1 | P a g e

A short Study into Kennel Stress: The effects of Environmental Enrichments, Training and Handler

Interactions on the Re-Homing of Long Term Shelter Dogs

Author: Jones Michael A, Assistant: Wright John, 18th of July 2011

2 | P a g e

Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................Page 3 Introduction .....................................................................................................Page 4 Method ............................................................................................................Page 5 Results ............................................................................................................Page 18 Discussion .......................................................................................................Page 21 Conclusion .......................................................................................................Page 25 References ......................................................................................................Page 26 Appendices.......................................................................................................Page 29

3 | P a g e

Abstract Every year, globally, millions of stray and unwanted dogs end up in rescue centres for various reasons most of which relate to behaviour problems. The fate of those dogs is weighted by many factors, but there is a group that deserves a better look. The intention of this short study was to examine the fate of the long term inmate and use the information already gathered from more in-depth research and other studies to find whether we could make life changing effects for these dogs by implementing those findings and offering them an alternative life to one spent entirely in the rescue shelter or worse, euthanasia. It was our goal to show that an alternative could be possible with correct housing, improved welfare, and basic training, along with more handler interactions and good quality diet, based on the findings of previous, more in-depth research and studies.

4 | P a g e

Introduction Every year in the UK many stray or abandoned dogs are housed in rescue shelters. These dogs are either turned in by local authority dog wardens, or by members of the public who have found them wandering the streets. A poll conducted for the Dogs Trust in 2008 suggested that 96,892 strays were collected off the streets in 2007, which works out to 11 an hour, and although euthanasias are quoted as being less than in previous years, the figure was still put at around 7000 for that year (BBC News 2008). For the lucky, majority of dogs in shelters new homes are found and they continue to be fostered in a caring environment and go on to live happy lives. For a small minority however the future doesn’t look so rosy. Many have the prospect of a life time in a shelter or worse, euthanasia. This will depend on individual shelter’s available facilities to house long-term dogs, as well as financial constraints, manpower resources and its policy on euthanasia. These long-term dogs have often been re-homed several times unsuccessfully with behaviour issues often cited as the reason for their return to the shelter. The list of inappropriate behaviours cited varied from dog to dog, but carried a consistent theme: separation anxiety, destructive behaviour (such as chewing woodwork or shoes and clothing), indoor toileting, excessive barking, over exuberance in play and aggression to visitors and other animals. As I, the author and an experienced trainer and behaviour specialist and my assistant is an experienced trainer with a foundational knowledge of behaviour, we are often asked, by one particular rescue shelter, to work with individual dogs in an effort to rehabilitate them so that they may be found suitable homes. To that end, in the summer of 2009 we engaged in a brief study to see what we could do to improve the chances of long-term inmates being rehabilitated and permanently re-homed with suitable, vetted homes. We decided to take previous research material (Beerda 1997, 2000, Kos 2005, Mondelli et al 2005, Miklosi et al 2001, Poulsen et al 2009, Stephen and Ledger 2005, Scarlet DVM 2009, Hennessey et al 2002, Mowbray J 2009 and Marston 2005) and apply their findings. We hypothesised that by implementing a calmer environment enriched with positive stimulation and a routine of exercise, positive reward-based training, good quality diet, handler interactions and systematic desensitisation, we could achieve our goal.

5 | P a g e

Method Materials: A small diary was kept with the individual dog’s details on their clipboard and a note book and pen was used to keep a record of times, dates and other relevant information. The dogs at the rescue centre were fed on commercial dry as well as canned dog food, but brand and type was inconsistent due to the shelter using what was donated and available on a given day. Fresh water was available at all times. The study subjects were fed consistently on a higher protein, low carbohydrate, biologically appropriate raw food diet of good quality meat, fresh fruit, vegetables, eggs and oily fish (Sardines, mackerel and pilchards). Fresh water was also available at all times. The rescue shelter dogs (RSDs) were walked on slip leads due to the high number of leads of this type donated to the shelter as well as the volunteer walkers’ feelings that they were easier to put on and take off. The study dogs (SDs) were walked on Ancol harnesses and two meter double ended Halti leads with soft collars containing a name tag and contact details as required by law. At the rescue shelter the RSDs were housed in individual runs within one of the housing blocks (B block) containing twenty runs with a corridor running central to all. Each run looked across the corridor into the facing one and the sides of the runs were of wire construction so all the dogs could see the other dogs right through to the end of the accommodation block. The SDs were housed in individual kennels and runs which faced onto a courtyard/ open area. The walls were of solid construction preventing the dogs from seeing into the next kennel or run. These kennels and runs had been professionally converted for this purpose. Due to space constraints there were six kennels. There was a five by twenty metres secure exercise area adjacent to the new kennels and runs as well as access to a five acre green field. In all cases beds were of a plastic construction for ease of cleaning and sterilisation. Bedding was of donated blankets. Various toys were used, such as Kong’s, Retrievers dummies, dumbbells, tug toys and various sized balls (ie tennis and footballs). Clickers were used as a bridge in training. SD’s training treats were homemade baked liver or chopped salami purchased from the supermarket along with cheese bites and small pieces of freshly cooked chicken contained in a bait bag.

6 | P a g e

RSD’s training treats were mainly pieces of such dry food as was available on the day. A suitably equipped vehicle for transporting the dogs to their new kennel environment was employed. There were two trained stooge dogs, one male 4 years old Labrador (neutered) and one female 4 years old Labrador (Neutered). Participants: There were twelve dogs, in total, involved in the study all of which had been in the shelter environment for up to and over twelve months. It was felt by the shelter that these dogs could not be re-homed and euthanasia had been scheduled for what the shelter felt were the worst six cases – ie dogs with unwanted behaviours which had the highest return rate after previous adoptions. All dogs in the study came to the rescue shelter as strays following collection from the streets and delivery by the local authority dog warden. Despite all attempts to locate and return them to their owners, they had spent well over their waiting period in the shelter environment. The twelve dogs comprised six pure breed - two Rottweilers, two Staffordshire Bull Terriers, one Chihuahua and one German Shepherd – and six of mixed breed - one Rottweiler cross, one Boxer cross, two Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross, one Mastiff cross and one with no discernable breed mix. All ages are estimates provided by the shelter veterinarian. None were Micro-chipped or tattooed on receipt at shelter. The study dogs: Issues on admittance to Shelter: Charlie (SD1) Dog-on-dog aggression Breed: Rottweiler cross Age: 4years of age Sex: Male (neutered) Time in shelter: 14 months Beau (SD2) Nervous of other dogs and human Breed: Boxer cross males Age: 4-5 years Sex: Female (intact) Time in Shelter: 10 months Sid (SD3) Dog-on-dog aggression and pulling Breed: Rottweiler on the lead Age: 18months-2years Sex: Male (neutered) Time in Shelter: 7 months

