A few years ago some CAAB colleagues and I got into a discussion with some veterinary behaviorists about who could use the term “diagnosis” in regard to canine behavioral problems. The vet behaviorists argued that “diagnosis” was a medical term and could only be used by medical professionals. Mentioning that auto mechanics use the term all the time when figuring out what is wrong with a car seemed to have no effect.
Although I found the vet’s arguments illogical, I don’t use the term myself, (I use “evaluation”) so if those individuals feel a need to scent mark on a particular word, then I’ll leave them to it. However, it did bring up the point that words matter. And reminded me that I do have a problem with one popular “diagnosis” — “territorial aggression.”
According to the chapter on aggression in the vet behaviorist’s new book, Decoding Your Dog (reviewed here), territorial aggression is “Defensive aggression associated with the arrival of an intruder in or near the house, yard, car or other area perceived as the dog’s territory.” That’s a good description of the behavior, or at least of the context in which it occurs, but I’m going to argue that 1) it is not actually a diagnosis, and 2) it is not a useful term in treating canine behavioral problems.
First off, descriptions are not diagnoses. Once I had a rash on my arm and went to a skin doctor for a diagnosis and treatment. He was a grumpy old coot, and after frowning over my forearm, left the room for a considerable period of time. He finally returned and said “You have idiopathic dermatitis!” Without thinking I blurted out “You mean there’s something wrong with my skin and you don’t know what it is?” The nurse did a spit take. Call it what you will: “A rash” or “idiopathic dermatitis” is a description, not a diagnosis. Rashes can be caused by all kinds of things, from poison ivy to a fungus to an allergic condition.
Just as the word “rash” is just a description, “territorial aggression” tells us that a dog is “aggressive” when strangers come to the house or yard. (The use of the word “aggressive” begs for another post, but I’ll put it aside for now.) It does not tell us what is causing the behavior, anymore than the word “rash” tells us what was really wrong with my arm.
However, if we grant that the term tells us something about what the dog is doing, why would I argue that it isn’t useful? Because, as the individuals who wanted ownership of the word “diagnosis” reminded us, words matter. And labeling something as “territorial aggression” suggests that the dog is “protecting its territory,” when in fact, we have no idea why the dog is behaving as it is. Based on their behavior and facial expressions, most dogs described as “territorially aggressive” appear to be afraid of strangers. But being neophobic has little to do with protecting one’s territory, so why would we call it “territorial aggression” For that matter, what do we know, really, about territoriality in our house dogs? “Territory” refers to an area defended for exclusive use by an individual, but only from members of the same or similar species. Thus, wolves are highly territorial, and are even aggressive to coyotes, but couldn’t care less if a squirrel wandered over a territorial boundary. (Unless it looked like it might be a good appetizer, but no one would call that “territorial aggression”.)
But dogs aren’t wolves, and although it appears that many dogs do behave as if territorial, others do not. Most livestock guarding dogs respond aggressively to intruding canids, although we can’t say if they are protecting an area, or the livestock within it. Other dogs might as well hang out an Open House sign, welcoming any and all visitors of the same species. This variability of behavior is typical of the wide range of morphology and behavior of domestic dogs, from tiny to huge, from placid to ever alert. Domestication leads to physical and behavioral plasticity, and so we have every reason to suspect that some dogs do have a territorial imperative, while others couldn’t care less.
We also know that territoriality is dependent upon context: Cafazzo et. al. 2012 found clear evidence of territorial behavior in village dogs in Italy, while Coppinger and Coppinger found that Mexico City dump dogs only defended a few feet of a “feeding area,” and otherwise shared the space with hundreds of other dogs. If you want to pursue this line of inquiry, I recently talked about this in more depth at the SPARCS Conference in Rhode Island, which you can watch by getting a membership to SPARCS.
How should we then describe what is called “territorial aggression?” I much prefer the term “Stranger Directed Aggression,” used by James Serpell in the C-BARQ survey. It is descriptive, but makes no attempt to presume why the dog is snarling at the delivery man, or won’t let a visitor come into the living room.
I can imagine some arguing that I’m being picky. I’ll agree to that; if we are going to continue to raise the bar of our understanding of canine behavior, then words do matter. (Is there a diagnosis for people who are picky about word use?)
What about you? Do you use that term? Have you thought about it much? Any other words that you find particularly problematic? (A colleague and I discussed writing a blog on terms that need to be replaced in the dog world. The list was rather long….)
MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Right now it’s all about gathering food (this weekend I put enough local, organic strawberries for seven pies into the freezer), working Maggie and Willie on the sheep, and gardening. (Well, and then there’s work, but that’s for the section above.) Our only challenge is the heat and humidity. I’ve been working the dogs early in the morning and in the evening, but the weather is still getting to me. Yesterday there was a lovely breeze, and so I took Maggie up for one more session just before dark, but wouldn’t you know that’s just when the breeze died down and the farm turned into a sauna. I kept it short, for the sake of me, Maggie, and the sheep. Maggie and I both slurped up our energy drinks afterward in record time (Glyco-Gen for Maggie from Border Collies in Action) and collapsed together in the living room.
I’m doing my gardening in short spurts too, 20 to 30 minutes at a time, then I come in to cool off. Word has it that it might get less humid soon. Cross your paws, we could use a break. But at least no watering—we got an inch last night in yet another midnight thunderstorm and a half inch the night before. My biggest problem is mud: the soil doesn’t like being messed with when its wet, and boy is it wet.
Right now the garden is full of lilies, from day lilies to oriental ones. Here is a photo of lilies that I took this morning while the BCs were sniffing in the yard.
This next shot is not a lily, it is a plain ole’ annual zinnia that I stuck in for some color, but don’t you love the curly cues at the flower’s center? If I was a better person I’d look up the botanical name for those flower parts, (pollen bearing anthers?) but I’m guessing that someone out there will know the plant part name right off the bat. I hope there are some beautiful flowers for you to look at (even in winter at the bottom of the globe?)
Laceyh says
Perhaps the term “territorial” could be applied only to dogs who behave better toward strangers away from home? I have seen that in a couple of fosters, though many more were simply difficult around all strangers.
Eric Goebelbecker says
“Is there a diagnosis for people who are picky about word use?”
———————–
Jim and Cathy went to the county courthouse to be married, bringing along their nine year old son. They gt e marriage license, and go before the judge.
The judge looks at their marriage license, looks at Jim, and says, “Jim, is your legal name ‘James’?”
“Yes, Your Honor.”
“And Cathy, is your legal name ‘Catherine’?”
“Yes, Judge.”
“Go back to the clerk and ask him to correct your marriage license. This happens every time!”
Jim and Cathy go back to the clerk, get a new license, and return to the judge’s chambers.
He looks at the new license and smiles. Then he looks up and notices their son for the first time.
“Is that your son?”
“Yes, Judge.”
“Are you aware that your son is a technical bastard?”
Jim looks calmly at the Judge and replies, “That’s funny, the clerk said the same thing about you.”
Nic1 says
Awesome post Trisha! It seems much more useful to describe behaviour within context as opposed to attempting a diagnosis for the sake of it. Do you think ‘barrier frustration’ as opposed to territorial aggression, is more appropriate in the car for example and when in confined spaces? Makes sense if you are unsure about who is approaching and you can’t move away/approach or have any other choices available other than to bark. ‘Damn it! I can’t do anything else here, I’m trapped and I’m really unsure about what else to do!’ A bit anthropomorphic but I am sure a lot of dogs who do get a bit freaked out in confined spaces are not full on aggressive given an alternative choice?
Taryn says
In our journey to domesticate dogs, isn’t “territorial aggression” one of the things early humans most likely selected for? If you kept a dog for safety/danger detection reasons (among other reasons), isn’t it likely dogs were selected for their reaction to strangers? It seems reasonable that trait would still be found in today’s dogs.
Suzanne says
few dogs truly defend their “territories”. If they did so reliably, we couldn’t keep them as pets because they’d allow no one inside our homes without trying to bite them. What you are saying is that territorial aggression is an interpretation or a label. And when the time comes that the ability to put a label on a behavior (or cluster of behaviors) is restricted to veterinarians (considering that animal behaviorists and others have done so for more than a 100 years), I guess I’ll hang it up and retire on a beach somewhere.
Nancy Tanner says
“We also know that territoriality is dependent upon context” -For me this is the important part for pretty much everything. Tell me the context. Territory is ambiguous in and of itself, and can be quite mobile dependent on what the dog perceives as territory (person, place, thing, others, space, food source, etc). And for me there is a difference between a guardian breed guarding their home or stock, and a Labrador who is launching at strangers that come near the sidewalk of their home, and the Spaniel who barks manically behind an under ground electric fence. So, perspective and context for me. Nancy
Neo says
I would argue that the term “dermatitis” is actually a useful diagnosis as far as treatment goes as it means that there is inflammation of the skin and in order to treat it (at least in part) you need to do something to decrease the inflammation. Obviously without knowing an etiology you can’t really define or treat it further than that without some investigation and further diagnostics, but that’s kind of how medicine is. A description of your rash would be something like, ‘erythematous, papular….etc”
“Idiopathic” means we don’t know what’s causing something, true, but it doesn’t really mean it can’t be a diagnosis on its own. For example a TRUE diagnosis of “idiopathic epilepsy” means something – it means that the dog is having seizures and we have ruled out known intracranial and extracranial causes for the seizures, so we need to treat/prevent the seizures symptomatically. For a dog without this full workup (BOTH intra and extracranial), even with a high clinical suspicion that it’s idiopathic epilepsy (2 year old Lab, 2 seizures a year and totally normal neurologically in between, etc) I’d say that you couldn’t really make that diagnosis and the furthest you can get on a diagnosis is “seizures” which while it doesn’t tell us anything new, does give us something to treat.
