Merit Dog Project

24/08/2025

Not every behaviour is a “behaviour problem.”

We are generally very quick to pathologise what might be normal, context-appropriate, or physically driven behaviour. Let's concentrate on the latter here for a moment. Before we label a dog “anxious” or reach straight for behaviour meds, pause and ask: is the body asking for help?

Pain/medical issues show up in way more behaviour cases than most people think. Estimates range from ~28–82% of referred cases, and that's just referred cases (e.g., Camps et al., 2019; Demirtis et al., 2023; Kogan et al., 2024; Mills et al., 2020; Mills & Zulch, 2023). If we only chase "training fixes," we risk missing the real driver.

🔎Body stuff that often gets lumped into “behavioural”🔎

1. Musculoskeletal pain (neck/back/hips; toe/nail; soft-tissue strain) → reluctance, irritability, protectiveness around handling.

2. GI discomfort (nausea, reflux, constipation, food intolerance) → restlessness, avoidance, noise-sensitivity flares.

3. Skin/ear irritation (itch, infections, allergies) → poor sleep, touch avoidance, agitation.

4. Dental/oral pain (fractures, periodontal disease) → face-guarding, sudden “won’t do it”, reluctance to take treats.

5. Sensory change (vision/hearing) → new startles, “stubbornness,” spatial hesitation, especially with age.

6. Neurological changes (focal seizures/auras, neuropathic pain, vestibular episodes, cognitive change etc.) → sudden fear/irritability, freeze–startle cycles, “zoned-out” moments, pacing/circling, shadow-or light-chasing, head/neck rubbing, sleep startle and/or aggression.

7. Feeling unwell / sleep debt / hormonal shifts → lower thresholds, slower recovery, less play/social.

We can’t fairly — or effectively — modify learned patterns that grew on top of pain, itch, nausea, sensory loss, or fatigue without first stabilising health. Then, if any learned layer remains, address it. Reviews repeatedly recommend medical screening when behaviour changes are sudden, escalating, or out of character.

💡 Research snapshot: Dogs with noise sensitivity + musculoskeletal pain often show a different pattern and cope worse, so treating the “behaviour” while ignoring pain prolongs distress (Lopes Fagundes et al., 2018).

Friendly note: This isn’t “anti-meds.” Medication can be vital. It’s order of operations: body first, then behaviour so we’re treating the right thing, for the right reasons.

Quick triage you can use today:

✅Sudden change? Think medical until proven otherwise.

✅Scan basics: sleep, appetite, stools/urine, ear-shake/scratching, licking/toe-chew, gait, reluctance to chew.

✅Watch the trend: latency to engage ↑; voluntary initiations ↓; opt-outs ↑ across days = lower intensity and book the vet.

✅Ageing dogs: screen senses before assuming “training” or “cognitive” issues.

What “address the body first” looks like:

🐾Vet exam guided by history (orthopaedics; oral exam incl. radiographs; dermatology/otology; GI work-up as indicated).

🐾Pain plan (analgesia, physio, environmental tweaks). As comfort improves, protective/irritable behaviour often eases.

Bottom line is, training and medication both have a place, just in the right order and with the dog’s comfort front and centre.

**Important: Bodies and brains go together. Some dogs genuinely struggle with anxiety and when that’s the case, it merits careful evaluation and compassionate treatment (sometimes including medication).**

20/08/2025

People love to ask if Juno is a rescue. Especially right after I’ve said she doesn’t want to be pet.

A rescue from what, exactly? A fire? Drowning? A bad situation? Sure, maybe the latter. But mostly she’s just a dog who came into my life like most dogs do: through some kind of transactional exchange. Call it adoption, purchase, or rehoming, dogs are rarely just found. They don't just show up and bark at the front door asking for a family.

What bothers me is the assumption tucked inside the question. If she’s a “rescue,” then her reluctance to be touched is excusable. If she’s not, then what? She’s defective? I’m a bad trainer? The framing lets people slot her neatly into a story that makes them feel better, while erasing her actual preferences.

So I just smile and say, “Yup. She’s a rescue.” Because really, aren’t they all?

12/08/2025

In case you missed it, the IAABC Foundation Journal is entirely free to access!

📢 Issue 31 of the IAABC Foundation Journal is now live!

This issue is packed with fresh insights, case studies, and practical tools for anyone working in animal behavior, training, and welfare.

Explore new ideas, challenge your thinking, and deepen your practice. Now available on our website.

https://journal.iaabcfoundation.org/

11/08/2025

Case Support for Trainers & Behaviour Consultants

Some cases are straightforward. Others keep you up at night.