7 | P a g e

Martha (SD4) Dog-on-dog aggression, food and toy Breed: Rottweiler resource guarding Age: 5 years Sex: Female (intact) Time in Shelter: 7 months Toby (SD5) Dog-on-dog aggression, resource Breed: Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross guarding, pulling on the lead and Age: 12-18 months hyperactivity Sex: Male (neutered) Time in Shelter: 8 months Buddy (SD6) Dog-on-dog aggression, pulling Breed: Staffordshire Bull Terrier on the lead, food guarding and Age: 2-3 years hyperactivity Sex: Male (neutered) Time in Shelter: 18 months The Rescue Shelter Dogs: Issues on admittance to Shelter: Clarke (RSD1) Severe dog-on-dog aggression and Breed: Bull Terrier Breed cross pulling on the lead Age: 2 years Sex: Male (intact) Time in Shelter: 7 months Dolce (RSD2) Fear of human males, aggression Breed: Chihuahua Age: 5 years Sex: Female (intact) Time in Shelter: 4 months Law: (RSD3) Excessive barking and pulling on the Age: 5 years lead Breed: German Shepherd Sex: Male (intact) Time in Shelter: 12 months Sugar (RSD4) Dog-on-dog aggression Breed: Staffordshire Bull Terrier Age: 8 years Sex: Female (neutered) Time in Shelter: 9 months Seb (RSD5) Dog-on-dog aggressive, pulling on Breed: Mastiff cross the lead and food guarding Age: 18 months Sex: Male (intact) Time in Shelter: 14 months

8 | P a g e

Lucy (RSD6) No apparent issues observed. Her Breed: Undetermined age was considered a possible Age: 6 years barrier Sex: Female (neutered) Time in shelter: 5 months Procedures: This study was completed over a six week period from September 28th 2009 to November 08th 2009 The rescue shelter day began at 09:00. The dogs would be shut in their kennels while staff began the morning routine of cleaning and sanitising the runs and changing the bedding. From 11:00 the volunteer dog walkers arrived to walk the dogs, individually, for 15-30 minutes. Handler interactions were limited due to the number of dogs in the shelter that needed to be walked. All dogs were walked on slip leads as it was considered they were easier to get on and off and because slip leads are cheap to donate to the shelter. This was despite them having an aversive and a physically damaging effect (Pauli AM et al 2006, Hallgren A 1992). Dogs were walked once a day due to their number as well as staff and volunteer numbers. Feeding was undertaken between the hours of 13:00-16:00 and all dogs were fed one meal a day of dry commercial dog food and/or canned dog food, depending on what supplies and brand of food had been donated by the general public and supporters. Donated toys were placed in the individual kennels and runs for the dogs to interact with, but no handler stimulation was given after the initial walk. Dogs remained in their individual kennels and runs for the rest of the day following their walk. This routine is very consistent. The kennels and runs at the shelter were constructed of chain link type material with ten runs down each side of the housing block (Block B) – ie a total of 20 runs and kennels. A corridor ran down the centre of the building with each run facing the one opposite and with the dogs clearly visible to each other. The runs did have a small degree of privacy from its parallel run via a solid panel extending from ground level to about four feet (1.2m) high, but there was nothing to prevent dogs standing on their rear legs to see all the dogs in their runs through to the far end of the block. Each RSD was provided with a seven day to view pocket diary which was attached to a clip board on the front of their run. Staff and volunteers were instructed to write down, on a daily basis, for the entire six weeks period of the study, the time and details of walks, feeding (what and when), interactions and any other information, such as new behaviour exhibited, worsening of existing behaviours and any signs of illness observed. Diaries had name labels for each dog on the front. The study dogs (SD’s) were moved two at a time from the rescue shelter to their new kennel environment in a purpose fitted animal transport vehicle. There were no windows in the rear, so the interior is kept dimly lit and the individual crates are

9 | P a g e

separated by a solid partition so the dogs can’t see into the next crate. Transport, to their new kennel environment, took twenty minutes for each pair of dogs. The SD kennels and runs are in a rural location on a non-working farm. They are former pig sties which were professionally converted to kennels and runs. They are of a solid brick construction and the doorways face a court yard with a five by twenty metre secure exercise yard adjacent to the kennels and runs. Although the dogs could see out over the court yard they could not see into the parallel kennels and runs or into the exercise yard. Each SD was provided with a seven day to view pocket diary which was attached to a clip board on the front of their run. We recorded the time and details of walks, feeding (what and when), interactions and any other information, such as new behaviour exhibited, worsening of existing behaviours and any signs of illness observed. Diaries had name labels for each dog on the front. For week one, which was kept consistent over the week, the SD’s routine began at 08:00 where I (MJ) would walk SD1 for 45 minutes, alternating days on who would begin the walks so as to get the SD’s used to different handlers. While my colleague (JW) would begin the daily cleaning routine and sanitisation of SD1’s kennel and run and change the bedding for clean blankets. All the SD’s were walked on an Ancol harness and a two meter double ended Halti lead. On return we would interact with SD1 through positive reward based training for up to 15 minutes in basic good manners, sit, stay, down etc using homemade baked liver treats or salami sausage, cheese or cooked chicken as training treats. Then SD1 would be placed in his kennel and run for an hour prior to feeding with some gentle play with handlers and toys. JW would then walk SD2 with a female volunteer at first due to her fear of human males for 45 minutes while MJ cleaned and sanitised the kennel and run and changed the bedding for clean blankets. On return JW would interact with SD2 through positive reward based training for up to 15 minutes in basic good manners training as with SD1 in the exercise area and giving her positive associations with human males using baked liver, sausage, cheese or chicken. SD2 would then be placed back in her kennel and run for an hour prior to feeding with some gentle play with the female volunteer and toys. This process would be repeated for each dog through to SD6 which would take us up to 13:30 by the time all dogs had been exercised, worked on training and been fed. The SD’s were fed on biologically appropriate raw food such as chicken, beef and lamb with a small amount of blended vegetables, raw eggs, oily fish, fruit, Greek yoghurt and a small amount of honey along with raw meaty bones for dental hygiene and to satisfy chewing needs (Bones were supervised to prevent choking). On the days we fed mince to the SD’s it would be placed inside a Kong toy which would be placed in their run for mental stimulation while we were working with the other SD’s. On the whole meat was fed in portions such as chicken quarters, lamb

