Modal Theory:

Relationship between Emotional Status and the Cognitive & Learning abilities of Domestic Canines
by Iain Macdonald (rrenroc@bigpond.com.au)
Copyright 2001 All rights reserved, no reproduction of this material is permitted without written permission from the copyright holder.

Introduction
The Modal theory is a theoretical framework, which seeks to explain the extent to which canine behavior, cognition, and learning are influenced by emotional status. It puts forward the concept that the emotional reactivity causes a prioritization of environmental events/information. Such a prioritization ensures the dog treats all information with regards to relevance according to its emotional status at the time. This adaptive mechanism of information processing is vital for the survival of the dog in its natural state and is a powerful tool to be used in training the domestic canine.

What is a Mode?
A mode is an operational frame of mind the dog works in. This operational frame of mind will prioritize items/events in the dog's mind relevant to the mode in which the dog is currently operating. This mode is also easily described as an emotional state of mind. A mode does not lessen the cognitive abilities of the dog; rather it prioritizes the information to assist the cognitive functioning of the dog. Modes are often termed as drives in dog training literature but this implies an instinctive/automatic reactionary process that fails to fully encompass the workings of the dogs mind whilst in this state. Such terminology also makes it very difficult to quantify between innate potential and emotional responsiveness. It is often argued in scientific circles that true instincts are very rare and can be best described as chains of behaviors that we do not yet fully understand. There are three major modes the dog works in; defense, prey and social. The primary reason for all three modes of behavior is to ensure the survival of the individual.

What is a Drive?
Frequently mentioned in this article is the term drive, this refers to the innate reactivity potential of the dog in each of the three operational modes. This does not imply that the threshold is innate, it is a learned response, but frequently high or extreme drive dogs do have a low threshold. This innate potential can be impacted upon in critical periods of the pup's development. This impact can be positive or negative. A breeder which encourages retrieval in their pups when young (early as 4 weeks) will tend to produce high drive dogs, provided that a balance is reached in this building so as not to bore the dog, whereby the impact will be

negative and the dogs innate drive will be lowered. A breeder who does not encourage such activities in the dog will tend to produce dogs of lower drive. This impact on the innate potential of the dog is again basically a survival-orientated mechanism. If the dog has inborn potential but this is not encouraged by its environment it will tend to be lost or impeded as the drive is not required, or at least not in its upper levels for the dogs survival. This is the natural adaptively of the dog coming into play. Interesting to note is that early Swedish research pointed to the fact that high prey drives or at least a high retrieval drive was indicative of a highly trainable dog. This is supported by this theory as well except it is not the fact that a dog has a high drive which makes it a trainable dog per say, rather it is the ease in which the dog can be rewarded without confusion we see as the contributing factor. Either way, highly driven dogs are certainly more easily trained than less driven counterparts. As stated high drives can be very desirable in a training sense. Indicators of high drives are as follows:

Prey: retrieval, chasing, possessiveness, etc. Social: strong bonding, separation anxiety, etc. Defense: aggression, high reactivity to threatening stimuli, protectiveness.

It should also be noted that whilst most working competitions now are consistently won by dogs which have drives which can be described as extreme and such drives are highly desirable in top level sport and working dogs, such dogs would not make good family pets. There is a fine line between extreme drives and neurotic behaviors and as such, an extremely driven dog, which does not have outlets for its innate drives, can easily become neurotic. Extremely driven dogs have almost a pathological need to work in that mode; a fanatical retriever that will physically attack a wall to get a toy is an example. This dog would not make a good pet and most breeders would consider it has poor temperament. This is not the case, the dog has an extreme drive and needs to work in this particular mode, training can modify it but such a dog is exactly what the Customs service considers to be a good candidate. A detection dog must operate at this extreme level or it will be less effective. This dog is quite stable when given an outlet for its innate needs; in fact, it is a willing worker, which is capable of cognitive processes while working far beyond those of less driven dogs. Neurotic behaviors will occur as its innate potential is ignored and other environmental factors attempt to over modify the animals behavior causing the dog to internalize its need for outlet in the particular mode. In the case of mature dogs drives which have appeared to be non-existent can be built on but at no time will the mature dog ever regain the maximum potential it had as a pup if it is not encouraged through its critical periods. We can teach a dog to fetch but we cannot make an extremely driven dog from him if he wasn't born that way. The handlers ability also plays a considerable role, if the handler is able to provide support for the less driven dog prior to the dog losing motivation the dog can be carried along to perform at levels which are actually higher than its innate potential. Such environmental factors make it very difficult to describe drives with any degree of accuracy and makes assessment that much more difficult.

Drives should not ever be seen as a negative part of a dog but should definitely be considered when choosing a dog. Most people are unable to successfully handle an extremely driven dog without significant professional assistance. This would be the major reason why world-class working kennels are very particular where their pups are being homed. In the wrong hands, their world-class dog becomes a public nuisance. In this example, the fault lies not with the dog but with the handlers failure to: (1) be able to handle the dog, and (2) choose a dog which suits his or her own needs and abilities. A versatile dog will not necessarily be extremely driven; in fact, extreme drive if not backed by excellent handling skills and a balanced training program will frequently work against the dog. A highly driven but balanced dog should be the aim of all kennels apart from those, which specifically specialize in producing dogs designed to work in specialized areas.