And extending this to behavior, I’d argue that stranger directed aggression is a diagnosis in the same way that dermatitis is. If you think it’s based in fear based on body language and history, then you’ve narrowed down your diagnosis, but I don’t think that on its own it’s any more or less useful than the term ‘dermatitis.’
Just my two cents. Love your blog and hope that communication between veterinarians and CAAB behaviorists can continue to be cordial. 🙂
Beverly Ann Hebert says
The reason I tend to think “territorial aggression” about my own dog’s behavior is because it mostly happens when we are around our own yard or sometimes in our car. She is a basically a very friendly dog and doesn’t bark or lunge when we are out and about away from our home – then she’s quite happy to greet all kinds of people, including kids. Likewise she is friendly and shows nice social skills with other dogs that she encounters on walks (as long as we are away from own block), in dog classes or in pet stores. It is only when she spots strangers or people walking strange dogs in proximity to our own house and yard that she goes into the barking/lunging/growling routine. (I’m working on it with a head halter and treats). It’s possible there is an element of fear involved although she gives every indication that if allowed to she would charge right up to the person or dog that is triggering her arousal. Given that this type of behavior occurs only or at least mostly in this particular context, is there a better term to use that still differentiates it from aggressive behavior that occurs in other contexts?
Beverly Ann Hebert says
P.S. I wonder if when it comes to some dogs’ reactivity to strangers around their own territory vs. being friendly when out and about, if this is in part related to habituation? The dog is used to seeing strangers when out on the town, whereas this is a much less usual occurrence around his own home and yard.
Beth says
Hmmm. As with “Food aggression”, my problem is not with the descriptor but the word “aggression”; in both cases, it describes behavior that is shared by humans but labeled as pathological in dogs. After all, I’m pretty sure that most of us, faced with strangers traipsing uninvited across our properties, would react in some manner— gentle questioning (which is still confrontational), shouting, calling police, brandishing a weapon. The level of reaction will vary by both the nature of the person and the nature of the intrusion, in humans as well as dogs.
While I agree that in some cases “territorial aggression” is actually “fear aggression”, in many cases it is not (if we include barking, growling, and charging as forms of “aggression”, which I do). It is this very aspect of dogs’ natures which helped them be seen by our early ancestors as valuable allies rather than simply competitors.
One of my dogs is territorial, one is not. Jack loves few things in life better than meeting and greeting people and dogs when out and about. He likes about 99% of both. He uses discretion, waiting for invitations to approach (smiles and key words like “Corgis”, “cute”, and “Awwwww” from people; tail wags and soft body language or play signals from dogs). But if they are approachable, you better believe he wants to meet them. The dog has more friends than we do.
And yet let a dog or person go down our front sidewalk— even ones he knows— and he raises the alarm. He ignores cats on walks yet bays and growls in great indignation when one crosses the lawn. Birds and squirrels are ok, skunks usually ok, but domestic animals are not. His idea of “territory” includes our neighbor, the street that runs by our house, and the area immediately across the street from the house. He does NOT bark if he sees people and dogs in the park across the street (but will raise the alarm if he sees something out of the ordinary– a car driving in the grass, say). He sure doesn’t look scared. The corners of his lips pucker forward and he seems to have a “let me at ’em” attitude. This is a dog who usually approaches, rather than flees from, things that startle him. And this is a dog who is so steady with other dogs that we routinely use him to help people socialize dogs who are “iffy” and reactive with other dogs.
Once, curious to see what he’d do, I let him out on our completely enclosed deck when he was barking through the door at a cat in the neighbor’s yard. He charged the deck railing— and as soon as the cat turned and ran off he stopped barking and trotted calmly back in the house. So it sure doesn’t seem prey-drive related, it’s very well-controlled, and once his objective is accomplished (removing the offender from the territory) he is done.
We don’t discourage the behavior because we find it useful (and he happily welcomes guests— human and dog— who are invited into the home). But it does seem territorial. And it is aggression of a sort; I doubt he’d follow up on his threats unless we were in peril but I would not let someone approach him when he was in guard mode either. If we talk to someone he is barking at he immediately stops, except in the rare (once or twice in a half-dozen years) occasion when they actually seem threatening.
That said, who truly knows what they think? Because this same confident, steady dog once got so frightened by two squirrels fighting by our feeder (they literally fell out of the tree engaged in battle) that he would not go back on the deck at all for over a week….
EmilySHS says
Oh my… another lovely can of worms 🙂 The huge rub for me is–how do we tell if a dog is being “territorial” or not if they can’t leave the yard or house? If flight is removed as an option, there’s no way of knowing what other behaviors they might prefer… kinda like backing a dog into a corner and then “diagnosing” them with defensive aggression. Is the behavior in the dog or in the set-up? Like most labels, if someone tells me their dog has “territorial aggression” I still have 20 questions to ask before I have a clue what the dog is actually doing, what might be motivating it or what we should do about it. And if we lump barking at the mail man with trying to bite guests in the living room under the same heading, for me that’s way too lumpy to be remotely useful on both terms–territorial and aggressive. I totally agree that words are hugely important–words frame our experience and should give us power. Words that get churned to pudding by misuse or overuse give us–well, pudding.
Gail says
I have a canine client who behaves in an aggressive manner when anyone, stranger or acquaintance enters the property. Once the person is in the house he is fine. Territory Boundary Line Aggression?
Betsy Calkins BS CPDT-KA says
Isn’t this (like many other discussions) a problem of definitions? What does “aggression” actually mean? Is it a basket of observable behaviors that everyone has already agreed upon? Does the dog have to show 4 out 10 of these behaviors to be diagnosed? Or 10 out of 10 of the behaviors? Is there a checklist like this that Vet Behaviorists use? Could it be that sometimes it’s only a symptom? If there isn’t one definition of it, then I say don’t use it. What would be the point?
Maureen says
Here’s the only thing I know for sure… Dogs couldn’t care less how you label it, regardless of what it is! They only care about a few things when it comes to their behavior.
Can you understand what’s going on, can you help them to understand what you would like their behavior to be (again, they don’t care what you call it), and can they rely on you to be consistent in what you expect from them (incrementally of course) along the path of their training.
Petra says
Thanks for the thougts on being more pick about language and using it in order to characterize our dog’s behaviors rather than looking for te underlying motivators.
My little miniature pinscher has started a territorially ralted behavior – I would not call it agression, even though there is a lot of barking and growling involved as well as threatening…. Ok, my interpretation 😉 … But this is not related to strangers. The behavior is triggered rather by our neighbouring dogs. I “label” it as territorial agression in a descriptive term – since she is quite happy with any dog outside of the close vincinity of our house.
I am not sure, if ai want a diagnosis 😉 as I can manage and channel the behavior quite well. But your thoughts help me to think and relate in clearer terms – and thus use language in a more precise manner. Thanks for this!
Laura Riley says
You say tomayto I say tomahto.
LisaW says
I do think words matter, and the English language is constantly evolving. Word usage changes as our culture shifts. New words are added to the dictionary as other words become passe. We learn a language and related definitions in order to communicate and share our stories. I also think words become loaded and the meanings get muddled when used out of context or the original definition gets morphed and the mis-understanding becomes the definition merely through repeated use.
When my dog sees another dog jogging with their person on the street outside her fence, she runs back and forth and barks a high-pitched, rapid bark. When a dog is too near the car, she makes the same high-pitched sound and scratches at the window. Her arousal is high and she is laser-focused until it passes. Is she territorial aggressive? Is she frustrated by the barrier between the other dog and she? I don’t know, but I do know know that I’ve gotten some good advise for redirecting her (“find it’s” are a miracle). You could call it spaghetti and it wouldn’t matter to me or her as long as we can try to alleviate her response. My point is that while I truly believe words matter, I also think, at least in this case, that changing her behavior matters more.
“Is there a diagnosis for people who are picky about word use?” Etymologiosis 🙂
P.S. Your talks at SPARCS were great. We’re still talking about the beetle and the bottle.
Marjorie says
Interesting post, and I do agree that words matter. I have a dog that reacts to strangers in her space and I never thought of it as territorial, but rather fear issues with strangers. In my mind these are two very different issues.
Emily says
My question is about those dogs who are social or neutral to strangers on neutral ground, but seriously defensive of the areas where they spend most of their time. This is exceedingly common in my breed of choice (Belgian Malinois) and other shepherding breeds as well. I don’t think “stranger directed aggression” is fair or accurate for such dogs, personally.
