair or on a blanket on the floor.

Whenever the dog approached the volunteer, they would pet the dog and speak nicely, taking into account the dog’s preferences e.g. if the dog seemed to be presenting particular areas to be petted.

The researchers took measures of salivary cortisol and heart rate, as well as coding the behaviours the dogs engaged in during sessions.

The dogs were divided into three groups based on the results. Highly engaged dogs spent more than three-quarters of the time interacting with the volunteer, moderately engaged dogs spent between half and three-quarters of the time, and indifferent dogs spent less than half the time engaged with the volunteer.

Comparing the end of the session to the beginning, dogs in all three groups had a reduced heart rate. As well, dogs that were highly or moderately engaged with the volunteer had an increase in heart rate variability.

Overall, the dogs spent less time soliciting contact from the volunteer and less time standing up at the end of the session compared to the beginning.

Salivary cortisol samples could only be taken from 32 of the dogs. Results showed no difference in levels before and after the session. However, since cortisol is a measure of arousal rather than stress, this is hard to interpret.

Overall, these results suggest the petting sessions were beneficial for the dogs.

Other research has also shown that shelter dogs like petting. The nice thing about the new study is that it shows just one 15-minute session with a volunteer the dog has never met before can make a difference.

Dogs were only selected for the study if they were healthy and known to be friendly. They had all been at the shelter for at least two weeks so they had had time to settle in.

It’s important to note the dogs were given a choice – if they did not approach the volunteer, they were not petted – and the volunteers were trained in how to pet the dogs.

While more research is needed, the finding that petting from someone the dog had never met before led to behavioural and physiological changes speaks to the value of contact with people for dogs’ emotional wellbeing.

Where does your dog prefer to be petted?

If you love Companion Animal Psychology, you can support me on Ko-fi. And subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology to get the latest posts by email.


You might also like: How to pet cats and dogs and great photos are important to dog adoption.

Reference
McGowan, R. T., Bolte, C., Barnett, H. R., Perez-Camargo, G., & Martin, F. (2018). Can you spare 15 min? The measurable positive impact of a 15-min petting session on shelter dog well-being. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 203, 42-54.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Do Dogs and Cats Get Along? Ask the Cat!

Dogs and cats living together get along most of the time, but it’s the cat’s level of comfort with the dog that is the defining factor, according to research.

Photo: Plastique/Shutterstock

With 94.2 million pet cats and 89.7 million pet dogs in the US, it’s inevitable that some dogs and cats live together. While we don’t know how many households have both a dog and a cat, scientists Jessica Thomson, Dr. Sophie Hall and Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln) recently published a questionnaire study of how well people think their dog and cat get along.

The results show that in general, dogs and cats living in the same house are friendly towards each other – but it’s the experience of the cat that is most important in mediating this relationship.

Early introduction of the cat to the dog (preferably before the cat is 1 year old) helped them to have a good relationship, whereas the age of the dog at first introduction was not important. (This is different to an earlier study that found early age of introduction for both cats and dogs was beneficial). 

In fact the most important factor in a good canine-feline relationship was the cat being comfortable in the dog’s presence.

It also helped if the dog was happy to share their bed with the cat, although cats were generally not willing to share their bed (perhaps because cat beds are typically not big enough to also accommodate a dog).

Cats generally would not share their food with the dog or take toys to show the dog, but if they did it was a sign of a good relationship.

Cats and dogs also got along better if the cat lived indoors, perhaps because they got to spend more time together and learn about each other. But it’s important to remember they should not be forced to interact; instead they should be able to choose whether or not to hang out together.

The relationship between dogs and cats was generally not described as close. For example, it was quite rare for them to groom each other.

The scientists say that because cats have not been domesticated for as long as dogs, it is likely harder for them to be comfortable around other animals. But they also point out that dogs can be a real risk for cats, as dogs may try to eat them, whereas cats are unlikely to cause serious harm to a dog.

Although aggression was most often reported from the cat towards the dog, it was likely because the cat felt threatened.

748 people completed the survey. 20.5% of cats and 7.3% of dogs were said to be uncomfortable in the other’s presence at least once a week. 64.9% of cats and 85.8% of dogs were said to be rarely or never uncomfortable in the other’s presence.

The study relied on owners’ reports of their dog’s and cat’s behaviour and did not make any independent observations – something for future research, especially as people are not always very good at recognizing signs of stress in their pets.

The results suggest that if your cat and dog are not friends, you should put extra effort into helping your cat feel comfortable around the dog.