What is a Modal Threshold?

A modal threshold is the level of stimulation of the innate drive required by the dog to switch into the most appropriate mode, emotive state, so as to best react to the current situation. These thresholds or triggers are always self-regulated. As trainers, we cannot externally force a dog to adopt a particular threshold to suit our needs. However, through conditioning that involves withholding of the appropriate reward (the dogs desired behavior), we can teach the dog to regulate its own threshold to suit our needs. In scent work, we require a low prey threshold (we want the dog to switch to prey mode rapidly) but in obedience, we require a far higher threshold to maintain control during heeling (we want the dog to resist the switch to prey until it has completed exactly what it is we want). In bite work, we require different thresholds for different exercises. Guarding an object requires a far higher threshold (resist the trigger) of defense than a face attack does (rapidly trigger). Thresholds are activated or triggered at the emotional level of the dog. Each of the three modes has a particular emotive state that will immediately switch the dog over to the most appropriate mode for the current situation. These emotional states and their triggering emotions are: defense - fear, social - security, and prey - excitement. Of particular importance when assessing the integrity of this information is to understand that during the domestication process we have altered the dog significantly from its wild ancestors by encouraging and selectively breeding for individuals which retain many infantile behaviors throughout their lifespan. This has significantly impacted upon the dog in the prey mode, as such instead of the true emotive response of hunger a state of excitement/playfulness is now the trigger. This alteration through domestication is understandable when a person realizes that it is largely through the medium of play that a wild dog learns its hunting skills (such behaviors are not as once thought, instinctive). It would then stand to reason that if we have retained the infantile state to a large degree that the dog which has no real needs to hunt its own food would retain the infantile trigger for such a behavior throughout its life. It is also fair to say that dogs with extreme drives in the prey area will tend also to be triggered by the more traditional hunting triggers. This can lead to owners having greater degrees of difficulty in controlling such extreme drive dogs and is why such dogs should not really be considered good candidate for family pets.

Prey Mode
In prey mode the dog will give a greater priority to events which are relevant to that mode such as rapid sideways movement, the desire to chase, etc. It should be again noted that a mode does not affect the cognitive abilities of the dog; rather, it prioritizes what is happening in the dog's environment with relation to the mode it is in. A dog in prey mode will still use its cognitive abilities to think its way through events to best achieve the result it desires (i.e., the raising and lowering of the threshold or trigger for a desired behavior). A dog will voluntarily control the desire to chase a prey object until it in itself is reasonably sure that the chances of this chase being successful are relatively high. Failure to do so would impact on the viability of survival for the individual. This internal control is a learned feature based on the particular experiences of the individual in question. The classic example of this mode in the wild state is the rapid escape of a rabbit as it bursts for cover will trigger a response in the dog to chase. In a training sense, the throwing of the object is what we use to lead a dog into retrieval exercises, be they for formal training or play. This rapid movement is triggering the dog's emotional response in exactly the same way as the fleeing rabbit.

Social Mode
Social mode is the most common mode in which a dog will operate. In this mode, the emphasis is placed on the dogs pack. Dogs have an innate need to belong to a pack, domestication has not altered this requirement rather it has incorporated humans into the dogs view of its pack. All control exerted by the handler is achieved through social mode. Such control is achieved by the handler acting as a superior of the dog's own pack and making a request of a subordinate. The dog's compliance to such a request is attained by the dog acknowledging the handler's social superiority. The dog's innate need for the security of its position in a pack is the trigger for this mode.

Defense Mode
Defense mode is always responsible for aggression, unless such aggression is of psychotic nature. All forms of aggression are triggered by a fear of something; this fear need not be directly attributed to the recipient of the aggression personally. Fear can be felt if the dogs position in the pack is threatened, a member of the pack is threatened, the packs territory is threatened, etc. As fear is such a black word in the dog world, this must be heavily stressed. A dominant dog for example will switch from social to defense anytime it feels that its position in the pack is under threat. It is not necessarily scared of the transgressor more it is fearful of the loss of station. Interestingly to note is that nearly all forms of nonpsychotic aggression noted by canine research derive from a switch from social mode to defense mode. The exception being predatory aggression required for the acquisition of food. However, fear is also involved here, as the dog will be fearful of not being able to eat. It could also be argued that the social concerns of the pack also play a part in this as well but as yet this still remains very unclear. With this in mind, it brings the practice of training bite work from a prey basis into question as the ideal model of education for this activity. Surely an approach from a social mode would be more relative to the dog and would give an

increased aggressive response and yet improve the control level of the dog in call off exercises.

