Dog Behaviour

Dog Cruelty Laws in Training and Behaviour

by

The term “necessary cruelty” in the context of English law and dog training is problematic for several reasons. First, cruelty implies intentionally causing harm or suffering, which is inherently negative and often illegal under animal welfare laws. Using this term can misrepresent or confuse the intent and methods of responsible dog training, which aims to prevent harm rather than cause it. Contrary to popular myth, not all serious dog behaviour problems can be modified or interrupted successfully with food or other stimulus rewards.

Why the word “cruelty” is not suitable for all circumstances

  1. Negative connotations: “Cruelty” carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting extreme intentional harm or suffering. This can conflict with the principles of animal welfare and humane treatment mandated by law.
  2. Legal implications: Under English law, particularly the Animal Welfare Act 2006, causing unnecessary suffering to animals is a criminal offence. Using the term “cruelty” could imply a breach of this law, even if the intent was to address problematic behaviour.
  3. Misrepresentation: In dog training, certain methods might be used to prevent greater harm (e.g. restraining a dog to prevent it from running into traffic). Labelling these methods as “cruelty” misrepresents the preventive and protective nature of the actions.

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Unnecessary suffering:

(1) A person commits an offence if –

(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

(2) A person commits an offence if –

(a) he is responsible for an animal,
(b) an act, or failure to act, of another person, causes the animal to suffer,
(c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

(3) The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include –

(a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced,
(b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment.

Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c. 45) 3

(c) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as –

(i) the purpose of benefiting the animal, or
(ii) the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal.

(d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned,
(e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person. Under the AWA If a person fails to do something or act to prevent an animal suffering then likewise, an offence could be committed under the legislation.

Using Physical Force in Dog Training

Using force in dog training should be approached with caution. Modern, humane dog training emphasises reward-based reinforcement and minimal use of force. When force is used, it should be for the dog’s, human’s or other animals’ safety and well-being, not to cause unnecessary harm. In basic dog training, especially puppy training, force is the last, not the first, tool to use.

A Labrador jumping on a person in the park can lead to a lawsuit, and I have given evidence in both criminal and civil law cases. Stating “he’s friendly” will not cut it in law. A dog simply hitting a person when running at full speed while chasing a friendly playmate can and has led to civil suits. I am currently involved in one such case involving significant financial damages against the owner of the Labrador.

The definition of the word force has many connotations, depending on the context in the way the word is being used.

Power – strength – energy – influence – impose – coerce – push – shove – pull – compel – to name but a few meanings for the word “force”.

Alternative Terms

To avoid the negative implications of “necessary cruelty,” consider using terms that reflect the intent to protect and ensure the well-being of the dog which are accurate:

  1. Necessary Intervention: This term focuses on the need to step in to prevent harm or manage behaviour.
  2. Controlled Measures: This emphasises that any actions taken are measured, controlled, and intended to prevent greater harm.
  3. Protective Actions: This highlights the intent to protect the dog from danger or harm.
  4. Behavioural Management: This term reflects the goal of managing or modifying the dog’s behaviour responsibly.
  5. Humane Correction: This term implies that any corrective measures are taken with the dog’s welfare in mind, following humane standards, especially where the alternative is committing a criminal offence under UK dog laws.

Using terms like “necessary intervention” or “controlled measures” is more appropriate and legally sound than “necessary cruelty” when discussing dog training. These alternatives align better with the principles of animal welfare and the legal framework in English law, emphasising the protective and preventive nature of the actions taken. Veterinary intervention is often an area in which the word cruelty is ignited despite the good intentions of the vet. Vets do not tell owners they are committing cruelty on their pet for its benefit, which they do physically and psychologically every day in the UK because the result is for the animal’s ultimate well-being.

In the context of a dog trainer handling a dog that suddenly becomes aggressive, “necessary cruelty” might involve using physical force to prevent the dog from causing serious injury. Here is an example:

Example: Using physical force to restrain an aggressive dog

A professional dog trainer is working with a large, strong dog known to have behavioural issues. During a training session, the dog unexpectedly lunges at the trainer, attempting to bite them. The trainer has to act quickly to prevent serious injury.