10 | P a g e

chops, beef brisket and lambs ribs portioned according to the size of the dog. Vegetables where blended to break down the cellulose coating and to make them easily digestible as was the fruit, apples, bananas, pears and melon. Natural yoghurt and honey was straight from the supermarket container in individual measured portions. From 13:30 through to 15:30 the SD’s spent their time in the kennels and runs with their toys where appropriate, but mostly they slept. This time we spent on keeping the SD’s individual diaries and notes on progress, setbacks etc and general administrative tasks. From 15:30 we would begin the exercise and training routine again with the handler that had walked him in the morning. SD1 was first and the routine consisted of a 45 minute walk on a harness and lead followed by 15 minutes of positive reward based basic training on return. Using liver, cheese, sausage or chicken treats as rewards followed by some games with the handler in the exercise area with toys and physical petting and handling while JW walked SD2 with a female volunteer giving her positive associations with males by using food treats during the walk at intervals when she was showing a calm response to approaching human males and other dogs. This would be repeated through to SD6. SD1, SD3, SD4, SD5 and SD6 would all be rewarded during their walks for showing calm behaviour with other dogs in the distance while we maintained a non reactive distance that kept their stress levels low. SD4 and SD6 were fed alone in their runs as they had been described as food guarders by the shelter staff and we followed this routine for the first week before starting any desensitisation program with them. The same applied to SD5 when he had a bone as he had been described as guarding chews and bones by the shelter. SD4’s interaction with toys was withheld for this first week as she had been described by the shelter as a toy guarder so interactions with her was physical through massage and attention until we could begin desensitisation work with her on the issue. This regime took us through to 20:00-20:30 when all the dogs were placed in the kennel and run for the rest of the evening ready to begin again the next morning. At week two we followed the same regime as week one with each of the SD’s with the addition of a parallel walking session in the mornings. With SD1, 3, 5 and 6 we would use the female Stooge dog (FSG) for the parallel walking exercise and for SD3 and 4 we would use the male stooge dog (MSG). This exercise is conducted where we start with the dogs at a distance that the SD’s shows no reaction or signs of stress due to proximity of the stooge dog in these cases we found that the nonreactive distance were 200 meters. We then walk in a straight line parallel to each other keeping 200 meters apart. When we reach the end of the line we turn to face each other take a step in by a meter turn to face the way we have just come from and begin walking again. At the end of the line we then turn

11 | P a g e

to face each other, step in a meter and turn and go back the direction we have just come from. This exercise effectively reduces the distance between the SD and FSG/MSG by two meters at the end of each leg but slowly and in a controlled manner. If at any time the SD shows a reaction to the FSG/MSG we go back to last point where the SD didn’t react and begin again. During this exercise we watched both the SD and FSG/MSG for signs of stress so we could take them back to their comfort zone when they exhibited any. The SD’s were rewarded with praise and the odd food treat when showing no reaction to the SG’s giving them a positive association with the presence of other dogs and slowly desensitising them to their presence. This exercise also gave us a chance to assess the SD’s reactivity level to other dogs. This exercise was conducted until both handlers were walking side by side with the SD and SG showing no reaction. In the afternoon after following the same regime as week one, we began adding to the basic good manners training of SD3, 5 and 6 training on walking nicely on a loose lead.

As far as the SD’s and leads are concerned, we want to arrange things so that loose leashes "pay off" and a tight leash does not.

Historically trainers encouraged owners to act like a tree the moment their dog began to pull on the lead. This method does work nicely with puppies, but it just doesn't work for the adolescent or older dog that has learned to pull.

The following method requires first, that all or most reinforcement will come from behind the handler and second, that they will toss the food to the ground—not far—so the dog has to look for it.

Loose-leash walking is going to begin as a game. Here are a few simple steps we trained before we did any walking with the SD’s:

1. Put the SD's lead on and stand still. When the SD releases the tension on the lead, we clicked and showed him the treat in our hand. Let the SD see the handler place the treat on the ground by the outside of his left foot. Once the SD has eaten the treat, the handler moved to the end of the range of the lead so it is taut and stood quietly. When the SD moves to release the tension, click. Show the SD the treat and place it by the handlers left foot. Eye contact doesn’t matter at this point. What we are teaching is that releasing the lead tension gets clicked and treated. We did this a number of times.

2. The handler continued to stand now that SD is not pulling. Now the handler will click for eye contact. After the click, treat is dropped by the handlers left foot. Remembering after he has finished eating the treat to move to the end of the leash.

We clicked and treated three times for looking at the handler while on a loose lead.

12 | P a g e

3. Again, we stood with the SD on a loose lead, looking at the handler; we tossed the treats right past the SD’s nose to about three feet away (one meter). When the SD eats the treats and comes back to the handler looking for more, click and treat by placing the food by the outside of the handlers left foot. Move and repeat.

4. Again toss the treat right past the SD's nose. When the SD finishes eating it and turns around to come back to the handler, the handler turned his back and started walking. (Just taking a few steps in the beginning.) When the SD catches up, but before he gets past the handlers leg, click and treat. Repeat.

Note: Making sure when we tossed the food it went right past the dog's nose. This is the warm-up. When we had the SD following for a few steps the handler starts walking and reinforcing behind or next to the handler.

Training on the move

The SD is on the lead. The handler turns away from the SD and start walking. The SD follows. As the dog catches up to the handler and is coming up next to him—maybe even makes eye contact—mark (click) and drop the treat next to the left foot. We didn't keep moving and made sure the first few times that we let the SD know that the handler had food in his hand. Once the SD finished his treat, we started again. Showing the SD the treat and then turn and take a few steps away from him, walking until he catches up, dropping the treat next to or a little behind the handler.

Note: The handler dropping food next to his side or a little behind helps the dog to stay close. It prevents the dog from anticipating and forging ahead. Dropping the food behind or even letting the dog take it out of the hand behind the handlers back. The important point is not to drop the food so far away that the dog has to drag the handler to get it.

Starting again, we begin to walk in such a way that the SD is at an angle beside or is behind the handler. As the SD catches up, the handler drops the food behind (or next to his leg). Once the SD has eaten the food and is coming back toward the handler, start walking away from the SD again trying for more steps before dropping. Timing is crucial. It’s important not to let the dog get in front of the handler. If he does, the handler pivots away, waits until the SD catches up but is next to the handler or slightly behind (or his nose is at the handlers leg), and drop the food.