Emily says
Oh also, a note on my first comment – What about those dogs who are social to neutral on neutral ground, seriously determined to stop an intruder on their owner turf, but can easily be “introduced” to new people (inside the home) when the introduction is handled well? We this a lot too in my breed of choice – letting yourself in could get you bit, yet properly introduced the dog will be social and sweet. My own dog is like this.
Taryn says
I’ve enjoyed reading these comments. It brought another thought to my mind….isn’t “territorial aggression” also maybe an off-shoot of resource guarding behavior? After all, the “intruder” is encroaching on the very place the dog eats, sleeps, feels safe (hopefully!) and has its humans (the ultimate resource). So for some dogs, maybe they are just telling the intruder/stranger to back off, this is mine! Some dogs are just much more blatant about their resource guarding than others…..
Donna in VA says
I would only label one specific behavior I observe at home as “territorial aggression” – this applies to the dog inside the house seeing a fox skulking around the yard. The clear reaction is that Max would like to rip that fox into tiny bits. Fox scent in the yard also creates a sort of hyper anxiety and urge to track. Any other distraction such as neighbor mowing the lawn, the Fedex truck, or a rabbit in the yard merely rates “intruder alert” type of barking. I can tell the difference. Seeing a fox from a distance (hundreds of feet) while we are outside walking does not result in the same reaction but I am not sure if he can distinguish fox versus random dog at that distance, and I will detour around to avoid picking up scent trails.
em says
Huh. I’m not sure that I like “territorial aggression”, either, but like Beth and others have said, it’s the ‘aggression’ bit I object to. I think that both my dogs could reasonably be described as territorial, but I’d balk at labeling either ‘aggressive.’ In both their cases, visitors, dog or human, are welcome in our house and yard (we just had a cookout last weekend, fun!) and my dogs show no fear of or hostility to them at all, even those who are new.
BUT, both Otis and Sandy will claim and protect our territory (our yard and driveway, the road immediately in front of our house, and the front yards of our neighbors’ houses) quite vociferously from the intrusion of any stranger, dog or human. Deer and bigger wild animals like coyotes and raccoons also get barked at, though some of that may be excitement and frustration, rather than territoriality. The neighbors don’t get barked at. The neighbors’ dogs don’t get barked at. Squirrels and chipmunks and rabbits don’t get barked at. Strange people away from the yard don’t get barked at, whether the dogs are leashed and out for a walk, in the car, off leash on a hike, etc. Otis will alert by pausing and staring pointedly in the direction of an approaching person if we are really out in the wilderness, but not if we are on a populated trail.
Otis generally won’t bark at workmen outside, either, unless they come quite close to the house. DPW and telephone repair guys are allowed much closer to our property without challenge than an ordinary stranger would be. I’m not sure how he knows the difference. Maybe it’s the trucks.
But he gives every indication of HATING the mail carrier, any mail carrier (we’ve had three or four different ones since we’ve moved here, men, women, tall, short, makes no difference), no matter how many dog biscuits I see them chuck over the fence to him when he happens to be outside (I really wish mail carriers wouldn’t do that without permission, btw). He never actually touches the fence, which itself is many yards from the mail carrier’s usual route, so he’s nowhere near them, but he’s not just alerting, as Sandy is, he’s much more upset than he gets at anyone else’s approach.
It (anthropomorphism alert!) really seems to piss him off that this person keeps coming BACK despite being warned off EVERY DAY. The mail carrier in our place in the city never bothered him in the slightest, but once we moved to our quiet block in the ‘burbs, it drives him nuts. From his perspective, I can see how it really is shady behavior- cutting through yards rather than coming up the drive (he doesn’t react to UPS or FedEx drivers with anything like the same intensity), walking briskly around ours and our neighbors’ properties, coming right up to the houses, leaving objects with his scent on them behind as ‘markers’, not greeting or interacting with residents, leaving immediately when challenged, but then coming back, over and over again. I have to admit, I can see how that might look, to a dog, like the mail carrier is doing some recon before a possible move in on our territory. From his perspective, the mail carrier goes away when challenged (pure coincidence, but how would he know that?), but he doesn’t STAY away, so the dog keeps escalating his reaction, yet he continues to return. In Otis’ mind, it seems to confirm both bad intentions and his own need for defensive vigilance. New mail carriers are not given any slack- I think the uniform and distinctive behavior makes them the same person or at least the same kind of person in his mind, so they get the full show (only barking, but for Otis, furious barking is and a rush toward the fence is pretty extreme) from day one.
By most standards, Otis territorial reactions are quite mild, too mild to call aggression, in my view. He has never tried to bite, growl at, or charge a person entering our home or yard, and I see no evidence at all that he would hurt anyone, even the mail carrier, if given the chance (he will, however, never be given the chance to approach the mail carrier near our home, just in case). But he will confront and stand ready to intercept any person or dog approaching our home, as will Sandy.
Sandy will call for backup as she does, alerting the whole family to the presence of an intruder, despite the fact that she has no intention whatsoever of attacking or driving off a peaceful newcomer, and in fact really enjoys it when people, even strange people, approach. So it wouldn’t be fair to call it aggression, I don’t think, but she shows a definite sense of territory. She would approach to greet, but she would never bark at or challenge (she and Otis both present themselves with a very chest-forward posture when confronting a person or dog entering their territory. Their heads and tails are generally high, ears forward, and Otis in particular throws a very powerful body-block, even from a distance. It’s obvious, especially, to dogs, that they need to address him before passing through his space) a person or dog like that if she were out and about. In fact, Sandy and Otis will wait silently, watchful but relaxed, until a person or dog they’ve spotted approaching crosses a certain imaginary boundary, only barking when they get to a certain set proximity. (This proximity is somewhat fluid- people can get closer than dogs, calm dogs closer than bouncy ones, bouncy ones closer than lunging ones before the dogs alert and challenge.) Known people and dogs are not alerted to or challenged at all, even in immediate proximity.
So I think that it is very important to distinguish between dogs who react aggressively due to fear of strangers (whether around their homes or not), those who fear strangers around their homes but not elsewhere (perhaps they feel trapped?), and those who do not fear strangers anywhere, but do react to them in a confrontational way near their homes. And THEN add to that the distinction between dogs who will attack out of fear vs. those who will attack out of anger vs. those who will attack only if a guarded resource is actively threatened vs. those who won’t attack at all.
em says
Oh, correction! I what meant to say, lest anyone think I have some sort of asocial mail carriers, is not that the mail carriers don’t greet or talk to us when we happen to meet them outside, (mine have all been lovely, actually) but that unlike the UPS man, they don’t come to the door and wait to talk to people in the ordinary course of their duties, but rather drop the mail and leave without seeking to see the residents. As is their job. And of course, the fact that my dog sees all this as shady is in NO way the fault of the mail carrier, who is just doing his job as best he can and can’t be held responsible for the misapprehensions of animals. 🙂
liz says
Interesting- Do vet behaviorists (or others) then classify certain behaviors as purely territorial vs. territorially aggressive? Would marking, for example, be just territorial behavior? Always much to consider with language, thanks for the interesting prompt.
Glauber says
LOL! Scent mark the word! Very good. I think the bet was showing territorial aggression.
Stacey Gehrman says
So I am wondering what everyone’s definition, description if you will, is of “territorial aggression”. Is it barking at something or someone strange? Is it biting a stranger? Is it air-snapping at a stranger (person or dog). Is is snarling, growling, tail tucked, woofing and circling? Is is ears up, tail up, charging a stranger but short of biting? When it is directed toward an animal of another species is it chasing; or is that prey related? Are all of these territorial aggression? These are serious questions. Many communities are enacting ordinances or other legal sanctions against dogs “that cause persons to be fearful of attack”. What the heck is that? A loudly barking dog with a wildly side to side wagging tail could be seen as dangerous and cause fear in someone with no experience of dogs. Is this territorial aggression? I don’t think so. It is a dog giving a “heads up” to his family that there is someone new approaching. I think a more concise definition of the behavior would help.
Melissa L. says
The curlicues on your zinnia are the stigmas, the female parts of the flower that receive the pollen. I agree with Neo that the word ‘diagnosis’ does not require that one know the causal mechanism (or with behavior, the motivation). As a pure descriptor, I’m not sure that the term ‘stranger-directed aggression’ is any more or less apt to be misapplied than ‘territorial aggression’. I think that careful definition of both diagnoses, along the lines suggested by Laceyh and Betsey Calkins, is needed for them to be informative and accurate. I personally wouldn’t consider the two terms to be equivalent.
Jude LeMoine says
I’d like to see the word ‘aggressive’ more clearly defined and carefully used. It seems to be that it is now a word tossed freely about to the detriment of the uncertain, fearful, neophobic,confused dog. Labelling dogs ‘aggressive’ even by supposedly dog-savvy people, has resulted in the word ‘aggressive ‘ being much overused.
Trisha says
Great comments as usual! First, thanks Melissa for educating me about the parts of the zinnia. I love that they are the ‘female’ parts that receive the pollen. They do look girly, I have to say!