Modal Theory Training Applications

To consider the impact of this theory on how we approach the training of the dog we should consider what mode the dog must be in to comply with what we have asked of it. We then must also accept as fact that since the purpose of the mode is to priorities events relative to the dogs needs it would be impossible for the dog to operate in two modes simultaneously. As a result, we can theorize that a dog is able to rapidly switch from one mode to another and back again as is required to best priorities the situation, relative to its emotional state to obtain the highest degree of success for the activity the dog is engaged in. An example of this would be that handler control is achieved through the social mode. A handler is using its higher position in the hierarchy to control the subordinate dog. As the required action will impact on the dogs security with in the pack (its acceptance, position, etc) the dog will switch from either prey or defense to the social mode to comply as the priority in this mode will give issues relative to the dogs security within its social system greater importance than the other two modes would. It should be noted very clearly that in this area, force could have a very negative effect. If the dog reacts through fear, he is not in social mode; he is in defense. Whilst the dog may comply out of fear of retribution, it has not necessarily accepted the higher position of the handler. This is why force is not a valid way to ensure domination of a dog. A practical example of a switch to social mode triggered by issues of security is the call off from attack. A dog chasing a fleeing decoy is in prey mode as it nears the decoy it switches to defense mode to attack, when the handler calls it off it must switch back to social mode to comply with the wishes of its superior for the same reasons stated above. Fear of the handler has nothing to do with it and could not be used to obtain the result at best what you would get would be a dog which will bite and then let go only if the handler was close enough to intervene. This again is not the dog acknowledging a higher authority rather the dog giving way to superior force (avoidance). Prey mode is responsible for play in the domesticated dog for reasons explained above. All play regardless of which mode the participants were in initially is carried out in prey mode. In play within a social setting, the play bow and other actions elicit a prey response from the recipient. There is also some research currently underway which suggests that the production of hormones also have a part to play through the sense of smell. These actions trigger the emotive response so that the recipient is able to undertake the correct behavioral response. Failure to respond to such a trigger could engage the defense trigger and a fight would result. This mode is the primary mode within which we will reward our dogs for correct completion of exercises, as the dog cannot feel anxiety whilst in this mode. Prey mode is still also triggered by food. This is the last remnant of true prey mode left from the domestication process. For some individuals this part of prey is a lot stronger than the desire to chase. I'd still speculate however, given that our dogs are well fed, that the enjoyment from food used in training is still based on the excitement of the dog pleasing the pack leader and

as such still constitutes a modified play behavior. By switching our dogs to prey mode at the completion of an exercise we are clearly displaying to the dogs that we are happy with them. This lack of confusion is why dogs trained in this manner are a lot happier in their work and have improved handler bonds over the more institutionalized systems. It is also important to note is that whilst a dog can only operate in a single mode at a time, the influences on a dog in one mode can effect the threshold of another mode. This does not imply that one mode or another is consistently more important to the dog, rather that a dog controls the thresholds of each mode to suit the individual circumstances it is currently in. In obedience heeling exercises, we use the social mode to increase the threshold of triggering the prey response. This allows us to hold the dogs focus on the task at hand until we release it at the completion of the desired exercise. If a prey object such as a retrieval toy is used as the motivator for the dog to respond we use the social mode, that is our position with relation to the dog in the hierarchy to stop the dog from switching to prey mode until we release the dog by throwing the article for it. In such circumstances, the dog must raise the threshold to achieve the results desired by a superior before being able to switch over to prey mode and play with the prey object the way it desires. This is copying the method used by pack superiors in wolf packs to hold younger, lower ranked dogs from spoiling a planned stalk. This is as close to setting the thresholds as we can come, but it is still a judgment call from the dog, which actually sets the threshold. We show our disappointment if they get it wrong by withholding the reward and making the dog go through the exercise again. This way the dog soon learns to wait until it is allowed to switch, this is true control. We have all seen dogs that have low thresholds unable to complete the scenario given. The handler is unable to switch the dog to social mode where by he can control the dog. In such cases, the handler must look to ways in which he can maintain the dog in social mode when the prey object is in sight. This is achieved very gradually by withholding the reward from the dog until he has remained in social mode for gradually increasing periods of time. The dog learns to heighten its threshold or the reward will not be made available. This principal is identical to that of a wild dog attempting to elicit play with a superior of the pack, it must observe all the correct social forms so as not to infer a challenge to the superior and evoke a corrective response from him. This also highlights why punishment of a forceful nature is ineffective in dealing with many canine behavioral problems. The dog in social mode is under our effective control, or at least is in the correct mode for us to obtain effective control. If we generate fear in the dog, subject to the dog's threshold at that point, we risk a defense reaction. If the dog is in prey or social modes and it has a low threshold for defense any incidence of fear being felt by the dog can result in a defense, read aggressive, response. We as handlers have caused this situation; it is not necessarily the fault of the dog. We have been unable to effectively communicate our desires to the dog in a non-threatening manner. If trainers persistently facing this problem were to use the prey mode as a reward for concentration of the dog in the social mode, the withholding of such a reward is more than enough punishment and more importantly is effectively communicated to the dog.