  • In this situation, the trainer might:
  • Grab the dog’s collar/harness or scruff: The trainer might grab the dog by the collar or the scruff of the neck to hold the dog back, preventing it from reaching them with its teeth.
  • Use their body weight to hold/control the dog: To stop the dog from continuing to lunge and attack, the trainer might use their body weight to hold the dog to the ground. This could involve holding the dog down by its shoulders or chest, which might cause the dog discomfort or even pain but is necessary to prevent injury.
  • Applying a muzzle: If the dog is particularly aggressive, the trainer might need to use a muzzle to prevent the dog from biting. The process of getting the muzzle on the dog might involve holding the dog’s mouth shut, wrestling with the dog, or otherwise using physical restraint that could cause distress; dogs don’t like muzzles. Circumstances dictate whether the above is urgent or not.
  • You can go onto any website, and you will read that it’s easy to condition a dog to accept a muzzle. This is so factually wrong. It is not easy, and dogs that have not been conditioned to accept a muzzle may take months. Most dogs never truly accept it in my experience, and that is thousands of dogs I have seen. Exceptions to the rule are not relevant. A muzzle may be necessary or legally compulsive, but to a dog, it is anathema.

Here I will give a personal example of what I observed recently at my veterinary surgery. I was taking my German Shepherd there for a scan, as he is elderly. When I pulled up in the car park, I opened the back of my vehicle, and before I let my dog out, I saw a vet, a veterinary nurse, and a dog owner trying to control a beagle on the ground. The dog was panicking, and they were trying to get a muzzle on it, all three were on top of the dog. I concluded that the reason they were in the car park was that they could not get the dog into the surgery rooms due to a fear phobia learned from past negative experiences at the vets, regardless of what the vets or nurses were trying to do for its well-being.

I stood by my vehicle, and though a behaviourist, I did not interfere or offer my help because it is not always wanted, especially with veterinary staff. So, I just stood there waiting for them to finish so I could take my dog into the surgery. The dog began screeching and screaming so loudly that you could hear it from probably 500 metres away. If you were not observing what was going on, you would think the dog was being seriously injured, which, of course, it was not. I could see the vet staff trying to avoid being bitten, and the only person the dog did not try to bite was the owner.

This went on for quite a long time. Eventually, I decided to walk around the scene and take my dog into the surgery. It was obvious that the veterinary staff and the dog owner were trying to get a muzzle onto the dog and this was not the first time because you could see by the dog’s behaviour that it anticipated what was about to happen as it started screeching as soon as they got the muzzle out and it could see it. The veterinary staff and the owner intended to get the dog into the surgery so they could conduct an examination or help it with whatever was wrong. This is another example of necessary cruelty, hence why the word in law is not good.

Dog conditions for necessity:

In this scenario, the physical force used would likely be considered “Necessary Intervention” if the following conditions are met:

  1. Legitimate purpose: The trainer’s actions are taken solely to protect themselves from serious harm. The intention is not to cause undue suffering to the dog but to prevent an immediate and significant threat.
  2. Proportionality: The level of force used is proportional to the danger posed by the dog. For example, pinning the dog down to stop the attack is appropriate if the dog is actively trying to bite. However, once the dog is under control, continuing to apply excessive force would not be justified.
  3. No reasonable alternative: In the heat of the moment, the trainer may not have any alternative method to stop the dog’s attack, such as using a lead or command to de-escalate the situation. Physical restraint might be the only option available to prevent serious injury.

Legal Perspective:

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, this use of force would likely be considered necessary to prevent greater harm (i.e. the trainer being bitten or severely injured). The law generally recognises that in emergency situations like this, causing some degree of suffering to the animal may be justified to protect human safety.

However, the force must be limited to what is necessary to stop the attack. Once the dog is restrained or muzzled and no longer poses a threat, the use of force should be immediately reduced to avoid crossing the line into unnecessary cruelty.

The necessity of dog training, especially when it involves teaching dogs to behave in ways that are unnatural to them, is often driven by the need to ensure both the dog’s safety and the safety of others in a human-dominated environment. This necessity is underscored by various laws in England that impose legal responsibilities on dog owners. Failing to properly train a dog can lead to legal conflicts, where the owner might be held liable under specific statutes.