I agree with so many of you that the term “aggression” and “aggressive” is problematic. Is a lip curl “aggression?” A low bark? As I talked about at Sparcs, most of these are probably termed “agonistic displays” that are used in social communication to prevent and resolve conflicts. Just minutes ago Willie did an “agonistic pucker” to Maggie, after she, for the gazillionth time, pawed at his head. (She is in heat and oh so ready. She’s been flagging Willie every couple of hours the last few days. It’s like a porn movie in here. Willie is neutered, and appears to have no idea what Maggie is trying to accomplish.) I doubt, however, that we are going to convince the public to start talking about “agonistic” displays. That’s why I’ve joined the party and used the term “reactive” in recent years. I haven’t seen any signs that its use has caused people to dismiss the seriousness of their dog’s behavior, a concern that one of you mentioned, but I have to say most of the people who use the term are pretty well educated about canine behavior.
I also agree that it is notable that many dogs are ‘reactive’ (replace with term of choice) at home but not elsewhere. It seems to me that these dogs could indeed be acting out of a sense of territoriality, but there could be other reasons for their behavior. Perhaps some dogs are simply more confident at home and thus are more likely to act on their fears. I think what is important is that just because a dog growls at a visitor doesn’t mean he or she is being “territorially aggressive.” Neither necessarily territorial, nor aggressive for that matter.
And em: You are so right about mail carriers upsetting dogs. I agree that it’s their inherent behavior (the carrier’s) that does it: “Invade the space, never stay to perform socially acceptable greeting behavior, and leave while dog is barking, thus reinforcing the behavior.” No need to clarify your remarks, we knew you weren’t blaming the mail carrier! (But as usual, so thoughtful of you!)
HFR says
I am not a people person. As a matter of fact , I’m not all that fond of people at all. My friends are okay, but let someone approach my door uninvited (assuming it’s not a delivery or mail person) and I will get pretty annoyed. I don’t even like my phone to ring, because usually it’s unexpected. I actually get irrationally annoyed with people who get on the elevator on a floor before I’ve arrived at my floor. I don’t like people who stop on the sidewalk to talk to someone and force me to go around them. My friend once called it “stranger anger” and it’s true. If I know you, I will treat you well. If I don’t , chances are I won’t. Am I aggressive? Not physically, for sure, but my attitude is. Would someone describe me as territorial? I don’t think so.
I’m being hyperbolic, but my point is, I’m not sure it matters if aggression (I, too, prefer “reactive”) is about territory. I think it is a personality trait. I’m a confrontational person and I think dogs can be the same way. If they behave in a certain way, it probably points to an underlying nature rather than a situational occurrence.
I think any “diagnosis” when it comes to animal behavior science can be countered with “who knows what they are thinking?” But that’s the fun part. If aggression is always an expression of fear than that fear could be the fear of someone approaching your “house” uninvited. If they are afraid about their territory or just the fear of the unknown, I say join the club!
P.S. — the 2014 videos are expected up on SPARCS website by end of July. Can’t wait!
Lori Smith says
Barrier Aggression or Barrier Frustration? I have a dog who sure looks and sounds “aggressive” (using the term very lightly here, you know, in that generic sense of the word). He lunges, pounces, growls, barks, screams, runs, paws, carries on and on in all kinds of mad-house ways if someone is on the other side of the fence or outside the front door (in the street typically), or if we are in a vehicle, or he is in his kennel. (Also on his leash, which is a different kind of “barrier” in a way.) And yet without a barrier, he is the nicest and most pleasant dog on earth, greeting everyone with a loose, wiggly, play bow approach, yet head held high and confident. He truly believes anyone walking by or stopping by is there for him and to play with him. Boy howdy, put up that barrier and you see all kinds of frustration. I refuse to label it as aggression, because the only thing the big guy hurts ARE flies! In addition to his barrier frustration, if he has food in the kennel, he growls at any cat or dog who passes by. However, without the kennel, he is happy-go-lucky to share a plate of raw gizzards and liver and cabbage (his absolute favorite treat ever)!
Aggression is so widely misused these days. I see dogs surrendered at the shelter that I work at with people describing their dog as “too aggressive when he plays”, when in fact, he just has no manners because nobody took the time to play properly and instill the basic things all puppies should learn. Not to say true aggression doesn’t exist, however I do not use it when I am evaluating an animal for behavioral issues. I prefer terms that describe what is going on to the best of my ability and observation (resource guarding, food guarding, fearfully defensive, socialization-strangers, jumpy/mouthy, Anxiety-kennel, Anxiety-shelter, anxiety-separation). I’ve found this helps clarify more of what adopters need to hear and also helps adoption counselors clarify what needs to be said to adopters.
Beth says
I would like to add that Jack’s territorial displays seem to come in three “flavors”. I could not explain how they are different if I tried, but I recognize them as distinct behaviors. One is what I call his “things are different and that is wrong” bark— the alert bark used to let us know that someone parked a car where cars aren’t usually parked, or someone is behaving oddly. Of the three, this is the only one that has a note of anxiousness in it. It is also the only one that is used off-property, though rarely. For instance, on a walk some blocks from home he barked at people walking into a house that had been vacant for some time. He hadn’t seen people going in and out, so he barked; normally he doesn’t bark at people going into their own houses.
The second is the general “Hey kids, get off my lawn!” bark, used when people talk loud enough to hear somewhere in the general vicinity of his idea of “territory”, or people walking by with dogs. There is a note of warning to the bark, but not anger.
The third is reserved for cats on his property; wild animals making any sort of screeching sound–fighting, mating; and skunks waltzing right by the front door— in the backyard seems ok, but one skunk has a feeding path that carries it past our front stoop, through the hydrangeas, and in front of the attached garage and he does not like it. I can only describe the barking as furiously angry, a series of deep chesty barks, bays that rise almost to an angry howl, and very low growls.
I consider the three a progression. The first type of barking stops instantly if I acknowledge what he sees and says it’s ok. The second type may or may not stop when I notice it too, depending on whether he determines the behavior to be threatening. The last, well when I ask him to hush he either ignores me or looks at me like I’m some sort of fool. Thankfully it happens rarely.
Re: mailmen: we had one mail carrier for years who loved dogs. Ours met him several times and he used to leave dog treats at Christmas time. The dogs never barked at him. We got a new mail carrier and Jack barks at him every day.
In a similar vein, a freight train sounds its horn at a crossing about a half mile away a few times a day. I find the sound beautiful but Jack barks at it; it falls under category # 2 above. One day we were walking near the crossing when the train went by. The look on Jack’s face was priceless; I wish I had a camera to capture his stunned amazement at the creature he’d been chasing off. I commented to my husband that from his point of view, his behavior was working: He says “Hey train, you’d better not come near this house!” and the train never does.
liz says
I’m grateful for finding another, longer moment to chime in. I absolutely see great value in questioning how we ‘know’ a dog’s motivation for an action, the value in categorizing and building on such knowledge, and in recognizing any subsequent limitations. But I’m feeling confused (in a good way, the kind where you come out brighter, lighter and clearer) about the harm in mislabeling territorial aggression. It’s my understanding that desensitization and counterconditioning take place in the context in which it occurred, beginning the process under threshold and working incrementally. By this, behavior modification would take place with whatever stimuli present to evoke the response, and consequently, “territorial stranger-directed aggression” actually would be the most informative when working to change a behavior. But if the response doesn’t present or presents at a very low level, then I think we’d be classically conditioning instead of DS/CC? (and therefore originally mislabeled our plan!) (Someone with a better grasp on learning theory, help!)
Overall, if working with a dog who has stranger-directed aggression at the home, then I think that the bulk of the behavior mod would occur at the home, and am not bothered at all by calling it territorial aggression despite the possibility of there being a fear component. Work done in public settings probably wouldn’t be a detriment, but it wouldn’t address the most prevalent context. (Like crate training: you can build skills to help self-control and “acceptance of downtime” elsewhere but you certainly ultimately need a crate.)
I guess I’ve tended to think of “territory” as just another descriptor of place, albeit a generic one, that I suppose could mean anything from the house to the yard to the car to a portable bubble that follows a dog around. If the risk in overuse of “territorial aggression” is mostly academic, then what are the practical implications of our mislabeling?
Daniel says
Another great article!
We do seem to be at some sort of much needed terminological crossroads when it comes to animal behavioral science. From my perspective, as a non professional trainer who is a convert to force free methods I have had a lot of confusion over the different uses of terms by professional trainers, behaviorists, and authors. For instance the use of Positive Reinforcement.
For the longest time I was using the term to mean positive = good, negative = bad. I did not come to that conclusion on my own. I came to that conclusion because it is used that way in many of the books I have read and some of the professional trainers I know as well as in business promotions and tag lines. “Positive reinforcement training only” or “We train using strictly positive methods” are both tag lines I have seen used by some professional trainers. I was shocked to realize that after several years of study I was still confused. Some of the books and articles I have read in the last couple of years pointed out that the terms positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement simply means adding or taking away reinforcement. That finally clarified that for me. So simple, I wish I would have had that concept down better during the first 40 books I read. So now I use the term “Force Free” when referring to that general style of training. That might not be entirely accurate either. We need a new animal training dictionary.