In extreme circumstance, the ultimate punishment is to banish the dog from the packs security. No dog is truly comfortable when it is in complete isolation from its peers, be they human or dog. This measure conveys unambiguously to the dog that its behavior will not be tolerated and if it continues its presence is not wanted. The dog's innate need for security is how we should control our dog, using the social mode reinforced by the medium of prey play as a reward for correct behavior. This is easily understood by the dog and limits the chances of defense modal reactions. This approach directly mimics the approach used by our dog's wild ancestors and a result it is readily understood. It should also thus be apparent that any move towards correction can only be achieved successfully after the dog has switched to social mode. This is vitally important when the dog is in defense mode, as punishment applied to a dog, which remains in this mode, will most likely lead to greater aggression being shown. If the dog submits it has not necessarily moved back to social mode, it may simply choose to avoid the confrontation by acting submissive and yet remain firmly in defense mode. The dogs action immediately after will largely demonstrate which mode it is in and if the punishment has been understood and accepted. An example is that a wolf may submit to a bear to avoid a confrontation, this does not imply to the wolf that the bear is its superior, rather it is simply bigger and stronger. Handlers using force to obtain results from their dogs are simple creating the same scenario; the dog avoids a confrontation by acting submissive it has not acknowledged the handler's superiority. Dogs in prey/defense modes when corrected need to understand that it is an issue effecting their security within the pack, if they fail to understand this and feel fear they can also move to/remain in defense mode and aggression can result. If a dog is consistently failing to obey the commands of the handler, it is directly attributable to how the dog views the handler in relation to its social position. Force will not necessarily improve the handlers position but a demonstration of the power the handler has to control the dog, such as banishment, will. Remember that in a wild pack if the pack leader only had physical force or aggression as its means of controlling subordinates the whole pack would as a result of the fighting be unfit to hunt, end result death to the pack. Posturing and withholding of clearly understood rewards is how control is achieved. We as trainers need to mimic this not compete against it.

Summary
Modal theory allows dog trainers to use the emotional reactivity of the dog to effectively educate the dog in a manner that is clearly understood. The succinct way in which information is presented to the dog and the handlers ability to manipulate the dogs emotional reactivity to insure that the dog is in the best state of mind emotionally to receive and process this information increases the likelihood of the dog being effectively taught. This theory also insures that the rewards system required for operant conditioning to be effective is also clear and uncomplicated. This too in an operant conditioning framework increases the likelihood of desired behaviors becoming permanent.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/macdonald1.htm

Part One: Systems and Facets of the Modal Theory

Introduction The Modal theory is a theoretical framework, which seeks to explain the extent to which canine behavior, cognition and learning are influenced by emotional status. O'Farrell, 1992, made the point that the question of what actually goes on inside the canine mind has been largely neglected as a field of scientific research. This theory puts forward the concept that the emotional reactivity causes a prioritization of environmental events/information. Such a prioritization ensures the dog treats all information with regards to relevance according to its emotional status at the time. This adaptive mechanism of information processing is vital for the survival of the dog in its natural state and is a powerful tool to be used in training the domestic canine.

This theory does not consider the intelligence of canines either specifically or in general. Scott and Fuller, 1965, concluded with regards to canine intelligence that there was no one kind of ability which could be called intelligence in dogs, as each task required specific abilities. This does not imply that dogs are not intelligent, rather it points out the difficulties of assessing such a commodity without using a human and thus unrealistic framework. This theory supports this conclusion and attempts to address the question of how stimuli is prioritized and acted upon. This emotionality must be viewed as a separate issue from intelligence of an individual or the species.

It is put forward by this theory that a dog has three main emotional modes (Social, Prey and Defense) which are of particular interest when educating a dog. It is possible that other modes do exist but their relevance to canine learning would be limited. There is considered to be a considerable

correlation between canine emotionality and human emotionality, Fox 1978, particularly in the area of excessive reactivity or other maladaptive expressions of emotion. Significant human research has been used to highlight this facet especially in situations where no know canine research covers the concerned area. Difference in expression between the two species is noted and should be considered, but this doesn't take away from the fact that there is considerable similarity when species developmental requirements are taken into consideration, between the causation of maladaptive behaviors in humans and dogs.

As stated it is put forward that the emotional status of a dog has an impact on its information receiving and processing ability. In this manner it filters or priorities information with regards to the current emotional mode prior to the commencement of cognitive function. It is not suggested that cognitive function is impaired rather this filtering process enhances it. Such a process ensures that information important to the relevant emotional mode is given high priority. This process should be acknowledged and incorporated into any canine learning system, as it will allow for a greater level of communication and understanding between the canine and human counterparts.

This section seeks to explain the components of the modal system. Modes, innate drives and the thresholds are the three main components of this emotional system. All three interact with each other to act as the aforementioned filter/prioritization system. Modes are subject to the innate potential of the individual (drives) as wells as the required degree of stimulation required to engage (threshold). Further influences on these components are stimulation during critical periods of development and relevance to the dog's lifestyle.

What is a Mode? A mode is an operational frame of mind the dog works in. This operational frame of mind will prioritize items/events in the dog's mind relevant to the

mode in which the dog is currently operating. This mode is also easily described as an emotional state of mind. Interesting to note is that the term emotional as it pertains to canine literature is frequently only viewed as a negative, or at best it is only the negative over reactivity which is examined in any detail. O'Farrell 1992 mentions emotionality only in terms of describing excessive reactivity. Fox 1978 notes that emotional centers in the brain of the dog develop during the socialization phase as depicted in Scott and Fuller 1965. This is of primary importance to this theory and canine husbandry in general, but still fails to further explore the means in which emotion impacts on canine lives. Scott and Fullers work again only largely considers emotionality on a high/low reactivity basis. Fogle 1990 also primarily discusses emotionality in terms of excessive reactivity.