The handler then increases the number of steps before dropping the food behind him, never dropping food if the SD has gotten in front of the handler, working towards walking more steps before rewarding.

As the SD gets better we can now walk quite a distance without forging and pulling, rewarding intermittently. For the SD to walk without pulling he has to believe (because you rewarded him) that there is a better chance of good things near the handler than in the wide world.

13 | P a g e

This regime carried on though to the end of week two although SD3, 5 and 6 were walking nicely on a loose lead after day two of week two. We continued the training for the remainder of the week to reinforce loose lead walking in the secure exercise area as well as during our routine walks to help the SD’s generalise to other situations.

Week three continued the same routine as week one. The parallel walking sessions we introduced in week two on the mornings continued in week three with the difference that the male SD’s were now parallel walking with the MSG instead of the FSG. The process was the same as week two rewarding the SD’s when they were showing no reaction to the MSG and monitoring the both dogs for signs of stress and returning to non reactive distances when we received a reaction to the MSG from the SD being worked. We closed the distance gradually until both dogs and handlers walked together with no reaction In the afternoon sessions we began working with SD4 and 6 on counter conditioning their food guarding. As both were reported as food and resource guarders we wanted to begin by counter conditioning this behaviour. This is done by placing the food bowl just inside the run with the door closed for safety.

Step One

Stand a few feet away from the SD while he’s near his food. Do not move toward him and make sure the handler is not in the zone that causes him to react.

Say something like, ―That’s a good boy‖ in a conversational tone and, at the same time, toss a special treat toward him. Continue to do this every few seconds until the SD shows signs of relaxing or no reaction.

Repeat this exercise each time he goes to his bowl and in a relaxed way for 10 trials. Then you can move on to Step Two.

During the exercises, if he leaves his bowl and moves toward you to ask for more treats, just ignore him. Wait until he goes back to his bowl again before tossing more tasty treats.

Step Two

While the SD is near his bowl, say ―Good boy?‖ in a conversational tone. At the same time, take one step toward him and toss a special treat in to his bowl. Then immediately step back. Repeat this sequence every few seconds until the SD has the idea that a step towards him means a tasty treat follows.

Each day, take one step closer to the SD before tossing him the special treat. Continue at this stage until you come within two feet of the bowl. When the SD is by his bowl in a relaxed way for 10 trials in a row as you repeatedly approach and stand two feet away and give him a treat, we can move to the next step.

14 | P a g e

Step Three

While the SD is near his bowl and is relaxed and calm, approach him saying ―Good boy‖ in a conversational tone. Stand next to his bowl and drop a special treat in to it. Then immediately turn around and walk away.

Repeat this sequence every few seconds while the SD is near his bowl and relaxed for a few minutes at a time throughout the day. When he is relaxed and calm near his bowl for 10 trials in a row, we can now move to the next step.

Step Four

While the SD is near his bowl, approach him saying ―Good Boy?‖ in a conversational tone. Stand next to him, holding a special treat in your hand. Bend down slightly, holding the treat out just an inch or two in the DS’s direction. Encourage him to take the treat. After he eats the treat from your hand, immediately turn around and walk away. Repeat this sequence every few seconds for a minute or two then repeat through the day as he is near his bowl.

Each day, bend down a little more and offer the SD the special treat so that your hand moves an inch or two closer to his bowl. Stay at this stage until you can bend down and hold your hand with the treat right next to the SD’s bowl. When relaxed for 10 trials in a row as you repeatedly approach to bend down and offer him a treat next to his bowl, we can then move to the next step.

Step Five

While the SD is near his bowl, approach him saying ―Good boy‖ in a conversational tone. Stand next to him and bend down and touch his bowl with one hand while offering him a special treat with your other hand.

Continue to do this every few seconds for a minute and repeat throughout the day. When the SD is relaxed for 10 trials in a row, we can move to the next step.

Step Six

While the SD is not near his bowl, approach him saying ―What a good boy‖ in a conversational tone. Stand next to him when he is in proximity to his bowl but not near it, bend and pick it up. Raise it only six inches off the floor and drop a special treat in the bowl. Then immediately return the bowl to the floor so that he can get at it and take the treat from it.

Continue to do this for few seconds throughout the day. As you repeat the sequence, raise the bowl slightly higher off the floor each time until you can lift it all the way up to your waist and stand upright.

Repeat the sequence, but when you pick up the SD’s bowl, walk away for a few paces with it. Then put a special treat into the bowl, walk back to the Kennel and return the bowl to the same place on the floor.

15 | P a g e

Step Seven

The last step is to have as many adults go through stages one through six. Each person needs to start at the beginning and progress through the steps the same way, always making sure that the SD continues to look relaxed and comfortable during exercises. Not assuming that because he is okay with one person approaching his bowl he’ll automatically be comfortable with another person doing the same thing. He has to learn that the rules work the same way with everyone.

The entire treatment program above is gradual enough to help the SD’s relax and anticipate the special treats rather than feel threatened and become aggressive when people approach them while they’re near their bowls. Through the exercises, the SD’s will learn that people approaching their bowls is a positive thing.

We continued this exercise throughout week three and beyond to begin desensitisation to people approaching the food bowls. Week four continued the same methodology as week one with the parallel walking sessions in the morning with all the SD’s this time we used both MSG and FSG dogs at the same time. Following the same protocols as before slowly closing the distance between the SD and the MSG/FSG until two handlers were walking three dogs side by side with no reactions, as before during the process of closing the distance we moved back to a non reactive distance if the SD showed any sign of reaction to the SG’s, monitoring all three dogs for signs of stress during the process. In the afternoon sessions of good manners training we introduced the ―Give it‖ cue and the ―Off‖ cue. We began with items we determined were of low value so as not to create a guarding situation with items perceived by the SD4 and 5 as more treasured items as they had been reported by the shelter as toy guarders.

Beginning with an item of lower value, such as a tug or stuffed toy as something edible is usually of higher value to a dog, and harder for him to give up like rawhides. We want to set the dog up for success, not failure.

Encouraging the dog to play with the toy we had chosen and. once it was in the dogs mouth, we held a smelly high-value treat right up to his nostril, and, cheerfully, said "give it." Some dogs will drop the toy right away. Others may hesitate, trying to decide, or some may even attempt to get both the toy and the treat in their mouths at the same time. At this point we do not repeat "give it, give it, give it" or try to pull the treat away, patiently holding the treat to the dog's nostril and wait silently for him to make his decision.