For example,

The Dogs Act 1871 Section 2
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953

Necessity of Dog Training to Prevent Legal Conflicts

Dog training often involves teaching dogs to suppress or modify their natural instincts, such as hunting, territorial behaviour, and aggression, to prevent them from getting into trouble, either by harming others or by putting themselves in danger. This type of training is not just a matter of convenience but is often legally required to avoid conflicts with the law.

1. Animal Welfare Act 2006

  • Legal Obligation: The Animal Welfare Act 2006 places a duty of care on dog owners to ensure the welfare of their pets, which includes providing a suitable environment, diet, and the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and protecting them from pain, suffering, injury, and disease.
  • Example: If a dog is not trained to stay within the confines of a garden or to avoid running into the street, it might get injured or killed in traffic. Failing to train the dog in this way could be seen as neglecting its welfare, violating the owner’s duty under the Act.
  • Conflict: If a dog repeatedly escapes and gets injured, this could be interpreted as a failure to prevent suffering and injury, leading to potential prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act for not taking reasonable steps to protect the animal from harm. Also, other offences would or could be committed, such as allowing your dog to stray (The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992; offences under Road Traffic Act 1988 c.52 Part 1 control of dogs on roads).

2. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended)

  • Legal Obligation: The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is designed to protect the public from dogs that are considered dangerous. It is illegal to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place (England or Wales, whether or not a public place)
  • Example: A dog that has not been properly socialised or trained to control its aggression might attack a person or another animal. Even if the dog is acting on natural territorial or protective instincts, the owner could be held liable under this Act.
  • Conflict: If a dog bites someone because it was not trained to remain calm around strangers, the owner could face severe penalties, including the possibility of the dog being seized and destroyed and the owner facing fines and imprisonment.

3. Dogs Act 1871 Section 2

  • Legal Obligation: The Dogs Act 1871 allows a court to order that a dog be kept under control or destroyed if it is shown to be dangerous and not kept under proper control.
  • Example: If a dog is not trained to walk on a lead properly and continuously escapes, running loose and causing fear or harm to others, the owner could be summoned to court. This might lead to an order requiring the dog to be controlled in specific ways or even destroyed if deemed dangerous.
  • Conflict: Repeated incidents where a dog escapes and behaves aggressively towards others could lead to the owner being taken to court under the Dogs Act 1871, resulting in legal action to ensure the dog is kept under strict control.

4. Highways Act 1980 Section 27

Legal Obligation: Under the Highways Act 1980, it is an offence to allow a dog to be on a public road without being on a lead.

  • Example: A dog that is not trained to walk on a lead might run into traffic, causing accidents. The owner could be held liable for any damage or injuries caused by the dog’s actions.
  • Conflict: If a dog causes a road traffic accident because it was not on a lead or under proper control, the owner could face prosecution under the Highways Act, with the potential for fines and civil liability for damages.

5. Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Statutory Nuisance)

  • Legal Obligation: The Environmental Protection Act 1990 addresses issues like noise pollution, which includes persistent barking by dogs. Excessive barking can be classified as a statutory nuisance.
  • Example: A dog that is not trained to remain calm and quiet might bark excessively when left alone or when someone approaches the house. This could lead to complaints from neighbours.
  • Conflict: If the barking leads to complaints, the local authority could issue a noise abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act. If the barking continues, the owner could face fines and be required to take action, such as further training or soundproofing.

Conclusion on natural and unnatural canine behaviour

Training dogs to behave in ways that may be unnatural to them, such as not chasing after animals, not barking excessively, or remaining calm in the presence of strangers, is essential to avoid conflicts with English law. Each of these laws imposes specific duties on dog owners to ensure that their pets do not cause harm, distress, or nuisance to others, and failing to train a dog appropriately can lead to serious legal consequences.

The necessity of dog training and modification behaviour plans is not just about creating a well-behaved pet but about fulfilling legal responsibilities and ensuring the safety and welfare of both the dog and the public in Britain.

www.colintennant.co.uk

Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents
    Scroll to Top

    Dog Behaviour and Leadership by Nick Jones

    by

    I am often asked about the subject of leadership, because it does seem to be a current ‘buzz word’ at present. So, I would like to address some of the areas that may help if you are experiencing any difficulties with your dog.

