Rachel Brix explains how and why a focus on enrichment and education is a key component in a happy and successful stay for canine guests

In the first of a two-part article, Suzanne Clothier explains the distinction she makes between resource guarding and rule setting in canine behavior, and why this categorization influences her approach to addressing behavior issues

Fig.2

Graphics © Suzanne Clothier 2004 / All Rights Reserved

The myriad of behaviors that we label as “resource guarding” deserves a more nuanced understanding. In this article, I want to consider the difference between resource guarding and rule setting, an important distinction that shapes how I address these behaviors.

But first, the term “resource” itself turns out to be awfully broad. What exactly is the resource? It’s beyond the scope of this article to define each type of resource but next time you hear “resource guarding” give some thought to what the resource may be. Veterinary behaviorist Joël Dehasse (2003) delineates multiple subsets of competitivesocial aggression (competition for resources or privileges) as follows: • Food elicited aggression. • Nonfood object elicited/possession aggression. • Resting area elicited aggression. • Social interaction/alliancecontrol elicited aggression. • Spacecontrol elicited aggression. • Sexualcontrol elicited aggression. • Other resource elicited aggression, nonspecified. • Dueling fights.

To complicate things further, there is not full agreement in the literature about how to define resource guarding, which is often used interchangeably with possession aggression. Jacobs et al. (2018) defined resource guarding as “the use of avoidance, threatening, or aggressive behaviors by a dog to retain control of food or nonfood items in the presence of a person or other animal.” Comparing that with Dehasse’s (2003) list, it’s easy to see that there are many nuances absent.

Do you keep your credit cards and cash close to you when out in public? Do you keep your laptop or cell phone near you when not home? Do you cover your coffee cup or plate if someone tries to clear the table before you are done? Chances are good the answer to these questions is “yes!” and perhaps even “of course!” Next question: why are you such a resource guarder?

Further, are there some situations in which you feel a stronger need to guard your resources, and others where you are a bit more relaxed? If we were to assess your behavior in the uncomfortable or unsafe situations, how might that contrast with your behavior at home or in safe, familiar settings?

The simple reality is that you guard your resources in your possession because you do not want anyone to take them. Your behavior is one way to say, “Mine.” Recognize that your behavior is based in some anxiety about losing your resource.

By contrast, perhaps you’ve baked a batch of brownies, and as you’re leaving the house to walk your dog you warn your housemate, “Do not touch those!” You fully expect that there will be a full plate upon your return. Maybe you snag one of the few remaining sale items and put it in your cart, then leave your cart while you wander further down the aisle. Someone else spots the sale item in your cart, and begins to edge closer, but you just look up and give them a glare and they move away.

This is rule setting. And it is another way to say, “Mine.” Rule setting behavior is based in confidence about your ability to control access to the resource even at a distance, or perhaps even in your absence. You

may also grant access, telling your housemate that “you may have one brownie while I’m gone” or share the resource, “Here, take half of my brownie.”

I find it helpful to categorize a dog’s behavior as resource guarding vs. rule setting, as my approach to each will be slightly different. I am particularly interested in the individual dog’s specific behavior which may be as mild and highly controlled as a hard look or escalate to severe injury or even lethality.

In my experience, it appears that for dogs, possession is truly 9/10ths of the canine “MINE!” law, i.e. if it’s in your possession, you have the right to retain possession. These seem to be the details of what constitutes “mine” in the dog world: • You can hold it in your mouth. • You can eat before anyone else does. • You can carry it away. • You can lay on or near it. • You can cover it with your head, neck and/or chest. • You can control, deny or permit access to the resource.

When we attempt to impose our set of human rules on dogs, it is at best puzzling or confusing for them, and it can escalate into threatening and scary. “Give that to me!” a guardian might demand, and – understandably – the dog turns away, tightening his grip on the item, and perhaps even adding a low growl. The guardian then may grow more insistent, grab the dog and/or tear away the item, leaving the dog to wonder why dog law is being utterly disregarded. Repeated interactions of this kind can be destructive to the relationship and help convince the dog that he was right to be worried.

Many times, dogs act to protect their resources without confrontation or aggression, in subtle ways that go unnoticed by an unskilled eye. This could be in the form of yielding space – simply moving themselves and the resource slightly away from another dog or person, or walking away to a new area. It may be eating a little faster, or staring at the floor, or just lowering their head over the resource until the person or other dog has passed by.

So, when does this normal behavior become problematic? To my way of thinking, the behavior can be classified as problematic when it causes distress, danger or dysfunction to the dog and/or members of the dog’s social group, which may include people, other dogs and even other animals.

Animal behavior is shaped in part by the availability of resources. Generally speaking, in resource rich environments interactions do not lead to potentially dangerous altercations. If you can simply move a short distance and access the same resource, why fight? In resource poor environments, however, animals engage in altercations more frequently. Indeed, among species that live in resource poor environments, there can be fierce competition for resources.