Emotionality studies at least in the empirical sense are primarily going to be descriptive of the reactivity. It can be measured and examined, this is also true of this theory but the fact that a dog is clearly a sentient being must never be lost. It is possible and as yet unproven, that emotionality needs to be as important to canine husbandry as feeding, morphology or temperament. Fogle 1990 comments on the fact that dogs are sentient beings that are aware of their own personality. Such a view would be a good starting point for anyone considering owning a dog and as such a good starting point for the serious exploration of emotionality in dogs. This view would also be an excellent commencement point for objective consideration of husbandry or training practices. The doctors adage of first do no harm should certainly be applied to breeding and training practices of domestic canines. This theory seeks to utilize the practical experience of the author to provide support to the conclusions of this theory rather than supply empirical proof. As such the proof of the theory must be considered to be subjective and open to interpretation.

It cannot be emphasized enough that it is the responsibility of breeders to ensure that all pups are raised in environments which will assist pups to attain their maximum innate potential through sufficient environmental interactions. Emotionality is vital for all sentient beings. A life devoid of emotions would be dull. Gabbard 1990 in his work treating personality

disorders in humans made mention of this specific area in his description of a Narcissistic personality disorder sufferer. Gabbard described NPS sufferers as having an inability to feel (empathy), a state of numbness, an inability to comprehend what life has to offer on an emotional level. This maladaptivity also, not coincidentally, occurs as a result of developmental disturbances during crucial periods. It would be fair to compare the works of Gaddard to Fox 1971,1978 and Scott and Fuller 1965 and their work on canine developmental periods. When such a comparison is undertaken there is as yet unresearched, significant correlation between the causes of emotional disturbances in Humans and those seen in dogs. This is not to say that both species share the same psychological disorders, in some cases they do, rather it is to further point out the need to ensure that pups, as much as human children, need to be raised in an enriching environment. This area of the theory will be further expanded on later in this paper.

A mode does not lessen the cognitive abilities of the dog; rather it prioritizes the information so as to assist the cognitive functioning of the dog. Modes as pertains to this theory, are often termed as drives in dog training literature but this implies an instinctive/automatic reactionary process which fails to fully encompass the workings of the dogs mind whilst in this state. Freedman, King and Elliot 1961, Scott and Fuller 1965, Woolby 1968, Mech 1970, Fox 1971,1978, Fogle 1990, O'Farrell 1992. Dehasse 1997, Appleby 1997 and others, have consistently proven beyond doubt that most of the behaviours thought of as instinctive 50 years ago have at least a degree of learning involved in their acquisition. Such terminology (the use of the term drive to explain an action which involves cognition and or learning) also makes it very difficult to quantify between innate potential and emotional responsiveness. Vandergeten (personal Correspondence) argues that true instincts are very rare and can be best described as chains of behaviors that we do not as yet fully understand. The research mentioned above would at least in principal support this statement. All of this still fails to define the emotional reactivity of the dog.

There are three major modes the dog works in; defense, prey and social. The primary reason for all three modes of behavior is to ensure information is

best utilized by the dog to continue the survival of the individual. A mode is not a feeling or an emotion itself; rather it is the frame of mind whereby the innate potential of the dog impacts on the dog's cognitive process. This is accomplished by filtering/prioritizing information gained by the senses from the dog's environment. The specific purpose of this system is to ensure that information, which is important to the dog at that specific time, is given the greatest priority. In the wild a simple example is the attraction of the dog to rapid movements of other species. If a dog is actively hunting, such movement will be given high priority. It is vital information for a dog hunting for food; it shows that game is about and in some cases obtainable. Yet for a dog, which has eaten its fill, such movement is of little importance and would tend not to elicit an active response from the dog.

In domestic canines such a system still exists and in some cases has been exaggerated by selectively breeding for dogs, which have high innate potential and low threshold responsiveness. A practical example can again be made of the rapid movement example used above. A dog which is exploring its environment will be more reactive to such movements than a dog which is secure in it own territory in the presence of a social superior, its owner. The dogs own social needs have given such movement a far lower priority, it is more important to the dog at that particular moment to remain with its leader than it is to chase a rabbit.

This is due to many exploratory behaviors being carried out in prey mode, the same mode which is involved in hunting activities. In such a mode the dog is actively looking for evidence of prey which it can successfully hunt and consume, as such this environmental information is given the highest priority. This mode can be recognized by such an environmental interaction. If the dog was engaged in defense mode for example, it would be looking for transgressors within the boundaries of its territory as such the evidence of a prey species is of little importance. If the dog was exploring in social mode it would be looking for members either specific ones or as a whole, of its own pack. Again the presence of prey species is of little concern. When the dog is interacting with a social superior, in the case of the example given, its owner,

the priority is obedience or submission to that social superior to ensure its place within the social structure.

Such reactionary differences to the same stimuli are put forward as proof of the dogs modal operation. It is true also that a dog, which is in a mode, can and will given the right circumstances switch its mode to suit a stimulus. Continuing the above example, if the dog was looking for transgressors of its territory but was hungry or bored it may well react to the rapid movement of a prey species by switching to prey mode in which it would commence to hunt. The hunting behavior would not be carried out in defense mode as such if whilst engaging in a chase for the prey species it would give a lesser priority to the scent of a transgressor or even a social superior or counterpart. This scenario is frequently seen in domestic dogs, a submissive dog may well ignore the presence/command of its owner when engaged in the chase of a prey species. This is not an expression of dominance from the dog nor is it an ability to fail to hear or comprehend any command, which has been given. Rather it is the relative priority given to environmental stimulus subject to the dog's modal state. Most dog owners would have experienced this example personally.