If at this point the dog does not drop the toy, then the value of the toy is too high to him, the value of the treat is too low, or both. We would try again with an object he doesn't like as much, or use a sausage or cheese instead of the treat being used.

As soon as the dog does drop the toy, we acted quickly:

1. Click

16 | P a g e

2. Whisk the toy behind us with one hand, feeding him the treat with the other 3. Give him the toy back again

Removing the toy from the dog's sight is important, as is giving it back as soon as he finishes the treat. If you let the dog pick up the toy again after he eats the treat, he isn't getting the correct message clearly enough: when he releases an object to us, we are going to give him back his prize.

Following these steps is a way of solidifying his trust in the handler. As a nice side benefit, it's also a subtle way of reminding him that you are in control of his resources.

After placing the treat to the dog's nose two or three times, we start saying "give it" without letting him see or smell the treat. Putting the treat to the nose is a way to teach the dog the behaviour we want him to perform, without force. Once he understands what's being asked of him, we don't need the treat. If we continue to hold the treat to his nose, it will be more of a bribe than a reward, and he may not comply without seeing or smelling a treat! Note that this process, and the principle, hold true for all training using food lures, not just for training the "give" behaviour.

Continue the pattern of clicking, removing the toy away, rewarding the dog, and returning the toy. When the dog is quickly and willingly dropping the toy, we move a step or two away from him before saying "give it." Since the goal is to be able to give the cue in a normal tone of voice from across the room and have the dog immediately drop the toy he's picked up, practice giving the cue at slowly increasing distances.

We progress at the dog's pace. If he fails to drop the toy, we have asked for too much too fast—back up. Also at the dog's pace, we start asking for increasingly more valuable objects. If he becomes unwilling, we up the reward value or lower the object value.

The most important part of training and practicing "give" isn't in the classroom or in set-ups, however. We were prepared by having our clicker and treats available wherever the dog was; staying alert for opportunities to play the "give it" game. We arrange to find at least 8-10 times a day when we asked the dogs to give up something.

We rotated toys, having them available only for a few times and then switching them out, so as the dogs wouldn't get as bored with them. This strategy also provided us with a stash of more tempting exchange items.

Another way we practiced "give it" is by playing tug. As the dogs were crazed tuggers, the game was of great value.

We started off by playing normally with the dog. At one point, we held the tug toy still and said "give it." If he continued to tug, we just waited patiently without tugging back. By not participating, the dog will eventually grow bored and drop the toy. At

17 | P a g e

that moment, we praised him and encouraged him to take the toy again. We didn't need a treat, because his reward was restarting the game.

Making sure that when we gave the dog an object that we told him to give up; we picked it up and handed it to him. We didn’t just release him to take it. This is important not only for "give," but also for training "leave" (when the object's not yet in the mouth). When we used either of these cues, we didn't want the dog to hover over the object, waiting to be released to take it.

Training the ―Leave it‖ request began with the handler holding a treat in a closed hand, the dog was allowed to touch sniff and lick the hand. Once he stopped or backed away we clicked and gave the treat. This was continued for ten trials then the cue ―Leave it‖ was introduced. Once the dogs had grasped the basics of this request on cue we moved in incremental stages to upping the criteria for the dog to receive the reward. Then we began by standing in front of the dog and lowering the treat towards the floor in small steps. If the dog attempted to get the treat we closed our hand around it. When the dog looked away or backed up we clicked and gave the treat on a release word ―Take.‖ We continued this exercise until the hand was on the floor. Once we had proofed this we took it to the next step. We placed the treat directly on the floor and stood up. If the dog tried to take the treat we covered it with a foot and when the dog looked away or backed up we clicked and uncovered the treat with the release ―Take.‖ Then we added the cue ―Leave it‖ as the dog looked away or backed up and clicked and rewarded with the treat. When the dogs grasped the basics we began practicing in different locations with both the ―Leave it‖ and ―Give it‖ cues to help them generalise and introduced distractions slowly. Both weeks five and six continued along the same routine of morning and afternoon exercise followed by basic training and extra work on the individual study dog’s issues. By week six we had dropped the parallel walking sessions in favour of social walking with SD2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. As SD1 was still showing reactivity to other dogs he was waked with the two stooge dogs as they had a calming effect and SD1 showed little to no reaction to these two when walking in close proximity. Handler interactions were also maintained at the same frequency throughout and play time for all of the dogs was introduced in the secure exercise area adjacent to the kennels and runs to allow for canine socialisation and interactions with the exception of SD1.

18 | P a g e

Results SD1 had shown a vast improvement in his dog on dog reactivity in the six week period although unlike the other five study dogs he would take a while longer to improve to the point where he would accept other dogs and recognise the social skilled ones and the not so socially skilled dogs. Also, as he was the most reactive of all the study dogs the improvement that he had shown in as little as six weeks gave us a good prognosis for the future with him. SD1 was re-homed 36 weeks after the study concluded to a middle aged couple. After more work with him after the study concluded he now lives a happy life following the advice of exercise and mental stimulation and lots of canine socialisation. SD2 was a wonderful study dog whose confidence and social skills built remarkably in just six weeks. She went from being nervous of other dogs and human males to a socially skilled and adept communicator to actively seeking human attention and affection with the positive reward based training she received and positive association work with other dogs and human males. During social walks and free play time in the secure area with the other dogs she demonstrated very effective canine social skills and communications. With additional work after the study concluded SD2 was subsequently re-homed 18 weeks later to a couple that had taken early retirement and still continues to live a happy life of exercise and care. SD3 despite his adolescence was easy to work with as counter conditioning his reactivity to dogs and positive reward based training for pulling on the lead worked really well and quite quickly in given the short time span of the study. He demonstrated very effective canine social skills and communication and interacted as if there had never been any problems on social walks and canine free time in the compound. SD3 went on to be re-homed 19 weeks after the study finished with a single young female who was at home all day and continued his routine of exercise, training and socialisation. SD4 being the oldest of all the study dogs with possibly some of the worst issues reported by dog owners, dog on dog aggression, food guarding and toy guarding was probably the most surprising outcome. Only 18 weeks after the study concluded she went on to be selected for and complete training as security dog for a private contractor. She was trained by a private training contractor that uses only positive reward based methods as opposed to more traditional compulsion methods used by the services and is still on active service. SD5 was probably the best proof that a dog with dog on dog reactivity can be rehabilitated of all the dogs he showed the quickest response to desensitisation and demonstrated very early on in the study he could demonstrate effect social acuity and communication with other canines. The counter conditioning of his resource guarding was successful and his hyperactivity was eliminated just through regular exercise and training. He went on to be re-homed 18 weeks after the study with a young couple and an existing dog in the household and they have continued with the socialisation, exercise and training routine.