If you have a dog and cat, how well do they get on with each other?

If you love Companion Animal Psychology, you can support me on Ko-fi. Visit my Amazon store for a list of all book club titles and other suggestions.

You might also like:
How to pet cats and dogs
The sensitive period for socialization in puppies and kittens
How can I tell if my dog is afraid?

References
Number of pets in the United States.

Thomson, J. E., Hall, S. S., & Mills, D. S. (2018). Evaluation of the relationship between cats and dogs living in the same home. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 27, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.06.043

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Fellow Creatures: Another New Post

I have a new post at my Psychology Today blog, Fellow Creatures, about a pilot study that upturns some conventional wisdom on dogs.

Should you pet your dog before an absence? looks at a study that compared signs of stress when the dog is petted or ignored before an absence. (It's important to note the study is with dogs that do not have any separation-related issues).

Photo: Pexels/Pixabay

Survey Shows Changes as Dogs Age (and How You Can Help Your Dog)

A study of dogs across the adult lifespan has important lessons for owners of dogs of any age. They range from tooth-brushing, training, and helping dogs cope with traumatic events.

Photo: Bad Monkey Photography

As dogs get older, they undergo changes similar to those that happen to humans as they age. This means dogs may be a good model for human aging, but also that those of us with older dogs could use more information about how to help them age well. The Senior Family Dog Project is looking at cognitive aging in dogs by combining behavioural, genetic and neuroscientific approaches.

A new paper from the team, first-authored by Dr. Lisa Wallis and published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, looks at the demographics of dogs across the lifespan.

Perhaps the most poignant finding is that dogs in the oldest age group (over 12) know fewer commands, take part in either one or no dog training activities, and spend less than 30 minutes a day engaged in play or other activities with the owner. Of course, older dogs may no longer ‘need’ obedience training as they are likely well-adjusted to family life, but these results suggest people could do more to engage senior dogs in fun activities.

It’s not known why the oldest dogs know fewer commands, as it could be the dogs had previously had less training, had less training at the time (causing them to forget commands they previously knew), or memory issues.

Dogs in the oldest age group also had less than 30 minutes a day of off-leash activities, which may reflect changes in their need and interest in exercise.

Older dogs were more likely to be unhealthy, have joint problems, tooth problems, and sensory decline. Loss of hearing and/or vision was significantly greater in dogs over 12 years compared to the 10-12 year age group.

In the youngest age group (1-3 years), 49% of the dogs were described as healthy, falling to only 5% of dogs aged over 12 years.

Overweight and obesity in pet dogs

Being overweight or obese is linked to many health risks for pet dogs, including a shorter life span and a greater risk of diabetes mellitus, urinary incontinence, and osteoarthritis.

In this study, dogs aged 3-6 or 8-10 years were more likely to be rated as unhealthy and/or to have sensory problems if they were overweight or obese. Being underweight was not linked to being unhealthy.

As dogs got older, they were more likely to be overweight.

Do mixed breeds live longer than purebreds?

The oldest age group in the study contained more mixed breeds and fewer purebreds, although it’s important to remember this is cross-sectional data and did not follow dogs through the lifespan. For example this may mean mixed breeds live longer, but it is also possible it reflects sampling issues or trends in breed popularity over time.

Purebred dogs were said to be unhealthy at a younger age than mixed breed dogs, suggesting that (at least for this sample) mixed breed dogs are healthier.

The effects of trauma on canine behaviour

One of the most interesting results of this study relates to the role of trauma in shaping a dog’s behaviour. Dog owners were asked if their dog had ever experienced trauma (which the researchers called "trauma status"). They were also asked if they thought their dog's behaviour had changed following a traumatic event.

Dog owners were more likely to say the dog’s behaviour had been affected by trauma if the dog had experienced one or more traumatic events. This was especially the case if the dog had experienced two or more traumatic events.

Traumatic events included changes in owner, time spent at a shelter, being lost for more than a day, changes in the family (such as the birth of a child or people moving out), and a traumatic injury, long-term disease or surgery. 43% of the dogs had experienced at least one such event.

The scientists write,

“Indeed, two or more of such events experienced in the dog’s lifetime resulted in a significant increase in the likelihood of dogs being allocated a “trauma” status. Moreover, since having a “trauma” status was associated with an increased likelihood of health problems/sensory loss, our study contributes to the growing evidence that chronic stress can have negative effects on health and lifespan in the domestic dog. The stress caused by traumatic events results in compromised welfare, and therefore interventions to prevent or alleviate the consequences of trauma should be implemented to improve quality of life in pet dogs.”