The ability to interpret which mode the dog is in therefore must be considered to have a significant impact on the owner's ability to educate a dog. If the owner were attempting to teach a dog to track for example it would be impossible if the dog was in defense mode. The scent the owner desired the dog to follow would only be considered important to the dog if the dog perceived such a presence to be in violation of its home territory. In which case the dog would be more likely to air scent rather than follow the ground scent, which is desired of a tracking dog. If such a scent was of the owner itself, which is common in initially teaching this exercise, the dog would give such a scent a low degree of importance with regards to other scents being detected within the environment as it has no bearing on the defense of the territory. The scent of another unfamiliar dog however would be far more attractive and would be followed.

If the dog in the above example was in social mode the handler would have to be absent for the scent to have any relevance and be given priority. Again tracking would largely be replaced by air scenting. Considering this is the most common method used to teach search and rescue dog's air scenting behaviors it should be accepted that such an approach would not be ideal when teaching a dog to track.

It is by observing the behaviors of the dog to environmental stimuli, including its owner, which gives the owner the ability to correctly interpret which mode the dog is currently operating in. The following are examples of interpreting the dog's modal status through its actions:

Stimuli Ground scent Tracking

Ground scent Tracking Ground scent Tracking

Obedience Heeling Obedience Heeling Obedience Heeling

Behavior Refusal to follow; Watching owner; Showing signs of anxiety Following scent rapidly; excited; casting out wide; exploring Some sniffing; a lot of looking around; Frequent stopping and air scenting Overexcited; playful; jumping up; nipping at Handlers hands Calm, attentive, focused Ignoring; compliant, but under duress; frequent mistakes during known exercises

Mode Social

Dogs Perception Confused, has not understood what is being asked of it Hunting

Prey

Defense

Patrolling territory

Prey

Social

Defense

Eliciting a game, or thinking the social superior wants to play Acting and reacting to the desires of a social Superior Avoidance; fearful of superiors reaction; not wanting to invite a demonstration of dominance by owner

Bitework; Face attack

Bitework; Face attack

Bitework; Face attack

Rapid chase; low intensity or no bite. Loss of interest when decoy stops moving Attacks only when decoy is near the handler; does not react to threat at a distance; reacts rapidly to calloff by handler Strong bite; very aggressive; clear reaction to threat; not listening to handler

Prey

Social

Its a game, once the chase is over its no fun. Does not really comprehend threat. Only perceives the threat when the pack is threatened. Unsure of its actions, looking for superiors reaction Understanding the threat and reacting to it. Its personal.

Defense

By looking at the above list it becomes very easy to see where major communicative problems arise between dog and owner. If the owner fails to observe or understand the modal process then it is frequently seen that punishment for the dogs alleged misbehavior results. Unfortunately it is also common place for such punishment to be of a forcible nature. The reality is the dog is in the wrong mode to give the owners commands a sufficiently high enough priority for them to be acted upon.

It is important to consider at this time, although greater detail is given in the description of thresholds, it is the emotions of the dog which directly enacts the filtering/prioritization process. Each particular mode has a primary emotion, which causes a triggering of the threshold; this is how the dog can switch from one mode to another. This emotion is the primary filtering element of the prioritization. The three primary emotions are preyhunger, Social-security and Defense-fear. All information is the dog receives via its senses is prioritized according to the emotion the entire scenario creates within the dog. If the dog feels fear, be it for itself or that it won't eat or it may lose social status it will engage, subject to the degree of

intensity of the emotion and its threshold for that mode, the defense mode. From then on until one of the other primary emotions causes a change in the modal position of the dog the dog will process all information with an assigned priority according to how relevant it is to the fearful state. The innate potential of the drive is inacted and subject to how developed this drive is the dog will embark on a course of action.

Practical example of this process is a dog feeling fear of another dog. This fear may be of physical harm; it may be for invasion of territory or for many other reasons. The dog now through the prioritization caused by the fear assigns a greater degree of importance to information about the threat. The size of the dog, if it is alone or with company and other related subject have the priority, children playing nearby would have little relevance and as a result would hardly be acknowledged. The innate drive will now begin to use the information which has been filtered to assess what the best course of action is, if the dog is big and confident it may fight, if it is small it may flee or act submissive to avoid a fight. If the dog is maladaptive and has learned through previous experiences it may simply attack as soon as the fear is felt. This would be the classic case of a fear biter, but it is a learned maladaptive response, the modal system still has gone through its setup but the previous learning causes maladaptivity in the cognitive process. This dog thinks its only course of action likely to make the fear go away is to attack.

What is a drive? Frequently mentioned in this article is the term drive, this refers to the innate reactivity potential of the dog in each of the three operational modes to specific stimuli. This does not imply that the threshold or triggering response is innate, it is a learned response but frequently high or extreme drive dogs do have a low threshold. Their desire to operate in this mode is enhanced through pleasurable experience. This innate potential can

be impacted upon in critical periods of the pup's development Freeman, King and Elliot 1961, Scott and Fuller 1965, Fox1971&1978, O'Farrell 1992, Dehasse 1997 and Appleby 1997. This impact can be positive or negative. A breeder who encourages retrieval in their pups when young (early as 4 weeks based on personal experience) will tend to produce high drive dogs. Provided that a balance in reached in this building so as not to bore the dog where by the impact will be negative and the dog's innate drive will be lowered. A breeder who does not encourage such activities in the dog will tend to produce dogs of lower drive as the innate potential is eventually diminished or lost altogether, Scott and Fuller 1965.