If you’re navigating a complex, emotionally charged, or ethically tricky case, you don’t have to do it alone. I offer 30-minute one-on-one consults for trainers and behaviour consultants to help you:

🐾Clarify goals and adjust behaviour plans

🐾Explore ethical dilemmas

🐾Find less-intrusive, learner-centred alternatives

🐾Troubleshoot client or implementation challenges

This is a collaborative space where we think critically and problem-solve ethically while supporting you in the process.

Extra availability just added so you can book when the need is urgent!

Book online from any continent, valley, mountain, or island, as long as you have wifi:

https://meritdogproject.com/services/ola/services/professional-case-support-for-trainers-and-behaviour-consultants

08/08/2025

I have never been to Taiwan. I'm looking forward to speaking at the Dog Symposium Taiwan the first weekend in October. I'll be talking about fostering a relational agency. ❤️

台灣狗兒論壇(Dog Symposium)是由正向思維藝術狗兒行為諮商/訓練師Joeson(Polo拔)所策劃籌備，邀請來自世界各地的專家講師，帶給台灣及亞洲地區關於狗兒最新的資訊與研究。除了讓台灣可以與世界同步接軌，也給予從事與狗兒相.....

08/08/2025

Stress happens.

Stress is the body’s physiological response to something significant - positive or negative. It isn’t automatically harmful, but it can become damaging if it’s excessive, prolonged, or deliberately caused. One of the most important parts of our job as caregivers and behaviour professionals is knowing the difference.

This morning on the beach, Juno was several yards behind me, nose deep in a tangled ball of seaweed (which, to her, is basically nature’s charcuterie board), when another dog suddenly exploded out of the waves at full tilt, barking loudly while chasing gulls. He came up from behind us with zero warning.

For Juno, barking (especially from fast-moving dogs) is one of the more distressing things she can encounter. Her response was immediate and intense, her tail tucked, ears pinned, eyes wide, body low, bolting up past me before stopping to scan. Her heart was visibly pounding.

This was an acute stress response, but a significant one that lingered. More than a quick startle. Her sympathetic nervous system was fully engaged, mobilising her to create distance from what she perceived as a threat.

This was an unpredictable, real-world event. Exactly the kind of thing we can’t entirely prevent. The ethical responsibility in these moments is to respond in a way that protects the dog’s wellbeing and supports their ability to recover.

Here’s what I did:

- Kept my body language calm and low-arousal (even when assessing things for myself).
- Used a light, steady voice, “He’s just chasing gulls, let’s go,” to acknowledge her fear and give her context about the level of concern.
- Continued walking in a predictable direction at a consistent pace.

This is social referencing, and it’s powered by a secure attachment. Dogs look to those they trust for information about the world. My grounded, non-reactive behaviour didn’t erase her fear, but it gave her something solid to anchor to while she processed the situation. Because she trusts me, my response carried weight — it was a behavioural “you’re safe" while supporting a relational agency.

Eventually, the other dog ran off, his barking fading into the distance. We played a few quick, silly games to settle the nerves, and soon she was back to sniffing and exploring.

Minutes later, he returned — same speed, same barking. This time, Juno glanced at him, wore a faintly worried brow, watched for a moment, and then went back to her seaweed investigation. She had updated her internal threat assessment: the loud, unpredictable thing wasn’t dangerous after all.

That’s learning. The kind that happens when an unexpected event is brief, the dog feels safe and supported, and they have the freedom to respond in their own way. Juno could move away, watch, and return when she was ready, anchored by the security of my calm presence. Had this been something I put her into on purpose, repeated without respite, or left her no way to retreat, it could just as easily have led to fear escalation, sensitisation, or even trauma.

We can’t protect our dogs from every distressing moment in life — especially triggers like barking that happen in public spaces — but we can protect them from unnecessary, overwhelming, or deliberately induced stress. And when unavoidable stress does happen, being a steady, predictable, trusted presence is the foundation that makes recovery, and real learning, possible.

03/08/2025

“Heads up”: What Reinforces a Behaviour That Predicts Something (Unavoidably) Unpleasant?

This morning, a dog came bolting across the dunes when they spotted Juno. She was nose-deep in driftwood, blissfully unaware.

“Heads up,” I called.

She lifted her head and scanned the horizon. Just like she always does after I give her the warning.