    My work is at the more pressurised end of what might be termed as dog training and people come to me when things are at a low ebb, having tried everything else. This is normally called behavioural work and I come across all sorts of job descriptions, anything from ‘dog behaviourist’ to ‘dog listener’ or ‘dog whisperer’. I don’t claim to be any of the above; call me what you like, but I do it every day, have a passion for my work and strive for excellence in all I do.

    So, to dogs. I recall working with a chocolate Labrador not so long ago, which decided to ensconce itself against the dishwasher (dirty plates and food scraps!) that was at the far end of a narrow kitchen. Not initially aware of how much he prided himself on this secure location, I approached and calmly slipped a hand under his collar to remove him…at which point he gave a low guttural growl as if to say “you move me one more inch and I’ll have you”. The look in his eyes confirmed the growl and I decided that to move away was prudent. I soon returned with a slip lead and he walked away without aggression. We put in place some new rules to show him what was available to him in terms of movement about the home and prevented access to the kitchen later on. He is now doing well with a caring family.

    The vast majority of dogs are just great, BUT they require from you leadership, consistency within the family and the best start possible in early life. What do I mean by these words exactly? Well, it’s impossible for me to go into depth for every aspect of dog training and problem resolution here, because it would turn into a book, but I would like to expand a little more…

    Leadership
    Leadership is an on-going (birth to death even) approach that will protect, guide and reassure any dog. There is not a single thing that you do to show leadership, but a combination of setting reasonable boundaries for a dog that allows it to relax and enjoy a calm life as a part of your family. Some of the components to develop good positive leadership would include…

    Obedience training
    Classes can be good, but in my experience I see too many dogs that have been through the classes and found everything too stressful. Too many barking anxious dogs, anxious owners over-correcting and over issuing of commands. Too much food on the floor and generally a little bit chaotic.

    This is not what we want our young dogs to experience in terms of relating to other dogs at an early age. Too stressful. As I say, classes can be good, but I urge you to check them out before hand and to even stop if your dog (or you) finds it all too much. Meeting well-balanced dogs in an open-air environment free from these pressures will be far better. A few hours with a respected local trainer in your local parks and streets would be far more valuable as it’s geared towards real life situations.

    Managing your dog
    By this I mean things you can do in the home in particular to ensure your dog is being watched (more the younger the dog is…a little like children) to ensure his actions are acceptable whilst in your home. A very young dog that has complete freedom to go where it likes (inside or out) is heading for trouble. As the dog matures and it gains your trust, you can then allow him more liberty. Too many owners start off the other way round and then have to work to pull things back. I see the first two years as crucial in shaping a dog’s behaviour and maintaining boundaries is essential. With slower maturing breeds you may need to add twelve months to that!

    Good manners
    Another area to maintain with any dog in the early years is ensuring that your dog is well mannered. Again, just like children, once you have a foundation of well-mannered behaviour, you can begin to enjoy what life has to offer more, because you know you can enter into almost any situation and come out the other side with your nerves in tact, your head held high. Aspects to address to ensure your dog is respectful and calm in the home and outside:

    • Calm homecomings – reward calm behaviour, not over excitability. Sit = Hello
    • Feeding manners – feed a good brand of food, a ‘Wait’ prior to allowing the dog to eat and respect around you when you are eating.
    • Sleep and rest areas – allow the dog on furniture only on your say so and ensure that the dog sleeps away from you to encourage an independent dog.
    • Doorways – calm and respectful leaving of the home at doorways and re entry. Train a simple ‘Sit and Wait’ for example. The same goes for car entry/exit.
    • Heelwork – an essential component to ensure the dog is exercising self-control and following you. Head and body harnesses should only be seen as a stepping-stone to walking on a relaxed lead and broad fixed collar. Seek one to one guidance if you are struggling with this aspect.