Kathleen Bullard says
In regard to “territorial,” I am reminded of a Far Side cartoon where the father and son are standing in their fenced backyard surrounded by a sea of fenced backyards looking up at a bird singing in a tree. The father says to the son, “The lower animals display territoriality.”
J Phillips says
“Diagnosis” means from knowledge. Even a descriptive diagnosis means many other possibilities have been excluded. It’s a process, not just a label.
This temptation to rename the territorial imperative is not wise or knowledgable.
A territorial (but otherwise well-balanced) dog can accept a visitor just fine as long as the person is there, but should that person break in or do something inappropriate when the owner is absent, the dog will defend its territory.
It is foolish to relabel it “stranger-directed” aggression, when a lot of dog bites do happen to previously known people. I was bit by a territorial labrador mix, and I had previously petted the dog and knew him. (I was a child then.)
Fluffing up reality serves neither people or dogs any useful purpose, and it is dishonorable and dangerous to attribute dogs’ instinctive behavior to faulty socialization.
martha hoffman says
I don’t think I agree. She suggests changing it to “stranger-directed aggression”, which does not make sense to me. This seems to be a separate trait than territoriality. Dogs that dislike strangers may or may not be territorial as well. Territory defense differs in dogs but when you look at the LGD breeds, they patrol territories, guard from a wide variety of threats (birds, predators, humans), and act very very different when not on their own territory. We can learn by studying these dogs who have been selected for strong territorial aggression.
Territorial dogs are not just being excited by new things happening or strangers they never met before. They react strongly to things they have seen many times, in fact their aggressive or fearful reactions get stronger every time the territory threat appears (mailman, predators). The mailman might not be a stranger, but he or she is not a friend, and in fact becomes a familiar enemy to be threatened.
Territory has been described as a guardable survival resource. If territory is a resource where all the survival needs are, then it would be resource guarding. But what would you trade….
Some dogs have almost no territoriality. Or they can be territorial but very social, so they respond to invasion with excitement and greeting. Some are very social outside their territory, but aggressive inside the territory. Fearful/aggressive dogs will be frantic at the boundaries, showing barrier frustration. Fearful/avoidant dogs might hide at the center of the territory and bite if intruders get close to the center. Some carry a small portable territory along with them to new places, and start guarding after laying down somewhere for 20 minutes (really bad for SD prospects!).
LGDs often guard a genetically programmed area of several acres, and can show problems if their territory is too small, and neighbors complain about all-night barking. They are more territorial and protective at night. Other territorial breeds are more active and guard more in the day.
What about dogs that guard their body? I.e. Chows that protect the immediate space around their bodies but are relaxed otherwise. Is their body a resource? Different breeds are selected for different amounts and types of territoriality. I.e. Jack Russels are somewhat territorial, but when German breeders created the Jagdterrier, they used the JRT template but added strong territorial aggression to humans so the dog would hunt but also protect cars and houses. Labs and Goldens- low territoriality so they can be hunted by anyone, but Chesapeake retrievers were selected for guarding boats and houses, and they can be very aggressive.
For our Hearing Dog types, we want a dog that notices territorial intrusion, but reacts in an excited non-aggressive way. Excitement is controllable. Or better yet, no territoriality, and its responses to alert to visitors can just be trained rather than instinctive. For many SD functions it’s easiest to breed or select dogs with almost zero territoriality, rather than have to deal with a dog that starts guarding the owner or property at maturity after a long friendly puppyhood.
Trisha says
Martha: I agree absolutely that some dogs are indeed territorial. My point was that categorizing all “aggression” to anyone coming to the house or yard as “territorial aggression” is problematic. That is how it is being used currently, including as an official diagnosis by veterinary behaviorists. I would restrict using SDA (“stranger directed aggression”) for dogs who behave in threatening ways to non-family members entering the house. It’s not a perfect term for sure: The people might have come over before and thus not be perfect strangers; the dog might have no intention of harming anyone but be growling defensively. I’m open to some other, more descriptive term, but calling any and all behavior toward visitors “territorial aggression” is surely problematic.
Trisha says
To J Phillips: I’m not clear how trying to use terms accurately is “fluffing up reality,” but I do love the phrase. I’m going to incorporate it into my repertoire, as in: “Tonight I’m going to fluff up my reality and have a martini.”
liz says
For whatever it’s worth at this point:
The definition of Stranger-Directed Aggression: Dog shows threatening or aggressive responses to strangers approaching or invading the dog’s or owner’s personal space, territory, or home range. (Taken from About The CBARQ Document.)
So this new label is defined the same way as Territorial Aggression above. The labels’ connotations are very different. Neither struck me as referencing motivation, just two different aspects of the context. Since territory or range is included in the definition of Stranger-Directed Aggression, the terms are basically synonymous, but perhaps SDA is more sensitive to varying motivations while Territorial Aggression is a limited motivation to some.
Beth says
My problem with “stranger-directed aggression” is that many territorial dogs will react to people who are NOT strangers, especially if their owner is not home. Indeed, as has been mentioned in the comments, many breeds were intentionally selected for this behavior. My parents have a Chessie, and never in a million years would I hand someone a key to my parents’ home and suggest they let themselves in. If I go over to tend to something when they are out, you better believe I start talking to the dog long before I reach the door. Perhaps the term is used over-broadly, but I believe it does apply perfectly to quite a lot of dogs— those confident, social, otherwise friendly dogs who object to anyone coming into their territory without their people’s permission (or sometimes with it).
My own word that I’d like to see re-defined is “reactive.” I am alarmed that it is increasingly being used (misused, IMO) to describe dogs who are actually dangerously aggressive.
My own Maddie, like many dogs (and it seems more common with bitches for some reason) can sometimes be a little snarky when meeting new dogs, especially if they sniff to long. Sure this behavior can cause huge problems and we work hard to make meetings go smoothly. Yet she is lovely and steady with dogs she has met several times. She has never bitten another dog (herding nips in play, yes, but a bite–even a soft one— no). I consider this to be “reactive.” The dog who curls a lip when leashed but can meet dogs nicely off leash, the dog that barks frantically when it sees dogs (or people or cars) but greets appropriately when they are close, and several other types of behavior fall under my idea of “reactive.”
But as time has gone by, I have heard a bit too often for comfort people describe their own dogs as “reactive” but then describe behavior that is truly aggressive. The dog that will attack another dog who comes too close, the dog who will charge and corner someone if it gets loose, the dog who is not capable of getting along with any new dog in any but the most carefully arranged circumstance— this dog is not “reactive.” It has much more serious issues that require careful handling and lots of rehab (not just “training) to overcome, and the dog may never be safe in busy places with lots of people and dog. Personally, I think describing this as “reactive” downplays the seriousness of the problem.
Kat says
It is often amazing to me how imprecise people can be with language and how value laden words become. The word aggression, for example, once meant unprovoked attack but common usage now applies it to any sort of action or reaction a dog might exhibit. I far prefer the term reactive for dogs like my Finna. She is going to “react” to things. Her reaction will range from a soft warning growl to a full charge and if pushed to it even a bite. She is a “reactive” dog and as such requires careful management and lots of work to rehabilitate her. The way I hear aggression used around here an “aggressive dog” should be immediately killed for the safety of all. A “reactive dog” has problems but can be rehabilitated. Value laden terms with very different values attached.
Territoriality is an interesting subject for me. Ranger alerts to things that are out of place, an unfamiliar car coming down the driveway, for example. Finna reacts to things that are different. She is neophobic and lacks all early socialization. Ranger is neophilic and received fabulous early socialization. It’s an interesting case study living with the two of them.
HFR says
I’d be curious to hear Trisha’s definition of reactive, or at least an official one. I participate in the sport of nosework and the term “reactive” is used a lot as it is one of the few canine sports that accommodates reactive dogs. Their definition is any dog who “reacts” negatively to other dogs or people. That can just mean barking and lunging. It does not mean that your dog will attack aggressively, it just means they are not calm around other dogs.
My dog will also snap or growl at a dog who sniffs her for too long or even if they run into her accidentally while playing (don’t you wish you could train your dog to understand what “accident” means?), but I do not consider her reactive. Neither does anyone in nosework. I realize they didn’t invent the term so I’m curious to know if there is an absolute definition of the term as it relates to dog behavior.
Trish K says
“Tonight I’m going to fluff up my reality and have a martini.” Ha! hilarious!
Because I’m just an average family dog owner I wince when I hear the term BITCH when referring to a female dog. I wouldn’t be able to refer to my Bella as a bitch even though I know that is the proper term. That’s about as much as I can contribute to the conversation about changing terms in the dog world.
Actually as an average dog owner it really doesn’t matter to me what a professional calls a certain behavior because I’m sure the term would come with an explaination in laymen’s terms what they mean and how to help solve the problem. I can see why the pros would want everyone to be on the same page though. A few weeks ago during the topic of resource guarding I said I thought I might have an issue with territory RG because if Bella and Simon are separated for a day or more and she is in the house and Simon comes home afterward she growls, get an offensive or defensive posture and barks at him for a minute then everything is fine and they play. But for a minute she acts like “hey this is my house, what are you doing here”. Also since becoming adolescence they bark at people that are walking dogs past our house or actually if they just see another dog from far away and my dogs are in the house or in the yard. I don’t think it’s territorial aggressive behavior because if the dogs came to the fence my dogs just want to play with them. My dogs bark like crazy at dog walkers and it’s the one behavior that makes me anxious. I’m working on having them stop barking when I say that’s enough but it’s a challenge. One particular man walks his husky by every day and my dogs are calm and relaxed and never bark at them…I stopped the man and told him how he is the only person that walks by with a dog and my dogs never bark and he said its because he says “hello” to them every day and waves! It’s the strangest and most wonderful thing! I want to put a sign at my yard that says “please stop and say hi”.