19 | P a g e

SD6 was with us a little longer after the study concluded a total of 32 weeks. Her progress was slower but sure and counter conditioning her issues took a little longer. Her hyperactivity diminished with exercise and mental stimulation through a nose work program implemented after the study as well as continued training. She was also the slowest to demonstrate effective social skills and communications with other canines but she did eventually achieve it. She was re-homed at 26 weeks after the study with a young couple with an active life style which included their dog. She continues to receive a routine of socialisation, exercise, mental stimulation and training. RSD1 had developed severe symptoms of kennel stress with his aggression being reported as getting worse. As the routine of the rescue shelter dogs varied very little from that as described earlier in this paper no improvement was to be expected. On the advice of the shelter’s own veterinarian they were advised to euthanize him rather than risk re-homing him. Clarke was Euthanized 4 weeks into the study. RSD2 as with all the shelter dogs in the study the routine varied little to that described previously. Probably due this being a toy breed it was in the shelter the shortest time and was re-homed with a single, elderly lady after vetting. It was felt by the shelter that she was the most suitable as his issue was with human males and as she had few male visitors was probably the most suitable home for him. No professional help for his issue was sought by the new owner after re-homing as she felt it was manageable without. RSD3 was re-homed to a young couple as his only issues on admission were excessive barking and in all other respects he was a well socialised dog they felt that with a little professional help they could work towards resolving this issue. Although he had developed the habit of spinning and tail chasing with excessive barking after a few weeks of being in the shelter this was reported to have stopped a two – three weeks into his re-homing. He was re-homed 8 weeks after the study concluded. RSD4 again, at the conclusion of the six weeks there had been no change in the behaviours reported after admission to the shelter. Additional behaviours reported after a few weeks in shelter were, whirring, fence pacing in the run and tail chasing with excessive barking and salivation all symptoms of kennel induced stress. She had also been in the shelter the longest of the RSD’s in the study. She was re-homed 30 weeks after the study concluded to a middle aged couple with breed experience. As she was in all other respects, a good family pet, they felt with a little professional help that her reactivity to other dogs could be brought under control at the very least. While in the shelter like all the other dogs in the study, she had developed fence pacing with whirring and excessive licking which were all reported to resolve about 8 weeks after re-homing with no other action being taken. She was re-homed 30 weeks after the study concluded RSD5 had spent the longest time in the shelter of all the study dogs, 15 months, there was no change in the reported behaviours on admission and he had developed fence pacing in his run, excessive barking, salivation and whirring behaviours. He was re-homed several times after the conclusion of the study but was returned to shelter for demonstrating the reported behaviours by the shelter. As his aggression

20 | P a g e

towards other dogs was getting worse and being redirected towards the volunteer walking him, on the shelters own veterinary advice he was euthanized. RSD6 came in to the shelter with no apparent issues but after only a week into her confinement she began destroying her bedding the minute it was changed. No other signs of kennel stress such as pacing, tail chasing or excessive barking manifested. She was re-homed 4 weeks after the conclusion of the study to a retired person. She was reported afterwards as a wonderfully social dog that got along with everyone and all the dogs she met and no more reports of bedding destruction which seems to have resolved by its self.

21 | P a g e

Discussion It was the intention of this short study to show that the re-homing possibilities for dogs that are long term inmates most, with previous adoption and return records, in a shelter environment could, with the benefit of environmental enrichment, additional human interactions, basic training, appropriate diet and stress reducing programs could improve the likelihood of permanent re-homing and reduce the chances of being returned to the shelter for behaviour problems. The project would have been of further benefit if we had a sponsor or funding then we could have undertaken a longer term study with a larger population of dogs and professionals working with both groups. Sadly the limits that we had to impose of time were due to six weeks being the maximum time we could commit to and the funding was provided from our accounts so was limited. The project would have also benefitted from professional trainers and behaviour specialists working with the group of dogs at the shelter for more objective observations and detailed notes which would have been less open to interpretation. While the volunteers did make extensive notes for us in the diaries provided on their observations it would have been more qualified and objective from a professional. With that said, as the shelter dogs routine varied little they did a great job of documenting it for us. Another benefit to the study would have been clinical measurements of plasma, salivary and urinary cortisol levels in all the study dogs to clinically measure the effects of the protocols put into place on reducing stress in the SD’s and any changes in clinical stress levels in the RSD’s (Coppola et al 2006, Friend 1991, Beerda 1997). Domestic dogs are evicted on to the streets by their owners for many reason, the dog is no longer wanted, owners circumstances change such as a new landlord not allowing pets in the property, behavioural problems and economic reasons which could be the dog is suffering ill health and the owner can longer afford vets fees or a loss of work means they can longer afford to keep the dog whether in good health or ill health. Whatever the reason these dogs usually end up in a rescue shelter, rescue shelters can also vary in the facilities they have and services they offer ranging from purpose built facilities with full time staff with designated duties to small breed specific organisations with limited resources and staff depending on the goodwill and generosity of volunteers and supporters often working on a shoe string budget compared to some of the larger, more organised charities. The larger better funded organisations are taking onboard the need for environmental enrichments and better facilities and employing professionals with experience in designing and running such a facility to help make this a reality (Key D et al 2008). Unfortunately the smaller, less well funded shelters often make the best of what they have and try to improve gradually over time as funds and resources become available.