Dogs that had experienced a traumatic event were more likely to be unhealthy.

It’s worth noting that moving house, becoming pregnant or being mated, spending more or less time alone, having a change in the dogs in the household, or being neutered, did not contribute towards this trauma status.

The Survey

The survey of Hungarian dog owners looked at 1,207 adult dogs across six age groups: 1-3 (early adulthood), 3-6 years, 6-8, 8-10, 10-12, and 12 and above. Depending on the breed/size, dogs become seniors between 6 and 10 years of age, as large dogs tend to have a lower lifespan.

34.5% of the dogs were mixed breed and the remainder were purebreds. The most common breeds in the study were Labrador Retrievers, Hungarian Viszla, Golden Retrievers, Yorkshire Terriers, Dachshunds, German Shepherds, Bichon Havanese, Border Collies and Beagles.

Although the sample is not representative, it does seem likely the results will apply to senior dogs quite broadly.

Overall, the mixed breed and purebred dogs had roughly the same average weight and height (important because size of dog is linked to longevity), but there was greater variation in the purebred group.

65% of dogs were said to be of normal weight, but since this is based on owner's ratings it is possible the rates of overweight and obesity are an underestimate, as found in other studies (Rohlf et al 2010).

It’s also worth noting that, unlike some other research, the neuter status of the dogs was not linked to health.

Implications for Dog Owners

This research has a number of important implications for dog owners.

One is to keep your dog to a healthy weight, because overweight and obesity cause health problems just as they do for humans. This includes adjusting the diet, as senior dogs need fewer calories and a different food composition.

And because health problems are more common in old dogs, it’s important to see your veterinarian to treat the problems and troubleshoot ways to help your dog be more comfortable (such as mobility aids).

Another implication for dogs of all ages is to do what you can to help them cope with stressful or traumatic situations. Changes in family composition cannot be helped, but even if this is a stressful time for the humans, they need to help the dog adjust too, for example by helping the dog prepare for the arrival of a new baby and being kind if the dog seems to be grieving for someone who has passed away. If your dog is fearful, see 8 tips to help fearful dogs feel safe.

To help avoid the dog being lost for more than a day, you can teach a great recall and ensure your dog always has up-to-date identification including a microchip.

If your dog has a traumatic medical issue such as major surgery or injury, make sure you speak to your veterinarian about what can be done to help your dog whilst recovering at home. The book No walks? No worries!: Maintaining wellbeing in dogs on restricted exercise by Sian Ryan and Helen Zulch has some great ideas for dogs who are unable to take walks e.g. because of recent surgery.

Earlier research found a history of lifelong positive reinforcement training protects dogs against cognitive decline as they age. It seems like a good idea to keep up such training as an enrichment activity throughout the dog’s life. If the dog is already perfectly well-behaved, you can always teach tricks or do other activities using positive reinforcement.

Regular tooth-brushing will help to reduce tooth issues that are more often found in senior dogs (and is also good for health).

Finally, continue to involve older dogs in walks, family life and fun activities.

Summary

This is an interesting study that tells us more not just about older dogs but also about the deleterious effects of trauma and stress.

The results show older dogs have less time spent training, less activities with the owner, and less off-leash time. They also show guidance is needed on how to care for senior dogs, as well as on helping dogs to stay a healthy weight.

Research by the team is ongoing, so we can look forward to more findings in due course.

If you happen to have what the Senior Family Dog Project calls a ‘Methusaleh dog’ – one who weighs over 20kg and is aged 16 years or more, or who is under 20kg in weight and 20 years old or more – they would be grateful for a sample of your dog’s DNA for their research. You can read more about it here.

The paper itself is open access if you want to read it in full, and the authors have also put up a blog post about their research. 



Reference
Wallis, L. J., Szabó, D., Erdélyi-Belle, B., & Kubinyi, E. (2018). Demographic change across the lifespan of pet dogs and their impact on health status. Frontiers in veterinary science, 5, 200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00200
Rohlf, V. I., Toukhsati, S., Coleman, G. J., & Bennett, P. C. (2010). Dog obesity: can dog caregivers'(owners') feeding and exercise intentions and behaviors be predicted from attitudes?. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 13(3), 213-236.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2010.483871

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. As an Etsy affiliate, I earn from qualifying Etsy purchases.

Shock collars, Regulation, and Education on the Alternatives

Shock collars should be banned, according to a survey of the use of electronic collars to train dogs in France.