Nic1 says
This is slightly off topic, apologies. But one of the terms which I don’t like at all is ‘predatory aggression’. As I understand, from a neuroscience perspective they are quite different in root cause. Aggression stems from fear involving the autonomic nervous system and predation from dopamine and a predatory genetic motor pattern sequence – the most damage being done when it is fully expressed. Dopamine feels good! Of course a dog who is allowed to practice aggressive behaviour can also learn to love it, especially when it works.
With a predatory attack, a dog means business and depending on the dog and whether he fully expresses the pattern down to the kill bite and dissection, he can kill.
IMHO it is so important to drive this home to people that aggression is different to predation. Just because teeth and chasing can be involved in both doesn’t make it the same behaviour.
My own dog is reactive to strange dogs who look like wolves and dogs who are bigger than her. It depends on the environment and the choices available to her at the time as to whether she will be aggressive. As Kat described with Finna, I am sure that if she was trigger stacked in an enclosed environment with a strange Husky and no escape option there would be a strong possibility she would charge the dog out of fear and would probably start a fight. Understanding her triggers, I try to make sure that she does not get opportunities to practice this behaviour. Unfortunately I can’t control the universe! However, in my hands she is sometime a reactive dog and not an aggressive dog….but it may be different if she had a different handler. She may be aggressive? Heck she may not even be so reactive with a more experienced handler who micro manages the environment.
It just reaffirms that we really need to be so careful when it comes to using aggression to label a dog.
Reactivity is one huge grey area and there is nothing black and white about this sort of agonistic behaviour as I have learned because owner influence plays the key role in whether the dog can live a life without harming anyone or any other dogs or animals.
Beverly Ann Hebert says
It seems to me that perhaps some who dislike the term aggression may be assuming an association with negative value judgments, although aggressive behavior (competitive forcefulness) can in some contexts also have biological advantages and aid in survival. One dictionary definition reads that it is a forceful behavior, action or attitude that is expressed physically, verbally, or symbolically and which may be manifested by either constructive or destructive acts.
However, even if aggression is defined in a more narrow sense as behavior which is hostile (for whatever positive or negative reasons, emotions or motivations) how does this not fit a barking, growling, lunging display – if the display is intended to threaten whatever creature it’s directed at?
Nic1 says
On some other training dog blogs I am constantly amazed and in awe of the determination of some people, who are literally fighting genetics, trying to get their high drive, tightly wired collie to live quietly in a tiny apartment for example. That’s just an example – no breed bias here!
I have a ton of admiration for these people who spend months, years even, working on RP protocols, de-sensitising and using anti-anxiety medication in order to continue to keep a dog in an environment that can be a source of distress. The dog then gets the ‘territorial aggressive’ label pinned on it when it barks and lunges at visitors that come to the door…..How useful is that term I wonder given what we are trying to understand about living with dogs in order to help them integrate into a human society? There is so many more subtle nuances to consider…..
Surely we need to acknowledge that there is an inevitability if we breed dogs for certain traits that pre-disposes them towards ‘reactivity’ and/or aggression then there is a high probability that these traits will be displayed in their lives. Particularly if the dogs are not handled empathically and trained or socialised with behavioural understanding by the human at the other end of the leash? The importance of the environment is crucial for these types of dogs. We should not expect them to be ‘bomb proof’.
Unfortunately, aggression is another loaded term when it comes to dog behaviour. It carries a weight of negativity in human society. Looking at it from an ethological perspective, without the loaded judgement label, canine aggression makes sense in certain scenarios. Society generally seems to have decided that any shape or form of it (even ritualised) is unacceptable. I really don’t have a problem with aggression. I respect it’s place in evolutionary biology. I only fear it when the human responsible for the dog is clueless and it is out of control and unmanaged.
I just can’t see the world in black and white I guess…..
Kat says
A few years ago an extended family bought a parcel of land nearby and built three houses so they could all live as neighbors. Not wanting to have their other neighbors encroach on their property they put an electronic gate across the end of their shared driveway. They did not, however, fence their enclave and one of the families had a Golden Retriever that exhibited a number of fear based behaviors that made him unsafe. Sadly, his people would simply open the door and let him out if he asked to go out; they never supervised or managed him. If I dared to walk my dog down the street where his house was when he was out he’d charge around the gate barking, lunging, and snarling. He did not, as Finna does, gradually escalate as you put more and more pressure on him; he began with the extreme display the instant he saw us. After being chased down the street by him, Ranger and I backing slowly away with heads averted while he made repeated short charges all the while barking and snarling, I reported him to Animal Control. His people fenced that side of their property but not the rest of it as we discovered when the same scenario played out when we he saw us walking on a different side of their property. I don’t know if that should be called territorial aggression, neophobia, stranger directed aggression, or simply described as a dog that was so frightened and felt such a lack of safety and support that the only way he felt safe was to attack immediately before we could get him. I know I felt sorry for him, that he was betrayed by those in charge of his care and regularly put into positions where his fear made him behave aggressively and made his behavior unpredictable and unsafe.
Beth says
Beverly Ann, I was going to make a similar post but you beat me to it.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I read frequently online that “most aggression is fear-based” and I’m not sure I buy that. It is normal for most social animals, and just about all carnivores, to display aggression in four circumstances: When hunting, when defending oneself or one’s mate from attack, when defending one’s territory, and when defending one’s food. If by fear we mean “Afraid I’ll lose my mate/food/territory” well then I guess, but I’m not sure that’s how most people define fear.
I agree that there are a lot of dogs who display fear-based aggression. But if a dog is genetically wired to be very inclined to defend its territory and its human and it is not well-socialized enough to have learned to differentiate normal behavior from threatening behavior, does that make the dog “afraid?” I don’t call it that. Aggression is a normal part of the canine repertoire. We have bred it out of some lines of dogs, but not others.
I do think that this is one area where perhaps the “pros” get a skewed vision. True, pros know lots of dogs in a non-professional way (friends, families— the same way we all know dogs). But they get consulted mostly about problem dogs.
If someone like my parents do their research and buy a Chessie, who is known to be territorial, and find that she barks vigorously to defend her home but behaves nicely with introduced guests, they don’t go to a trainer for a problem with “aggression”; they got exactly the dog they expected.
Lots of people have dogs who are friendly with people they know but will raise the alarm when their home’s boundaries are invaded, and may or may not escalate to using teeth if someone breaks in and threatens the family. This is normal canine “territorial aggression.” But most people don’t seek help for this, and most of society does not frown on a dog who bites an intruder.
True, the problem arises if emergency services needs to pull you out and the dog misunderstands and threatens, and sometimes dogs must be incapacitated in the line of duty. So there is an argument to be made that this behavior is not safe. But I think many people weigh the odds of being alone in the house and needing emergency services vs the odds of a burglary and find they are willing to take the chance with the dog that might defend the home.
I know first-hand of someone whose sweet male Corgi latched onto a Chow’s neck and would not let go when said Chow got loose and tried to attack the Corgi’s owner. The Corgi would only release when the Chow’s owner got the dog back under control. Most people won’t seek training assistance for a dog who is willing to defend when threatened. This is “aggression” in the dictionary sense of the term, but it is not considered a problem by most people. When people seek help is when the dog’s judgement does not line up with society’s or the owner’s.
Beth says
Lest it be misunderstood, I’m not denying fear-aggression is very real. The undersocialized dog who cowers from men and snaps at one who insists on crowding in and trying to pet it is exhibiting classic fear behavior.
But in the attempt to move people away from thinking of aggression as being dominance-based, I see some things that sound a bit questionable, and replace one over-simplification with another.
http://behavior.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/local-assets/pdfs/The_Truth_About_Aggression__Dominance_dogs.pdf
This indicates that fear or “anxiety” are often the cause of the dog who might snap when someone looms over it or goes over the top of the head, sustains eye contact, etc.
Fear and discomfort are not the same thing. I might slap, shove, or move away from someone who touches me inappropriately when I am in a public place. That doesn’t mean I’m afraid. I’m annoyed, feel violated, etc, but that is not “fear”.
I’m curious, I guess, because Trisha mentions that most dogs she sees exhibiting territorial aggression look afraid. That is true of some dogs, but it is also true that many dogs who act territorial sound and look really kind of mad.
If a stranger approaches my house with a gun, sure I’m afraid. But if kids cut across my lot on their way to school every morning and trample my pansies, I’m just annoyed. In both cases I might take action to defend my “territory”. In one case I’m scared out of my wits and in the other I’m not. In either case, would one describe me as being afraid of new things or new people? Sure, the kids cutting through my flowers are “new.” So is the guy with the gun. But in both cases, it’s not their newness that causes me to react. It’s the perception of threat, one against my life and one against my sense of pride in ownership.