This impact on the innate potential of the dog is again basically a survivalorientated mechanism. If the dog has inborn potential but this is not encouraged by its environment it will tend to be lost or impeded as the drive is not required, or at least not in its upper levels for the dogs survival, Scott and Fuller 1965. This is the natural adaptively of the dog coming into play. Interesting to note is that Fogle 1990 comments on early Swedish research pointing to the fact that high prey drives or at least a high retrieval drive was indicative of a highly trainable dog. This is supported by this theory as well except it is not the fact that a dog has a high drive which makes it a trainable dog per say, rather it is the ease in which the dog can be rewarded without confusion is seen as the contributing factor. Either way highly driven dogs are certainly more easily trained than less driven counterparts, provided the handler skills are sufficient to maintain control by switching the dog to the most appropriate mode.

It has to be noted that within each mode there are a series of drives. There is not a single prey drive or social drive or even defense drive. This is one of the reasons why the author has difficulty with the terminology of a lot of the dog training literature. Each mode has a number of drives, which are directly related to that particular mode. In prey mode for example, the dog's innate potential to chase, scent, gain possession, etc can and should be all considered being drives. If a dog is considered to have a high prey drive this should be interpreted that the dog's innate potential, its desire to operate in this mode, is high. That is to say that all the innate drives which are in

acted in prey mode should be considered to be high. It is also seen that within a mode particular drives are higher than others are, a dog may enjoy chasing an object but has a low potential to possess it. This particular situation demonstrates a dog, which has an unbalanced modal position. Such a situation is largely the result of environmental factors; the dog has been encouraged to chase but not to possess. This can be intentional as many breeders of the working breeds are fearful of increasing the innate potential for dominance in their dog, O'Farrell 1992, or it can be unintentional, the dog was exposed to stimuli which encouraged the chase but never got the opportunity to actually capture and possess. This refining of the innate potential of the dog is what is meant by building up the dogs drives. Training refines the dog's reaction, its ability to engage the drives effectively; the dog used its cognitive powers to refine the process based on previous learning.

Examples of drives contained within the modes are: (incomplete list)

SOCIAL Attachment Dominance Independence

PREY Chase Possession Scenting

DEFENSE Combativeness Aggression Protectiveness

In the case given above of a dog having a strong desire to chase but little or no desire to possess the dog which has been taught not to possess expresses its refinement by suppressing the innate potential. The dog which has no experience in possession has no comprehension of what it is to do, no previous experience to assist it in the cognitive process, it becomes confused and does not possess, the refinement is to again suppress the innate potential. In practical terms such states of confusion often result in a dog which displays the anxious state by engaging in high interaction activities such as jumping up on the handler. This is a displacement activity as the dog's motivation to please is high but it has no outlet for excitement it feels. Experienced

trainers see such displays as a sign of over motivation and under concentration. Motivation needs to be lowered and concentration on the desired task increased.

As stated high drives can be very desirable in a training sense. Indicators of high drives are as follows: prey mode: retrieval, chasing, possessiveness, etc. Social mode: strong bonding, separation anxiety, etc. Defense mode: aggression, high reactivity to threatening stimuli, protectiveness, etc. It should also be noted that whilst most working competitions now are consistently won by dogs which have drives which can be described as extreme and such drives are highly desirable in top level sport and working dogs, such dogs would not make good family pets. There is a fine line between extreme drives and neurotic behaviors and as such an extremely driven dog which does not have outlets for its innate drives can easily become neurotic. Extremely driven dogs have almost a pathological need to work in that mode; i.e. a fanatical retriever that will physically attack a wall to get a toy is an example. This dog would not make a good pet and most breeders would consider it has poor temperament. This is not the case, the dog has an extreme drive and needs to work in this particular mode, training can modify it but such a dog is exactly what the Customs service considers to be a good candidate. A detection dog must operate at this extreme level or it will be less effective. This dog is quite stable when given an outlet for its innate needs; in fact it is a willing worker, which is capable of cognitive processes while working far beyond those of less driven dogs. Neurotic behaviors will occur as its innate potential is ignored and other environmental factors attempt to over modify the animals behavior causing the dog to internalize its need for outlet in the particular mode.

In the case of mature dogs drives which have appeared to be non-existent can be built on but at no time will the mature dog ever regain the maximum potential it had as a pup if it is not encouraged through its critical periods. We can teach a dog to fetch but we cannot make an extremely driven dog from him if he wasn't born that way and had a stimulating environment, Scott and Fuller 1965. This is again achieved through a refinement of the dog's own application of the drives. The mature dog is shown engaging its

innate potential is desired, thus it learns to apply this experience to utilize the suppressed drives in a productive manner. Again this refinement is achieved through the cognitive process. Research has proven beyond any doubt that these innate drives are impacted on during the developmental periods and it is this enhancement which is lost forever when working with a mature dog. By the time the dog has matured development is complete and apart from building on the cognitive processes we have lost the ability to enhance the potential it was born with.