Photo: SebiTian/Shutterstock

Recently, I reported on a study by veterinary behaviourists in Europe that concluded by calling for a ban on all three types of electronic collar across Europe (remote-controlled, boundary, and bark-activated collars). Another paper by Dr. Sylvia Masson et al, published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, investigates the use of shock collars in France, and some of the results are surprising.

For one thing, they show that even amongst people who use shock collars there is a lot of support for regulating them.

But they also show a sizeable minority – even amongst people who do not use shock collars – that say they are the most effective way to resolve behaviour issues. This shows a need to get the message out that positive reinforcement is an effective way to train dogs (see seven reasons to use reward-based training methods and literature review recommends reward-based training).

The effectiveness, as reported by the electronic collar users, was not particularly high (51.1% of those who used remote-controlled collars, and 25.5% who used bark-activated collars, said it had worked and they could stop using it). As well, users of remote-controlled collars and bark-activated collars reported more abnormal behaviours in their dog than those who did not use them.

The paper concludes,

“based on this survey, it appears that in a real-life setting, ECs’ [electronic collars] ability to modify behaviors is limited. Thus, and as expected, the risks associated with their use are increased. Consequently, EC should not be used in everyday life without regulation. 

However, answers in this questionnaire show that some owners still think that EC can solve behavioral issues better than any other existing method. Considering the high use revealed by our results, a huge communication work toward the public has to be done. In the current survey, 78% of questioned owners ask for a better regulation of ECs. This seems to be a much needed and achievable goal that would restrict the access to devices (e.g. through the internet).”

Most people who used a shock collar did so after trying 2 or fewer alternatives (75%) and without taking professional advice (71.8%). 12.7% of shock collar users did not try any alternative prior to using the collar.

The most common alternatives that were tried before using the shock collar were “group training in a club” and looking on the internet. The next most common alternatives included books, advice from a veterinarian, a private trainer, and ‘none’.

People’s use of shock collars was associated with having a bigger dog (more than 40kg), the dog not being spayed or neutered, and the dog being used for protection or hunting. It is not known if the dog's sexual status is linked to behaviour issues, and/or to the owner's different treatment of the dog. The authors note that some disciplines may use electronic collars by tradition, as those who did agility or obedience training were less likely to use them.

“Based on this survey, it appears that in a real-life setting, electronic collars' ability to modify behaviors is limited"

Electronic collars were more likely to be used on dogs less than 2 years old. As well, users of electronic collars were more likely to say their dog showed excitement and aggression.

There are some interesting differences between those who did not use electronic collars and those who did. People who did not use them were less likely to have tried group training in a club, and more likely to have read dog training books or used the internet.

95.2% of those who did not use electronic collars and 77.9% of those who did thought their use should be regulated. 60% of non-users and 14% of users thought there should be an outright ban on electronic collars.

According to the electronic collar users’ ratings, although a majority (58%) said they would recommend them, in fact they were not particularly effective. The bark-activated collars, which were more often used on small dogs (weighing less than 10kg), were the least effective and had the highest rate of reported injuries (burns from the collar) at almost 11%.

But boundary collars and remote-controlled collars also were not reported to work as well as might be expected. This suggests real-life training use is not as effective as when the collars are used by trained professionals in controlled settings.

Not surprisingly, the main reason people gave for using bark-activated collars was due to barking. Boundary fences were typically used because of lack of a physical fence, but an American study found dogs escape from electronic fences at a much higher rate than from a physical fence.

The most common reason given for using a remote-controlled shock collar was for recall (coming when called). However, it’s worth noting that an experimental study using professional trainers found that positive reinforcement is just as effective as shock collars for teaching recall, but that there are risks with the use of shock collars.

The survey asked 1251 dog owners in France about their use of electronic collars. It’s important to note this is not a representative sample, so the results may not reflect the beliefs of French people as a whole. In particular, those who completed the survey were more likely than the general population to have a pedigree rather than a mixed-breed dog, and more likely to have a dog that weighs more than 10kg.

The use of shock collars in this study is much higher (26%) than found by Blackwell et al in their study of shock collar use in the UK (3.3%). Since neither is a nationally representative sample we can’t draw conclusions about the relative use of electronic collars in each country (but note that the British government recently announced a ban on two of the three types of shock collars in England).

The paper concludes that bark-activated collars and remote-controlled shock collars should be banned. In this study, few people used boundary fences, but the authors note they could also be banned as physical fences and reward-based training methods are a good alternative.