    The recall – suffice to say that a dog that does not recall is a worry to you as an owner and a potential nuisance to other walkers when outside. Worst-case scenario is that your dog causes an accident on a public road. Poor recall can also lead to an exuberant dog getting embroiled with other dogs in conflict…possibly leading your own dog becoming reactive to others as time passes. Not wishing to place a negative slant on everything, but I see it so often, so I am keen to address things on a preventative level where possible.

    Exercise – a well-exercised dog is a relaxed dog and a relaxed dog is far less likely to spend that same energy on being destructive, dominant or indulging in any other unwanted behaviours. Work on finding the right level of exercise for your dog’s breed and age. This alone can save you a great deal of trouble.

    Consistency
    This means that you are doing your best within the family at all times to ensure that you are all singing from the same song sheet. Children will need constant supervision and gentle guidance to begin with (age depending) to ensure that they too are doing their bit to show calm behaviour with the dog. Consistency between the man and woman in the home can be harder to achieve at times, as both can have their own ideas on how something should be dealt with. Suffice to say, that it is worthwhile to sit down early on and agree the way things are going to be done around the areas I describe under “good manners” for example; this needs to be extended across the dog’s routine.

    Best start
    With a rescue dog, much of this early training time may have passed already and you will be working with this in mind. However, should you obtain a puppy at 8 weeks of age, then you have a huge responsibility to go out of your way to socialise your dog. This single-minded approach can in itself take away most future problems, as you will be removing the element of risk of developing fear. Even though you dog may not receive the ‘all clear’ to mix with other dogs after it’s injections at about 12 weeks, it is essential that you are creative in introducing your dog to as many things as possible (dogs included!) to make them seem normal and acceptable right from day one in your care. This period closes down at approximately 16 weeks of age; so you can see that you only have a couple of months to go about this process. It doesn’t close completely, so intend to maintain positive meetings with all sorts for the first two years at least.

    Prior to the ‘all clear’ of the second injection, you can allow the dog to mix with other calm, healthy dogs in friends’ and neighbours’ gardens for example. Keep your pup on a lead or long line to allow intervention if needed. To avoid this can be a mistake, as you will then only have approximately 4 weeks to socialise your new dog, this is simply not enough for some. Introduce as much variety as possible: Dogs and people of all ages, shapes and sizes etc.

    Some keywords for you to consider: Dogs, people, cars, buses, livestock, pubs, towns, traffic, your local vet…simply drop in for a pleasant hello and leave again!

    I am well aware that it’s easy to talk theory and that no single article or book will resolve the concerns you may be experiencing. It’s not unusual for me to visit a home and to see they have a number of popular books, they watch all the programmes (not always a good thing!) and they have done their level best to resolve things on their own. What can often make a difference is a trained eye can that see what particularly need addressing and to work with what we have in front of us. Dogs have a super ability to change and adapt in a very short space of time; this often leaves me both touched and impressed.

    There is help available out there folks, you just need to make a number of phone calls, ask some direct questions to find out how the trainer works and handles dogs, then to make a well balanced decision that will benefit both you and the dog. I hope this article prompts some thoughts in you regarding leadership in particular, because all dogs require this as a foundation to leading a balanced life.

    This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Nick Jones, for the CFBA, the CIDBT and their students of Dog Behaviour & Training

    Owner Profile Modelling in Dog Behaviour by Colin Tennant

    by

    It is common knowledge that owners are the main influence on a dog’s behavioural development from puppy hood to maturity and in essence the dog’s final adult temperament. Some other factors may be influential, including quality of breeding, as well as breed drives that are often overlooked by inexperienced animal behaviourists; that is why when you wish to obtain help with a dog you should use a dog practitioner who is an academically and vocationally trained expert.

    Dog mind altering factors can be environmental, such as a dog living in rural isolation or on the tenth story of a block of flats, which will inevitability influence how we begin to assess and assist a dog owner in rehabilitating a dog exhibiting behavioural problems – in other words location – notwithstanding family dynamics.

    Dog Law, especially the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991), also influences how we rehabilitate a dog in public spaces and this law without doubt impedes good behavioural reformation training. Many armchair experts start from the position that some owners should not have a dog in certain circumstances and that makes rehabilitation difficult. Well, the fact is they do and that’s a reality check/fact and part of this work in dog behaviour and also the challenge for us is to be flexible and skilled. What is ironic is that some dog rescue charities promote ineffective fantasy, politically correct advice regarding dog rehabilitation methods, whilst simultaneously releasing hundreds of dogs from their homes which are aggressive to people and dogs. I work with people and dogs and respect owner and dog as clients. It is not all about dogs.