22 | P a g e

Sadly, although unintentionally this usually has a knock on effect with the dogs in their care which then manifests in additional behaviour problems resulting from kennel stress. A previous study on behavioural indicators of poor welfare in rescue shelters (Stephen, Ledger 2005) pointed to the development of stereotypical behaviours developing such as spinning or whirring and tail chasing, excessive barking being the most commonly observed behaviour and fence running (Lindsay S 2001 p209). While fence running or pacing is usually associated with yard dogs and their neighbouring dog this can also be observed in shelter runs where dogs can see their neighbour through the sides of the run or over a limited height privacy panel that may be in place. Thompson et al (1956) found that ―whirring behaviour‖ exhibited in dogs that had been in confinement such as long term kennel housing while classed as a stereotypical behaviour and is thought to arise from lack of mental stimulation during confinement and lack of environmental enrichment the behaviour its self becomes self reinforcing and considered an adaptive behaviour given the environment it originates in. Lorenz (1981) interpreted this as a ―Vacuum Behaviour‖ where the dog is demonstrating aggression directed towards its own body in the form of whirring. This occurs under conditions of close confinement where normal drive pressures may build up and be triggered by stimuli other than normal ones. Vacuum pressures seem to spontaneously erupt under frustrated internal drive pressures that cannot express themselves normally. This seems to be consistent with Thompson et al (1956) findings. All of these findings were evident for the duration of our study in the RSD’s and only evident in the SD’s for the first two weeks in the longest case with most of these behaviours dissipating in the first week of the study for the majority of the SD’s. At this point we would like to point out that the description of the cross breed dogs in the study where based on a visual matching to possible breeds to give the reader an indication of size etc. It is now know that visual identification alone of possible breed in a cross breed dog is impossible (Voith V DVM 2009) and breed make up of a cross breed dog is only possible through DNA analysis. As funding for this study was limited a DNA analysis for the entire cross breed population in the study was cost prohibitive. It would have been a useful addition to our knowledge base though which would have helped to identify genetic predispositions to known behaviours in certain breeds. At the rescue shelter, the study dogs exercise routine didn’t vary much to what was normal for a routine day there although the volunteers for the duration of the study made a concerted effort to give each of the dogs a consistent 30 minutes of exercise. But as shown from their diaries this had little effect on any of the frustration (Stereotypical) behaviours they exhibited when placed back in their kennels and runs. The study dogs after just one week of 45 minutes of exercise followed by basic, positive reward based training and additional handler interactions demonstrated

23 | P a g e

remarkably diminishing frustration behaviours. Tail chasing, spinning had all but disappeared and fence pacing in all six dogs had stopped altogether (Scarlett 2009, O’Rorke-Wieneke 2009). In fact, all six dogs when placed in their runs after exercise and training would either stand quietly watching us or go and lie on their beds (Hennessey et al 2002). Diet for the shelter study dogs was pretty inconsistent through no fault of the shelter staff. They were limited to commercial foods donated by volunteers and sponsors so brand varied drastically with no one dog being fed the same brand of food for more than one or two days consecutively. This often resulted in very loose stool and in some cases vomiting. The study dogs were fed consistently on biologically appropriate raw food. Using an elimination diet, the first week we fed raw chicken from drumsticks to whole chicken quarters depending on the size of the dog with small amounts of fresh, blended vegetables, oily fish such as sardines, mackerel and pilchards would be fed as a meal. Lamb was then introduced in the next week then beef. Introducing each fresh meat (on the bone) this way allowed us to monitor any gastrointestinal upsets any one meat may have caused for any particular dog. In the case of all six study dogs no GI problems presented with stools being smaller, drier and with very little odour to it. Research has pointed to the additives in commercial foods causing allergies, skin problems, bowel problems and behaviour problems (Mugford 1991, Volhard and Brown 1995, O’Driscoll 2005, Lonsdale 2005, Hennessey et al 2002). It is also known in human research that deficiencies in omega 3 essential fatty acids and elevated omega 6 essential fatty acids can cause aggression. Research has also shown this to be true in dogs (Re et al 2008). Taking this into account we fed oily fish for Omega 3, raw eggs for Omega 6 and supplemented omega 9 with virgin olive oil to keep a balance (Volhard and Brown DVM 1995). Within a week of the study we observed a marked difference in coat condition in all the study dogs and food guarding diminishing without any counter conditioning work beginning at this stage which made counter conditioning food guarding easier from our prospective when we did begin it. We also observed less frequency in unwanted behaviour such as hyperactivity. This could also be attributed to the improved exercise routine and not just the change in diet. The study dogs also took their time eating the fresh food diet as opposed to ―wolfing‖ it down which they had a tendency to do in the Shelter with commercial foods. This could also be attributed to the privacy of their run as the other dogs could not see in while they were eating and may have removed the perceived possibility from the dogs’ point of view that they may lose the food to another if it wasn’t eaten quickly. Kos (2005) in her study of 20 cross breed dogs in a shelter consisting of one group of four males and six females and the second group of five males and five females they found that social enrichment in their environment was the most favoured type of enrichment, both conspecific and human. This was achieved through canine socialisation and games and extra handling and training with the handlers. In our study we utilised this information and with gradual desensitisation to other canines and extra attention from the handlers via basic training with the study dogs and extra

24 | P a g e

attention individually we found that it contributed to reactivity to other dogs slowly diminishing. The socialisation periods we gave them in the secure exercise area benefitted in this area with all the dogs demonstrating more effect social skills and canine communications through Calming and stress signals (Rugaas T 2009). Positive reward based training is our preferred method of choice as we have found it a more kind, motivational way to work with dogs and the dogs are willing and indeed look forward to their training sessions which was evidence from their enthusiasm at training time. Old school Compulsion training often employs aversive training techniques and the use of pinch and choke collars. In our training routine we used a bait bag to hold the food treats and a clicker to act as a bridging stimulus when the dog offered a suitable behaviour. It has been shown that by using compulsion methods and aversives that it does in fact, make unwanted behaviours worse and cause others (Herron et al 2009). We worked on basic good manners training for the six weeks of the study and continued on a limited basis after the study. We found that all the dogs willingly worked for food rewards in training and grasped the fundamentals within the six weeks. Not only did this give us a dog that would sit when requested, stay when requested and all the other basic requests, it gave us a tool box of alternative behaviours that we call upon and ask for when undesired behaviours were exhibited. Thereby, rewarding desired behaviours and using extinction on undesired ones by ignoring them. Although the six study dogs were actually re-homed at varying intervals after the study concluded we feel that this basic training also helped in that re-homing process. As the potential new adopting family came to see the dogs, we would demonstrate their good manners training to the client. Once they had passed the vetting procedure and decided that this was the dog for them, we then had them come in for a week and we trained the family to train the dog. This ensured they used consistent methods like the ones we had used so as not end up confusing the dog. It also meant they would continue to work with the dog because the hard work of training the basics had been done for them.

25 | P a g e

Conclusion At the outset of this short study we set out to see if we could improve the re-homing possibilities for six long term inmates of the rescue shelter that was felt nothing could be done for them and had been scheduled for euthanasia after being adopted and returned several times due to reported unwanted behaviour problems of varying degrees of severity. Although, due to financial, logistical and time constraints the study was of a short duration we feel that with better funding and improved facilities and loner term study with a larger cross section of dogs a more definitive answer could be given. With that said we feel that the study has shown that it is possible, by implementing results from other studies and research that the chances for all dogs in rescue shelters of being permanently re-homed is possible and at the same time reducing the return rate to shelter. While the adoption rate of the study dogs was 100% with a zero return rate it took a little while longer to achieve this after the study had concluded showing that it can be done with time and effort. We do feel however, in a larger study over a longer period that a 100% success rate wouldn’t be reflected as it is here. Health and mental state also play a role in behaviour problems and we were fortunate not to have any dogs under our care with issues in either department. Of the six rescue shelter dogs in the study, two were euthanized under the shelters veterinary advice for their aggressive tendencies and the remaining four went on to be re-homed which is a 67% success rate of re-homing with none of the remaining four dogs being returned to shelter despite not having any kind of training or behaviour work done prior to re-homing. Again, re-homing took place a while after the conclusion of the study.