This is an interesting study that shows substantial support for the regulation of shock collars in France. At the same time, it shows there is much work to be done to teach people how to effectively train dogs and deal with behaviour problems using reward-based methods.

For the full set of results, see the paper (link below). If you’re interested in the wider research on dog training methods, my dog training research resources page has a list of articles along with places where you can read about them.

Stay up to date and subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology.


Reference
Masson, S., Nigron, I., & Gaultier, E. (2018). Questionnaire Survey on The Use Of Different E-Collar Types in France in Everyday Life With A View To Providing Recommendations for Possible Future Regulations. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.004

You might also like:

The ultimate dog training tip

Can dog training books be trusted?

The best dog training treats

Eight tips to help fearful dogs feel safe

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Can an "Ease of Care" Labeling Scheme Help Exotic Pets?

Could a standardized grading scheme that rates pets from “easy” to “extreme” improve the welfare of exotic pets?

A leopard gecko. Photo: Gaschwald / Shutterstock

Exotic pets face many welfare issues, according to a new paper in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior by Clifford Warwick et al. The paper suggests a standardized scheme for rating the difficulty of caring for exotic pets that it is hoped will make people think twice about keeping pets with hard-to-meet environmental needs.

What is an exotic pet?

Exotic pets are unusual pets. Essentially they are animals that are not native to a particular area, and are not domesticated (or only semi-domesticated).

Another definition of an exotic pet is anything that is not a cat or dog. That’s the approach taken by the Calgary Humane Society, for example.

Whichever definition we choose, it means there are many exotic pets in North America. For example, most of the fish that are kept as pets are not native to Canada or the USA, which means they are exotic species.

The same applies to small animals kept as pets, such as hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, hedgehogs, ferrets, and chinchillas. Common birds that are kept as exotic pets include canaries, lovebirds, and parrots. Ownership of reptiles is believed to be increasing, and common reptile and amphibian pets include lizards, frogs and snakes.

It is not clear how many households keep exotic animals as pets. In the United States in 2016 there were estimated to be 9.4 million reptiles kept as pets, 158 million fish, 20.3 million birds and 14 million small animals (according to the American Pet Products Association).

Although exact numbers are not known, globally it is estimated that for some types of exotic pet, up to 44% are animals that have been captured and taken from the wild. Some of them are then sold as ‘captive bred’.

What are the concerning issues with exotic pets?

The report identifies three main issues with the keeping of exotic pets.

In terms of animal welfare, the report says “many animals suffer at all points in the chain from point of capture/breeding to sales/housing.”

There are big issues to do with conservation, since many species are taken from the wild. Not only does this deplete the habitat of that species, it may have knock-on effects on other species in the area, since species are inter-connected in many ways. In addition, if exotic pets are released into the wild, they can become invasive.

Finally, there are public health issues due to the risks of infection from these pets (many of which carry salmonella, for example) and the risk of bites or scratches given they are not domesticated.

Welfare issues with exotic pets

The fact that many exotic pets are simply caught in the wild and then sold as pets is obviously a big concern. The report estimates that around the world there are more than 13 million species that are kept as pets. They say that a quick search of online pet sales in the US and UK found 550 species of reptile and more than 170 species of amphibian for sale. (You can read about animals being smuggled into Canada for the pet trade here).

For some species, even scientists do not know the needs of the animal, making it impossible to provide good welfare in captivity.

Another issue is that many species are described as easy to keep or suitable for beginners when this is not really the case. As well, some items for pets (such as tanks to keep them in) are sold as if they are suitable for particular species, when in fact they are too small to provide good welfare.

Poor information online and in other sources is another factor that makes it hard to care for these pets.

The scientists write,

“The prospects for exotic species in domestic environments without the relative benefits of professional management and facilities are highly concerning, and several studies demonstrate that poor husbandry is commonplace even for commonly traded and kept species.”

A real turtle vs a soft toy turtle

The paper illustrates some of the issues with exotic pets by comparing a pet turtle to a soft toy turtle.

The toy turtle has to meet certain standards so that it is not a hazard to children who play with it. For example, the eyes must be stitched in properly so they cannot be removed and swallowed, and it is made of washable, fire-resistant material. It does not have sharp edges that could injure a child. It has a label that conveys information about how it meets standards.