    As dog experts we work with pet owners and observe their personalities in relation to working with them and their pet dogs, ultimately to help solve the dogs behaviour problems. This may surprise some dog pet owners, but I believe it is true in many occupations whereby working and forming partnerships for knowledge exchange is critical to success in that occupation.

    Taking into consideration all the aforementioned factors, the dog owner is still the main conduit of an expert’s knowledge and only through understanding the owner’s psychological make-up can dog experts deliver their programmes for the dog in an efficient and understandable, but most of all a realistic and practical way.

    I describe this approach as Client Centred Dog Behaviour. This means the professional focusing on the client as a first step to influencing the client’s dog’s behaviour issues. Most dog specialists work out the psychology of how to deal with a variety of owners who have dogs with serious aberrant behaviour. All people in my view are natural psychologists, some better than others; it’s a survival instinct and an innate ability in homo-sapiens to help us to deal with life’s problems we encounter. The dog specialist simply develops human on human psychology to a higher level in relationship to the occupation of dog ownership. This is mainly gained from experience and when honed we can and often do make the difference between a dog’s behaviour being solved to the client’s satisfaction or failure. Get the human psychology wrong and the dog may be got rid of or fail to change thereby not enjoying the quality of life it deserves.

    Owner Profile Modelling (OPM) – Psychology
    I developed OPM in the eighties in a basic form and then as I learnt more about people and dogs used human profiling to help me quickly assess the type of dog owner I was dealing with so that I could deliver the most dynamic and effective dog behaviour solutions. In essence it is about human characteristics, personalities and ultimately the relationships owners develop with their beloved pets. It is also about client/practitioner relationships, the first entry into that learning coalition. I add, it is wise to remember that though most aberrant behaviour in dogs is human generated, it is not necessarily the humans, who now own the dog, who caused their dog’s behaviour issues, because often they take on reforming a rescue dog’s behaviour problems anew.

    Over three decades I worked out that there are different kinds of dog owner types that can be put into OPM categories. These categories describe an owner’s personality, the relationship with their pet(s) and resulting interactive behaviour in society. I have placed categories below that include four OPM attachment/relationship models that have worked well in operations. The OPM headings used describe the title/categorisation through my system and use at my dog behaviour centre.

    Owner Psychological Modelling
    Model 1 describes a balanced and normal relationship that dogs flourish in is known as a “balanced pack bond”, which is secure. The way an owner(s) responds to a dog’s natural-wired behaviours in an unnatural environment that they provide may lead to one of the four types of modelling categories – note that there may be other categories. The way a dog is bonded to its owner(s) also affects how it will behave towards people and its own kind in society and thereafter live in that same landscape we provide. I will now describe the four client centred models:

    Model 1 – Balanced owner-dog relationship/bond

    Model 2 – Disorganised / chaotic dog owners

    Model 3 – Detached / ambivalent dog owners

    Model 4 – Emotional / driven and insecure owners

    A balanced owner (Model 1) has a good, sensible relationship with his dog and sees a dog as a dog even though it may be his best friend. They are the easier owners to communicate sensible instructions too for a specific behavioural dog problem.

    An example behaviour presented to a dog behaviour practitioner could be a dog that is noise phobic with vehicles, it panics and is difficult for the owner to control and handle. The dog becomes very frightened, pulls on the lead and might try to run home across busy roads. All this activity is full of tension and panic. The most common owner we see is the balanced model. They will receive and apply advice rationally using a phobia rehabilitation programme. This owner model understands that they have to ignore certain behaviours in the dog to help it overcome a phobia, like the dog’s fear of vacuum cleaner or washing machine sounds, and imagine the positive result. They stay calm if their dog reacts fearfully, ignore the panic behaviour and follow the expert’s advice in perhaps re directing the dog’s mind onto other rewarding distractions or seem so indifferent on cue that the dog sees the owner is calm and not suddenly changing their body language or verbal behaviour to match the dog’s distress.