We recognize wide ranges of motivation and emotion in our own sometimes aggressive responses to invasion of space, others taking or handling our things, touching us without permission, jealousy, etc etc.
I hate to see us oversimplify with the dogs. Their reasons are likely nearly as varied and complex as our own.
Mireille says
Haven’t read all responses yet, but just wanted to share two thoughts; my Siberians show no territorial agression, they are infinitely curious about who enters the house, but show no defense or offense whatsoever. It almost seems that they have no concept of it either. There is a BIG malinois sheperd living nearby, when you pass his house he almost comes trough the fence with aw very impressive agressive display. When we meet him out walking, he is layed back, following his boss, looking almost shy. Spot absolutely hates that dog. We passed the house several times but I no longer take that route, When he sees him, he lunges and growls and I have difficulty controlling him. The owner gives me a disgusted look for owning such an out f control agressive dog. I tried to explain and at least warn me if he approaches me with dog next to bike from behind, but he just shrugs and says ‘your problem not mine’. But I really can’t blame Spot … He clearly feels this is one dangerous agressive dog…
Second, a friend of mine owns a Giant Schnauzer. A very independent and self assured guy. He guards her – as a cyclist who carelessly bumped into her noticed.. – and the doors to the building in which their appartement is. Not the appartement itself, but the entrance to the building. This dog had been severly abused, they recued him at five and he is now ten and it took several years of very intense training to make it manageable. What they found out that this dog is very aware of status. They have to be ‘dominant’ e.g. position themselves as creditable leaders, in order to curbe his sense of duty in having to guard them and the building. Using food reward based training made matters worse, not better. They do not use force, they do use a halti around the building in order to be able to control him (41 kg of pure muscle) but they are very carefull when they can and cannot use food rewards. Sometimes she apps me ‘he chatting again” and I know that he testing the bondary’s again for what is and is not acceptable. Lunging at people is not accetable :-).
We met one day and walked on the beach. I was impressed by the sheer power this dog exuded. I just let him come to me at his own pace and in the end he accepted a tiny morsel of food from me. That was a very rare occasion since in essence I was a stranger. Strange how happy one can feel by being accepted by a dog as ok :-). Anyway, Spot and Shadow liked him and seemed to understand him very well. Spot, eternal adolescent, absolutely enjoyed runnind him, teasing him, seeing how far he could go, be told of, jump back and start all over again. Both dog enjoyed it tremendously. So although my happy-go -lucky the-world-is-my-oyster sibes, are almost the opposite of this serious guard dog, they did seem to get along perfectly. For those who would like to see some pics http://huskyheren.blogspot.nl/2014/03/onverstoorbaar-staat-hij-op-het-strand.html
Beth says
And so this morning I had a thought:
I so much prefer “resource guarding” to “food aggression” because the term resource guarding correctly implies that this is a normal behavior, which can be problematic. On the other hand, food aggression tends to make many people think of this as an abnormal behavior that indicates their dog has some character flaw.
So instead of territorial aggression, why can’t we call it “property guarding” or “territory guarding?” This encompasses all the possibilities— it can be directed towards strangers or known persons, humans or animals. It can apply to behavior that does not escalate to biting, as well as behavior that does. And it removes the negative associations that many have with the term “aggression” while still giving a good mental picture of what the dog might do.
And personally, I think it better describes the behavior, because it recognizes it as a normal behavior, like resource guarding, that can be exhibited for any number of reasons— confidence and genetic predisposition, fearfulness, anxiety, etc. It seems to cover both a wider range of behaviors than “territorial aggression” and a wider range of motivations than “stranger-directed aggression.” For after all, a dog can exhibit aggression towards strangers both on and away from property. A dog that guards properties might do so from strangers or known people. And a dog who is fear-aggressive towards strangers might not in fact guard property at all.
Nic1 says
The neurobiology of fear and anxiety are different. Bottom up and top down respectively. I think that anxious dogs tend to be reactive and truly fearful dogs may react aggressively when the environmental stimuli is overwhelming. How many territorial dogs (dogs who bark and lunge at strangers) are truly fearful? If they were truly fearful wouldn’t the adrenal system invoke the four Fs? Fear, flight, fight or fiddle about?
We know this ourselves. If you feel anxious about something, it’s a different feeling to true fear. The latter involves that primitive heart stopping and gut wrenching impending sense of doom where your reaction would be freeze, fight or flight. The former is a stomach churning, nauseous state but one which you are capable of still functioning.
When trying to understand the root cause of our dogs’ emotional state, is the label of aggression useful at all in this regard? I’m thinking that with this in mind that dogs with the ‘territorial aggressive’ label are actually ‘territorially emotionally reactive’.
I am interested in learning where the tipping point of truly chronically anxious or reactive dogs can tip over into aggression.i.e. does the neurobiology provide evidence that aggressive acts are not always rooted in fear?
Chronic frustration can lead to angry outbursts in humans. Are some dogs who are displaying true aggression actually having angry outbursts when they unfortunately fight and bite? They’ve simply lost their temper?
Why do we need to select traits for pet dogs with active defence responses that genetically predisposes them towards anxiety? The emotional wiring for these dogs is making life difficult for them enough without labelling them as being ‘aggressive’ and therefore difficult and require fixing. This does not make sense to me….because there could also be a welfare issue at hand here. We are setting dogs up to fail by selecting for reactive traits that make them chronically anxious and the resulting behaviour is labelled problematic or aggressive.
HFR says
Talking about fear underlying aggression reminds me of when people say that conceited people are just hiding their insecurities. It is most probably true, but it always sounds like an excuse. The difference is that we think of people as having free will so we can still blame them for being obnoxious even if they are insecure, whereas dogs usually don’t have a choice.
I think there is so much misunderstanding of a dog’s behavior in the general population that we probably need to use language that helps people understand their dog’s motivation as opposed to them just getting angry at their dog because they won’t behave as they wish. Territorial aggression immediately conveys the reason behind the behavior and in that sense it is helpful. If I explain to someone their dog is growling out of fear suddenly they feel sympathy for the dog rather than anger or frustration. Whatever helps an owner understand (and, therefore hopefully, keep) their dog is a good thing.
Beth says
Nic1, , your well-thought-out questions point out the danger in labeling all territorial actions as fear- or anxiety-based.
I consider Jack territorial, but neither fearful nor anxious. He does not threaten with teeth but he does bark, growl, and bay as explained above. But he doesn’t seem anxious about it. If I were to try to guess motivation, I’d say he sees it as part of his job, and he’s a dog who likes to assign quite a lot of jobs to himself.
If we are sitting on our fully enclosed deck, he will frequently lie down with his chin on the lower rung of the railing, eyes half-closed, ears at half-mast. If someone walks up or down the hill, he will stare and bark. Once they are gone, he goes back to snoozing.
It is difficult for me to label this as being in a state of chronic anxiety. He gets aroused, yes. But arousal is part of the normal emotional repertoire of animals, and as with people, life without any challenging stimulation can be dull and unhealthy. Sure, if the dog is chronically over-aroused that is a problem. But a dog who will still respond to being offered food is not aroused over threshold. And based on the number of burglars who get past guard dogs by throwing meat, I’d guess that many, many dogs who actively guard are not really over-threshold. Or operating out of a high level of fear; if they were that afraid, they would shut down and not take food.
A dog who is so fearful it will bite if it can’t flee and can’t be calmed down or distracted away from its fear IS too anxious for anyone’s well-being, especially the dog’s, and I agree completely we should never intentionally breed for this trait.
Kat says
Words and their meanings are certainly slippery things. When does a behavior stop being anxiety and start being fear? When we say a dog exhibits aggressive behavior are we using the strict biological definition or the common parlance definition? When a word describing behavior in our canine companions becomes common currency how do we know the meaning remains consistent across users? More and more I try to avoid labeling words and try to use only descriptive words–not that I succeed but I am trying.
Finna came to us with no idea how to predict or navigate her new environment and only two behaviors that she relied upon when dealing with her environment–she was hypervigilant starting at every change, every new thing, and every movement and she threatened everything unfamiliar by barking, lunging, growling, snapping, snarling, and even biting. To me that’s a dog that’s terrified to others it might be an aggressive out of control dog. Words are slippery concepts, that’s for sure.
LisaW says
Nic1 wrote, “When trying to understand the root cause of our dogs’ emotional state, is the label of aggression useful at all in this regard? I’m thinking that with this in mind that dogs with the ‘territorial aggressive’ label are actually ‘territorially emotionally reactive.'”
I concur with questioning the usefulness and/or validity of the aggression label when trying to understand our dogs’ emotional states and subsequent responses. One of our dogs is diagnosed with general anxiety by our vet behaviorist. She is reactive to lots of things but I would not call her aggressive. She has really amazing bite inhibition, and she has a sweet not sour temperament (it’s hard to find the right adjectives without loading).