Studies in shelter dogs have demonstrated that guarding behavior during an assessment in the shelter is not predictive of guarding in the adoptive home.

© Can Stock Photo / dariolopresti

We all know about limited resources. Who would put down just one cupcake at a kid’s birthday party, and expect it to remain a jolly event? More than enough cupcakes to go around? No problem. Few of us would hand a group of dogs one raw bone or just one toy.

But it is not as simple as one cupcake per child, is it? Even in what appears to be an abundance of resources, you will find dogs who are willing to fight for a crumb – or the possibility of one! – while other dogs are far less confrontational. Multiple factors are at work here: genetics, individual temperament, experience, availability of resources, dynamics of the social context, and even the dog’s physical and nutritional status.

The value of a resource plays some part in how far a dog may go to protect it. Dogs do have individual preferences, so what may be just mildly interesting to one dog can be the most cherished possession or highest value food for another. This can confuse handlers who may not understand that one dog might find a stray Cheerio worth defending, while another dog readily allows her entire dinner to be taken away. But the Cheerio defender might not care at all about the squeaky frog, while Miss No Dinner is willing to mix it up with anyone who dares to touch her frog.

Above all, in my experience, it is the individual differences in temperament that play the biggest role in both resource guarding and rule setting. Simply put, problematic resource guarding has its roots in anxiety and a lack of social confidence (with dogs, people or both) (see Fig. 1 on p.28). Rule setting, by contrast, is rooted in confidence and a lack of anxiety (see Fig. 2 on p.28).

Studies in shelter dogs have demonstrated that guarding behavior during an assessment in the shelter is not predictive of guarding in the adoptive home. (MohanGibbons et al., 2012). Echoing my theory that anxiety and temperament traits play a role in resource guarding, MohanGibbons et al. (2012) noted: “Guarding during an assessment could be an indicator for overall stress levels.” Remember when I asked about how you might feel the need to be very protective of your wallet in some situations?

Further, Marder et al. (2013) note: “The detection of FA+ [food aggression] behavior via a behavior evaluation should be interpreted with caution, since a positive finding in the shelter evaluation does not consistently indicate that the behavior will occur in the home nor that a dog is unsuitable for adoption.” n

In Part II of this article, we’ll have a closer look at resource guarding vs. rule setting, the zones which tell the tale, and dif‐ferences in how to develop training and management strategies.

Dehasse, J., Braem, M., & Schroll, S. (2003). Aggressive behaviours in dogs: a new descriptive-contextual classification. Poster presented at the IVBM (4th International Veterinary Behavioural Meeting), Caloundra, Australia, August 19, 2003. Proceedings n°352, Post-Graduate Foundation in Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, p.203-205 Jacobs, J. A., Coe, J. B., Widowski, T. M., Pearl, D. L., & Niel, L. (2018). Defining and Clarifying the Terms Canine Possessive Aggression and Resource Guarding: A Study of Expert Opinion. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5 115 Marder, A.R., Shabelansky, A., Patronek, G.J., Dowling-Guyer, S., & Segurson D’Arpino, S.( 2013). Food-related aggression in shelter dogs: A comparison of behavior identified by a behavior evaluation in the shelter and owner reports after adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148 1–2 150-156 Mohan-Gibbons, H., Weiss, E., & Slater, M. (2012). Preliminary Investigation of Food Guarding Behavior in Shelter Dogs in the United States. Animals 2(3) 331-346

Suzanne Clothier has been working with animals professionally since 1977. Currently based in St. Johnsville, New York, she is well respected internationally for her holistic Relationship Centered Training™ approach to dogs and the people that love them. Her background includes training, instruction, behavior modification, kennel management, temperament assessment, physical assessment and conditioning, early puppy development, class curriculum development, obedience, agility, Search and Rescue, conformation, breeding and more. Since 1991, she has taught workshops and seminars on a broad range of topics throughout the United States and internationally for a wide variety of groups from training clubs to international conferences in 11 countries. An award-winning author of multiple books and DVDs, her book, Bones Would Rain from the Sky: Deepening Our Relationships With Dogs (2002) has received widespread praise from every corner of the dog world, including twice being included in the Wall Street Journal's list of Top 5 Dog Books. She has served on the American Humane Association’s Task Force for Humane Training, the AKC Agility Advisory board, and is currently a consultant for Frankie & Andy’s Place, a senior dog sanctuary in Georgia. She has also developed multiple assessment tools CARAT™, RAT™ (Relationship Assessment Tool), as well as puppy and adult dog tests. These tools have been used by guide and service dog organizations, therapy dog groups, AAIA organizations, shelters and rescue groups, and trainers. In her work as a consultant to guide dog schools, her Enriched Puppy Protocol™ served as the structure for the updating of their puppy raising programs. Since 2007, more than 10,000 puppies have been raised in programs built around The Enriched Puppy Protocol™. Meanwhile, with fellow trainer Cindy Knowlton, she developed CCC: Connection, Cooperation & Control™, a puzzle-based program that builds joyful relationships between handlers and dogs.