    So how would two of my OPM models hypothetically deal with this dog’s phobic behaviour. Well, from my files, not theory, I can give examples OPM Models.

    Model 3 – the detached or ambivalent owner – is often not doggy at all or simply has a pet dog by default or has inherited one. Motivating these owners can be difficult; they simply see the problem as a nuisance, but cannot bring themselves to be consistent in methodological implementation. When dealing with the phobic behaviour in their dog they simply may not prepare for the event, be chaotic in implementing instructions and have no rewards or re directed activities in place on cue as advised by the dog behaviour practitioner. All in all they will not help solve the issue by being inconsistent in reformation advice. These owners will need plain, easy explanations in virtual bullet point form so the chances of implementation are greater. They may become more motivated if successful, but definitely will not read long reports with complex information. They will require extra contact and trigger calls for the best chance of success.

    Model 4 – the over emotional owner – who begins to see dogs more as humans and the relationship becomes so intense as to be very much out of balance. These owners may generate an issue like separation anxiety and then refuse to follow distancing psychological methodologies to help stabilise their dog’s psyche; they may eventually teach their dog that time alone is normal as it is for people. These owners often simply cannot bear to implement basic techniques, which are critical to success like ignoring certain dog attention seeking behaviours and often are stricken by guilt for not treating their dog as an equal or offending its feelings. In fact, it is their responses to their dog’s excessive attention seeking that fuels or maintains the Separation Anxieties they so often want to solve.

    So how does profiling help, in a practical way, the dog behaviour practitioner in this case? If the owner is so emotionally attached to the dog’s every whim then setting down standard behaviour advice of distancing the dog gently over weeks or months needs careful explanation. Reports will simply not influence such owners – they need as much care and attention as the dog and the consultation can be as much as 90% on the owner and 10% on the rehabilitation methods. Small incremental changes of the dog/human relationship is a way forward; once this model of owner sees results and actually observes their dog becoming less stressed, they will generally fulfil the rest of the programme. Understanding the human side of the dog/human relationship is just as important as understanding dog behaviour and psychology. Treating these clients as a Model 1 will generally alter little by way of the dog’s stress in separation situations. My own training in human counselling has helped much in my motivation of such clients; it is very hard work at times, but the dog is always in my mind’s eye.

    Owners I describe in Model 2, chaotic owners who have a dog exhibiting chases/predatory behaviour on live stock or wild life need specialised dog training to a high level and the human commitment is critical to re training the dog successfully. Understanding these owner personality traits means the practitioner cannot waste time offering complex workable solutions, because little will change or be implemented. This owner needs straightforward steps of success to see results to encourage a stable approach and yes, it works well if the advice is proffered working within the chaotic lifestyle that is real.

    Too many advisers often only spout theoretical happy-clappy reward solutions with little balance in training methods, not considering practicalities and human personality traits This often results in failure and it is the dog that suffers. The owner requires intelligent balanced retraining information that works. This Model 2 owner needs a patient and understanding adviser who is prepared to work hard with the type of dog owner and in the atmosphere that is sympathetic to the situation. Some family members have a number of Model traits combined, depending on circumstances; the experienced practitioner will understand these variations and work out good solutions.

    I have simply categorised, as a guide, the Models as I have experienced them from over 10,000 cases. Many experts already do what I describe subconsciously. I have simply set it out for my students to learn and obtain new skills. As always from my perspective, the ultimate gain is dogs being allowed to enjoy life to the full and owners enjoying a satisfactory relationship with their dogs.

    Find a dog expert: Canine & cat Behaviour Association www.cfba.co.uk
    Future Education for experts in dogs www.cidbt.org.uk

    PS – I brought the OPM system into the Cambridge Institute of Dog Behaviour and Training especially for aggression cases several years ago and students of dog behaviour have found them useful and popular in their studies towards the BA Degree through the Middlesex University Work Based Learning Programmes. My biggest learning curve here was the plethora of student information pouring into university work from the student experiences with dogs and owners. It was a new source of feedback that was amazing in its content.

    This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Colin Tennant for the CFBA, the CIDBT and their students of Animal Behaviour