26 | P a g e

References BBC News ―Concerns over Stray Dog Figures‖ 03rd of September 2008 available online accessed here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7595135.stm on the 18th July 2011 Beerda B, et al 1997 ―Manifestations of Chronic and Acute Stress in Dogs‖ Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52 pp 307-319 Beerda B et al 1999 ―Behavioural and Hormonal Indicators of Enduring Environmental Stress in Dogs‖ Animal Welfare 9 pp 49-62 Kos U 2005 ―Do Dogs Show Preference for Certain Types of Environmental Enrichments‖ ISAH Volume 2 pp 479-483 Warsaw Poland Mondelli F et al 2004 ―The Bond That Never Developed: Adoption and Relinquishment of Dogs in a Rescue Shelter‖ Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7 (4) pp 253-266 Poulsen AH, Lisle AT, Phillips CJC 2009 ―An Evaluation of a Behaviour Assessment to Determine the Suitability of Shelter Dogs for Re-homing‖ Sage-Hindawi Access to research, Veterinary Medicine International Volume 2010 Article ID: 523781 Stephen JM, Ledger RA 2005 ―An Audit of Behavioural Indicators of Poor Welfare in Kennelled Dogs in the United Kingdom‖ Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8(2) pp 79-95 Scarlett JM DVM, PhD 2009 ―Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Animal Shelter Enrichment Protocols for Dogs‖ Morris Animal Foundation Hennessey MB, Voith VL et al 2002 ―Exploring Human Interaction and Diet Effects on the Behaviour of Dogs in a Public Animal Shelter‖ Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5(4) pp 253-273 Dr Marston L 2005 ―Shelter Shake up – the Outcome‖ Urban Animal Management Conference Proceedings Mowbray J 2009 ―The Efficacy of Human Interactions and Training in Reducing Stress and Improving Adoption Outcomes for Shelter Dogs‖ the Veterinary Information Portal Available here: http://vip.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/contentUpload/content_2861/JasminMowbray.pdf accessed on the 18.07.2011 Friend TH 1991 ―Symposium: Response of Animals to Stress (Behavioural Aspects of Stress)‖ Journal of Dairy Science 74 pp 292-303 Coppola CL, Grandin T, and Enns RM 2006 ―Human Interactions and Cortisol: Can Human Contact Reduce Stress for Shelter Dogs?‖ Physiology and Behaviour Volume 87 pp 537-541

27 | P a g e

O’Rorke-Wieneke D 2009 ―New Trends in Shelter Welfare Research: Can Training Reduce Stress and Increase Adoption Rates in Shelter Dogs?‖ The Veterinary Information Portal available online here: http://vip.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/contentUpload/content_2859/DevonO%27Rorke-Wieneke.pdf accessed 19.07.2011 Thorn JM, Templeton JJ, Van Winkle KMM and Castillo RR 2006 ―Conditioning Shelter Dogs to Sit‖ Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9(1) pp 25-39 Herron ME, Shofer FS and Reisner IR 2009 ―Survey of the Use and Outcomes of Confrontational and Non-Confrontational Training Methods in Client Owned Dogs Showing Undesired Behaviours‖ Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117 pp 47-54 Voith VL PhD, DVM, DACVB 2009 ―A Comparison of Visual and DNA Identification of Breeds of Dogs‖ AVMA available online here: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/publications/suggested-reading/ Accessed 19.07.2011 Pauli AM DVM, Bentley E DVM, Diehl KA DVM and Miller PE DVM 2006 ―Effects of the Application of Neck Pressure by a Collar or Harness on Intraocular Pressure in Dogs‖ Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 42: pp 207-211 Hallgren A 1992 ―Spinal Anomalies in Dogs‖ Animal Behaviour Consultants Newsletter Volume 9 Number 13 Key D, Bailey G, Key K (Ed) 2008 ―Kennel Design: The Essential Guide to Creating Your Perfect Kennels‖ David Key Kennel and Cattery Design Lindsay S 2001 ―Applied Handbook of Behaviour and Training Volume 2: Etiology and Assessment of Behaviour Problems‖ Iowa State Press Thompson WR, Melzack R, and Scott TH 1956 ―Whirling Behaviour in dogs as related to early experience‖ Science, 123:939 Lorenz K 1981 ―The Foundations of Ethology: The Principal Ideas and Discoveries in Animal Behaviour‖ New York: Simon and Schuster. Mugford R 1991 ―Dr Mugford’s Casebook‖ Random Century Group London Volhard W, Brown K DVM 1995 ―The Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog‖ Howell Book House O’Drisscoll C 2005 ―Shock to the System: The Facts about Animal Vaccination, Pet Foods and How to Keep Your Pets Healthy‖ Dogwise Publishing Wenatchee USA Lonsdale T 2005 ―Work Wonders: Feed your Dog Raw Meaty Bones‖ Rivetco P/L PO Box 6096 NSW 2756 Australia

28 | P a g e

Re S, Zanoletti M and Emanuele E 2008 ―Aggressive Dogs are characterized by Low Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Status‖ Veterinary Research Communications 32 (3) pp 225-230 Rugaas T 2009 ―On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals‖ 2nd Edition Dogwise Publishing Wenatchee USA Herron ME, Shofer FS and Reisner IR 2009 ―Survey of the Use and Outcomes of Confrontational and Non- Confrontational Training Methods in Client Owned Dogs Showing Undesired Behaviours‖ Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117 pp 47-54

29 | P a g e

Appendices

―B‖ Block Layout at the rescue shelter. Run fronts are of square mesh, heavy gauge wire with clear visibility into the opposite run. Access corridor runs central through the block with access doors at each end. Each run is 3 meters long by 1.2 meters

wide with a raised bedding area at the end farthest from the door to the run.

Converted Kennels and runs, the kennels had overhead heaters installed and double doors in all the runs. All the runs where of solid brick construction that had a view out over the court yard. The green field site was directly behind the secure exercise area

Secure Exercise Area

Office and Storage

Out Building

Barn Court Yard