In contrast, the real live pet turtle does not come with any guarantees or standards. The person who buys it does not know how it was sourced (captive-bred or wild-caught). They are not necessarily given information on how to care for it, and for some turtles this information may not even be known to scientists. It is not washable and is a hazard in a number of ways, such as bacteria on it, its poop, and the ability to scratch and bite. The scientists say consumers' lack of knowledge of these issues raises questions about their ability to have "informed consent" when purchasing an exotic pet.

The proposed scheme for describing exotic pets

The paper says some European countries and parts of Canada have adopted or are considering the idea of a “positive list”, a list of the species that are appropriate to be kept as pets. The idea is that this would reduce the trade and keeping of species that are not on the list. Positive lists don't need updating as often as negative lists.

The paper suggests that a scheme called EMODE be used to describe exotic pets. EMODE groups animals as “easy”, “moderate”, “difficult” or “extreme” and is designed to be easy for ordinary people to understand.

EMODE assigns points to each animal according to the class it is in (e.g. amphibians, cats and dogs, fish), and according to yes/no answers to six questions. Five of the questions relate to the animal, while the sixth asks whether anyone in the household is immunocompromised (including children under 5 and seniors). EMODE is described as a standardized system for assessing the difficulty of keeping each animal.

Some of the authors of the paper were involved in the development of EMODE, althouh they do not receive any financial benefit from it as it is free to use.

EMODE is based on animal welfare (the Five Freedoms) and public health (the risk of disease/injury and the availability of professional advice on how to mitigate those risks) (Warwick et al 2014).

EMODE does not take into account whether or not an animal could potentially be an invasive species or what its conservation status is; it focusses only on pet-keeping.

Certain classes of animals are never considered “easy”, including birds and reptiles.

The “easy” category includes some (not all) invertebrates, fishes, domesticated animals and dogs and cats. The label “easy” does not mean no work is needed to care for the animal, as some responsibility is always required.

As examples from Warwick et al's earlier (2014) paper, goldfish are rated “easy” to “moderate”, budgerigars are considered “difficult” and African Grey Parrots “extreme”. Small mixed-breed dogs are considered “easy” to “moderate”, while a German Shepherd is considered “moderate” to “difficult”.

Summary and conclusion

The paper highlights many shocking issues with the welfare of exotic pets, from trade in wild-caught animals that may be endangered, to lack of knowledge of how to care for these animals, to poor information being available to the general public.

The EMODE scheme sounds like a good way to describe exotic pets that takes account of both animal welfare and the risks to the public of infection or injury due to the pet. The scheme would allow people to seek out pets that are suitable for their level of experience and expertise. And it could help with selecting animals for positive lists that can be kept as pets.

Although the scheme says it is standardized, this seems to underestimate the difficulty of assessing the quality of information on particular pets, or the risks of zoonoses/injuries. Nonetheless for common pets this is probably relatively easy to assess.

I am not sure how helpful the toy turtle vs pet turtle comparison is since people have different expectations of toys and pets.

The German Shepherd is an interesting example. If a German Shepherd is rated as moderate to difficult - basically 2 and 3 on a 4-point scale - then, to me, extreme (i.e. 4) does not seem adequate to describe some of the animals that basically should not be kept as a pet. It overlaps with a spider monkey which, according to Warwick et al 2014, is rated as difficult to extreme. It is illegal to keep spider monkeys as pets here in BC.

It remains to be seen whether prospective pet owners would use such a scheme. People who want to acquire certain kinds of pets, like reptiles, may not be put off by the fact none of them are considered "easy" pets. To be effective, the scheme would also need to be accompanied by good quality information about how to care for these animals.

The paper is open access so you can read it in full (reference below).

What do you think would improve the welfare of exotic pets?

P.S. The leopard gecko that illustrates this story is often marketed as a suitable beginner pet, but lizards have complex needs, including an environment with gradients of heat and ultraviolet light, as well as hiding places and branches and rocks for climbing. Read the RSPCA’s advice on how to care for leopard geckos. The RSPCA also has helpful care guides for other common exotic pets.


You might also like:

What is the best enrichment for your ferret?

Enrichment for goldfish

Going for a song: The price of pet birds









References
Warwick, C., Steedman, C., Jessop, M., Arena, P., Pilny, A., & Nicholas, E. (2018). Exotic pet suitability: understanding some problems and utilizing a labeling system to aid animal welfare, environment, and consumer protection. Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.015
Warwick, C., Steedman, C., Jessop, M., Toland, E., & Lindley, S. (2014). Assigning degrees of ease or difficulty for pet animal maintenance: the EMODE system concept. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 27(1), 87-101. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-013-9455-x (also open access)

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.