What’s interesting is that the behaviour — the head lift, the look around — is deliberate, consistent, and highly reliable. She does it every time I say it. But what follows isn’t always particularly pleasant in the way we might traditionally think of r+. A dog running straight toward her is rarely a welcome experience. Juno can tolerate a quick hello, but it’s clear she finds these greetings intrusive, especially when the other dog doesn’t slow down or offer a pause to “ask.” She stiffens slightly, shifts behind me, sometimes squints or turns her head. She rarely reacts loudly because she’s learned quieter strategies that are usually effective and because I do everything I can to intercept early.

Still, despite the event that follows often being seemingly mildly aversive, the cue and the behaviour are very much maintained. So, what gives?

Let’s break this down:
🔹 Antecedent: I say “heads up.”
🔹 Behaviour: Juno lifts her head and looks around to locate the dog.
🔹 Consequence: She gains information about what’s coming, and sometimes the ability to act on it.

So, if the arrival of the dog is the consequence, and it’s not reinforcing… what is?

The answer isn’t as simple as “treats” or “praise.”

What’s reinforcing may be the reduction in uncertainty.

Juno isn’t orienting because she enjoys being greeted by dogs that ignore social boundaries. She’s orienting because it gives her a sliver of control, a chance to prepare, and a way to communicate “no thanks” before the other dog gets too close.
And in behavioural terms, that matters.

What the Literature Tells Us:

📌 Predictability is emotionally protective
Even when the outcome isn’t great, knowing it’s coming can reduce distress. In both human and nonhuman animals, predictable aversive events are less emotionally damaging than unpredictable ones (Seligman & Maier, 1967; Mineka & Hendersen, 1985).

📌 Control (even partial) has intrinsic value
Perceived control has measurable stress-reducing effects (Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010). Juno can’t always stop the dog, but she can prepare, shift her body, or seek support from me. That sliver of control is reinforcing.

📌 Orienting may be negatively reinforced
By looking around, Juno reduces the intensity of the aversive event. She’s less startled, better able to respond, and more able to subtly avoid escalation. That reduction in stress functions as a form of negative reinforcement.

📌 Discriminative control is strong when reinforcement history is mixed
Even if the current consequence (the dog) is mildly aversive, orienting may be maintained by earlier reinforcement (praise, food, information, the occasional chance to disengage) (Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Nevin et al., 2001). Behaviour maintained under variable or intermittent reinforcement is surprisingly resilient.

📌 Habit formation and cue persistence
After many repetitions, a cue like “heads up” can become embedded in a behavioural routine. Even if the original reinforcers fade, the cue-response pattern persists, especially if it still yields some benefit (Balleine & Dickinson, 1998; Domjan, 2018).

There’s another layer here too. A social layer.

Looking around gives Juno the chance to act early. That might mean turning her head, shifting behind me, or making herself smaller. These subtle signals though often missed by most humans we meet, are meaningful in dog communication. And often, they work.

So even when she can’t fully avoid the interaction, she can change the terms of it. And that’s reinforcing too. This fits with what we know about early signal detection and the importance of proactive behaviour in social encounters (Wemelsfelder, 2007; Wiley, 2006).

🧠 Reinforcement Isn’t Always Obvious
What maintains the behaviour isn’t the greeting. It’s the ability to prepare.
Not being caught off guard.
Not being blindsided.
Being able to assess, plan, act, or communicate.
It’s a subtle form of agency. And it reminds me that what’s reinforcing isn’t always what we think it is. It’s not always food or toys or smiles. Sometimes it’s the ability to manage the world, even just a little!

References (for the behaviour nerds!):

Balleine, B. W., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Goal-directed instrumental action: contingency and incentive learning and their cortical substrates. Neuropharmacology, 37(4–5), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00033-1

Boissy, A., & Erhard, H. W. (2014). How studying interactions between animal emotions, cognition, and personality can contribute to improve farm animal welfare. In Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals (pp. 95-129). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85752-9.00014-7

Domjan, M. (2018). The Principles of Learning and Behavior (8th Ed.). Cengage.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of Reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Fureix, C., & Meagher, R. K. (2015). What can inactivity tell us about affective states in non-human animals? Animal Welfare, 24(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.036

Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001

Mineka, S., & Hendersen, R. (1985). Controllability and predictability in acquired motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 495–529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.002431

Nevin, J. A., McLean, A. P., & Grace, R. C. (2001). Resistance to extinction: Contingency termination and generalization decrement. Animal Learning & Behavior, 29(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192826

Seligman, M. E., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024514

Wemelsfelder, F. (2007). How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare, 16(S1), 25–31. doi:10.1017/S0962728600031699

Wiley, R. H. (2006). Signal detection and animal communication. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 36, 217-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(06)36005-6