What she doesn’t seem to have is the correct wiring to respond appropriately to certain stimuli. Whether it is genetic or trauma-related, I have no idea, probably both, it often looks like TSD. For example, she sometimes has bad dreams and on occasion will wake up with a start and snark at our other dog, who is sleeping nearby. If taken out of context, it looks like unprovoked “aggression,” if taken into account, not so much. She used to respond to seemingly benign things (tall grass waving, our other dog licking, a blanket draped over a chair) with a snarl and a snark. She’s much less reactive now, and she is an amazing dog in many ways, but there does seem to be a circuit gone amok. We are in essence slowly re-wiring her. I think of it like an old house we used to live in, half of the upstairs circuit was tied into lights in different rooms downstairs. It was a challenge if a fuse blew or a repair needed to be made.
If you saw her past response to the UPS man, you’d think she was aggressively unhinged. Now, she still barks and runs to the window and door when the UPS man comes, the big difference is it’s not so frenetic and she settles quickly now, which used to take much, much longer. It will always be a work in progress.
All this to say that if you took any of these snapshots of our dog out of context, you could label her as aggressive or territorial aggressive or stranger-direct aggressive, but in my mind, it is more accurate to say she is appropriate response challenged.
Laceyh says
I very strongly agree with Nic1 that the distinction between fear (freeze-fight-flight) and anxiety is important with dogs too. I had two resident dogs through most of my foster career. The female had started with me as a bundle of neophobic reactiontivity – not anxiety, but true fear. We worked through a lot. The male was not phobic, but was anxious. He would have had to work up a long chain of calming signals, etc., before he would have given an overt aggressive response. She would have bitten as a second response after an incredibly fast freeze-can’t-flee sequence, but I kept her on leash and taught her other responses.
HFR says
Just like to throwin, for what it’s worth, that I have a dog who gets extremely anxious under certain circumstances (the vet or around a lot of people) but she will ALWAYS take food. No matter how scared she gets she will never turn it down, so from my own experience I’m not sure taking food is the definitive sign a dog is not afraid.
What is interesting is I have known many dogs who are very fearful all the time (some would call extremely shy), hiding from others, cowering etc. but would never hurt a fly or show any sign of aggression. So can a dog be fearful and not aggressive, but if it’s aggressive always be fearful?
Beth says
I can’t end a discussion on territorial behavior without quoting one of my favorite expressions of what a barking dog might be thinking. From “Watership Down”, the chapter on Rowsby Woof quotes Rowsby as barking “Dirty little beasts. “How-how! How-how dare you come snou-snou-snouting round here? Get out-out. Out-out!!”
Whenever Jack barks at critters, this is exactly how he sounds to me. If I tell him shush and there is a critter, he doesn’t usually shush, frankly. But if I say, in a low-pitched voice, “How DARE they!” he looks at me and gives a last huff or two and is quiet.
Indignant, is the word I’d use.
I suppose I have a question as well, or an observation: If the flock-guarding dog chases away invading dogs and coyotes, and the dog bred to guard the house tries to chase away invading people…. it would seem to me that the behaviors are the same, only the target is different. And if we are going to say one is usually fear, then would that not make the other usually fear as well? And if one is not, then the other doesn’t have to be either?
As I re-read the original entry and many of the comments, I keep coming back to em’s observation:
“So I think that it is very important to distinguish between dogs who react aggressively due to fear of strangers (whether around their homes or not), those who fear strangers around their homes but not elsewhere (perhaps they feel trapped?), and those who do not fear strangers anywhere, but do react to them in a confrontational way near their homes. And THEN add to that the distinction between dogs who will attack out of fear vs. those who will attack out of anger vs. those who will attack only if a guarded resource is actively threatened vs. those who won’t attack at all. “
Trisha says
I agree completely that em’s comment is spot on. I’d guesstimate that of all dogs I’ve seen over twenty-some years who threaten visitors some large % of them are purely frightened, another large % are both frightened and also have some need to protect territory (or another resource? the family?) and a very small % who are purely and simply territorial. Or resource guarding. That’s why I am not a fan of the term “territorial aggression” but am a rabid fan of the excellent commentary on this blog! Thank you all for your thoughtful additions.
Nic1 says
Reading everyone’s excellent posts just reinforces that I prefer to describe the actual behaviour within context e.g. Rover will lunge and charge at strange people if they enter his yard unannounced but he has not bitten anyone in the process and has been practicing this for several months now. Compare this to the simple statement ‘Rover is territorially aggressive’. The former tells me so much more about the actual behaviour displayed; what behaviour has not yet occurred and the risks and safety issues to consider if further escalation is allowed to occur. With this in mind, is Rover a dangerous dog based on what we know so far? Well, not if he is a Chihuahua. But if he is a large dog, such as a Mastiff or a Great Dane, then lunging and charging is problematic behaviour for him to continue practice.
LisaW – ‘appropriate response challenged.’ I love that description of your dog’s behaviour. It seems so much more empathic for both dog and owner. It implies that your dog may well be behaviourally challenged within a particular context, but there is no label or potential negative judgement associated with the description. Aggression and dogs in the same sentence implies ‘danger’ every time in our society and the implication to misinterpret agonistic behaviour by people who are not educated in this area and to over react is huge. I don’t believe that true aggression in dogs should ever be downplayed of course, particularly dogs who have a strong history of biting and fighting and a clear intent to inflict serious harm.
What do we know of the emotional wellbeing of the dogs who exhibit ‘stranger directed reactivity or aggression’ on their property? Surely, triggered active defence responses indicate fight or flight, whether the dog is fearful/anxious or both? It’s adrenaline every time and this can be a form of stress creating a really bad feedback mechanism for the dog’s overall health. Cortisol is a killer. I just see this as the equivalent of myself having a stress or panic attack whenever someone comes to the door or enters the house.
Beth – I concur with regard to over arousal vs ‘watchdog alert’. The way you describe Jack’s behaviour it would seem that he has an ‘off switch’ and an ability to self-calm already wired in.
How would a veterinary behaviourist advise you to manage an anxious or fearful dog that is described as ‘territorially aggressive’, when relaxing at home may be difficult for some dogs if the environment is permanently setting them on edge? The potential for misdiagnosis is huge as I see it.
Beth says
Nic1, while Jack’s ancestor’s for the past 100 years have probably been mostly pets, for 1000 years before that his ancestors were dogs whose job it was to keep his own cows over HERE and everyone else’s cows over THERE on unfenced common pasture. I’m guessing that the “off-switch” that you mention is something that can be genetically selected for and is probably common to many farm dogs all over the world.
Kathy says
I was reminded of this post after an incident at our annual “escape the fireworks” camping trip this past weekend and wanted to share. We had just arrived at our camp site and had put the tent up; the car was backed into our space and the trunk and a passenger door were open as we were still unloading things. Ruskin (border collie/lab/retriever mix) had a leash on but it was dragging. We didn’t notice a couple taking their dog, a standard poodle, on a walk past our site until it was too late and Ruskin alerted us by barking. What could have ended in complete disaster (I know- we need to be more careful) ended comically, as Ruskin’s solution was to jump in the car and into the passenger seat to bark and ‘lunge’ at the passing dog from the safety of the car! The other dog could have cared less.
Kristina Spaulding says
This is a super interesting discussion and one that’s also occurring in the human psychology world. Currently mental health “diagnoses” are all descriptive. For the most part, we don’t fully understand the causes, so we can only describe the behavior. One of the major concerns with this is that we may be grouping clusters of disorders with different causes together because they share similar symptoms. Many different things can cause fevers, but that doesn’t mean they all benefit from the same treatment. It also seems that many different things can cause ADHD, for example, but the treatment is generally the same across the board. Perhaps it shouldn’t be.
I think the same is true for dogs, and I agree with you. We need to be very careful about how we label particular behaviors or conditions in dogs because it can lead to a lot of confusion. I think you are being picky, but I think that’s exactly as it should be! As you said, if we are going to increase the amount of scientific understanding of canine behavior, we need to be very cognizant and careful of the words we use.
Bonnie Hensley says
Just catching up on your articles. Read this one, then when I checked Facebook this video was there. Wonder what this behavior could be labeled?!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=324606304364159&fref=nf
Nic1 says
What I find interesting is that dogs get labelled with all sorts of descriptors, even when the behaviour is not rooted in pathology. There are cases of pathological aggression in dogs, but because so many dogs do display agonistic behaviour in a whole variety of contexts does not make it pathologically abnormal behaviour. I’m not comfortable with dogs having potential behaviour problem labels/diagnoses when they are behaving normally, if inappropriately. That is why I liked LisaW’s description – ‘appropriate response challenged’.
With regard to other descriptive terms, I prefer the term ‘threat reducing signals’ and ‘stress displacement behaviour’ to ‘calming signals’. It just reflects the displayed behaviour more accurately and respects the biology of the behaviour too, IMHO.
diane says
Bonnie – too funny. Love the safety of the fence to display aggression.
Point from a non-professional: Using the word aggression in a diagnosis doesn’t help if explanation why it might not be aggressive is necessary.
Greta says
My nomination for serious clarification or relabeling is “protective aggression.” I would say that about 80% of my clients whose dogs aggress when someone (dog or human) comes near them think the dog is being protective and about 2% of them are actually showing some protectiveness.