The handlers ability also plays a considerable role, if the handler is able to provide support for the less driven dog prior to the dog losing motivation the dog can be carried along to perform at levels which are actually higher than its innate potential. Such environmental factors make it very difficult to describe drives with any degree of accuracy and makes assessment that much more difficult. To the experienced person the difference is quite easily established by watching the interaction of the dog and the handler. This building up of the dog and obtaining performance above its innate potential can be viewed as one of the reasons why many dogs which have performed well in trials with an excellent handler have not produced offspring capable of competing at the same level. The innate potential is simply not there; it was handler skill, which facilitated the dog's performance. This of course does not breed on.

Drives should not ever be seen as a negative part of a dog but should definitely be considered when choosing a dog. Most people are unable to successfully handle an extremely driven dog without significant professional assistance. This would be the major reason why world class working kennels are very particular where their pups are being homed. In the wrong hands their world class dog becomes a public nuisance. In this example the fault lies not with the dog but with the handlers failure to: a/ be able to handle the dog, b/ choose a dog which suits his or her own needs and abilities. A versatile dog will not necessarily be extremely driven; in fact extreme drive if not backed by excellent handling skills and a balanced training program will frequently work against the dog. A highly driven but balanced dog should be

the aim of all kennels apart from those, which specifically specialize in producing dogs, designed to work in specialized areas.

As stated drives within each mode need to be balance to obtain good performances. It is also true that the degree of balance will be relative to the desired activity. With a tracking dog we want a prey mode which is well developed, the dog is motivated to follow the scent and has excellent scenting abilities which have been refined through training. We don't however want a dog, which will try to possess any article left on the track; we require the dog to signal the find but not to possess. This scenario clearly demonstrates the dog's ability to refine its engagement of drives within a mode to suit the situation. The dog is in prey mode and remains in prey mode throughout the entire track but it has learned that articles left behind are not to be possessed so its desire to possess is temporarily suppressed to facilitate the performance. The tracking dog has also learnt to focus on a particular scent; all other scents are discounted as unimportant, environmental influences other than scent which normally would be acted upon when in prey mode are also suppressed such as a fleeing rabbit. This clearly shows the dogs ability to use its cognitive process to manipulate its own innate potential to achieve a desired result.

This situation however should not be seen as one in which the creating of unbalanced dogs is desirable. A specialist dog which is required to perform only a single function will frequently show imbalance in its innate drives, a specialist tracking dog who's only function is to track will be unbalanced. A dog which not only competes in tracking at the highest level but also is involved in other activities is not unbalanced rather it has used its cognitive process to suppress the in acting of certain drives to achieve a result. Police dogs would be an example of this, they are required to track but also be obedient retrieve if commanded to and engage in bitework. All of which will have at least a degree of utilization of the prey mode.

A person seeking to have a versatile dog must then consider that the dog will be best served by its innate potential if these drives are brought into balance. As stated such work needs to be carried out in the development period of the dog. This subject is covered in greater detain in section three. Fox 1978, also covers the subject that certain stimulus can impact on more than one drive and under this theory more than one mode. This is believed to provide further proof of the dog's ability to cognitively suppress innate drives to achieve a desired result. It also add further weight to the concept that dog training needs to be clearly communicated and that failure of an exercise is frequently resultant on the handlers ability to remain unambiguous, whereby the dog is in no doubt about what is actually required of it.

Drives are not some mystic undetectable force which only good dogs have. Each and every dog is born with a set of drives, which by virtue of their genetics will have certain values for each drive. This situation is then further complicated as the dog's environment through the developmental period's impact on the refinement and even the practicality of the innate potential of the individual concerned. The dog uses this period and events in its adult life to further refine the reactivity of this innate potential. Very good performing dogs are the ones which have been born with well developed drives, have had the drives enhanced and brought into balance through a stimulating environment and have learned through experience to make the best possible use of this innate potential through refinement of their inaction using the cognitive process. This is how a dog should be evaluated with respect to its drives as opposed to the frequently stated position where by the dog is controlled by its drives. Such a position fails to acknowledge the dog's adaptability and the power of its cognitive process. If this situation was true, which is not a position supported by any research to date, breeding versatile dogs would be reasonably simple as you would look for lines which possessed and produced high drives. History has shown in addition to the research works noted that this is simply not the case.

What is a Modal Threshold?

A modal threshold is the level of stimulation required by the dog to switch into the most appropriate mode, emotive state, so as to best react to the current situation and to trigger the appropriate innate drives. These thresholds or triggers are always self regulated. As trainers we cannot externally force a dog to adopt a particular threshold to suit our needs. Fox 1978, suggests that the degree with which thresholds are impacted upon, i.e. raised or lowered is due to motivation. This would be supported by this theory, but it would be suggested that such motivation is an emotional response, which is directly effecting the in acting of the innate drives of the dog. To illustrate this it would be said that the higher the innate potential of the individual the higher the motivational response to stimuli effecting such a drive would be. The conditioning of the dog to raise its own level of threshold is achieved by encouraging the dog to remain in the mode we require and rewarding the dog when it has by allowing it to switch to prey mode and engage in prey play. Prey play is used most frequently, as it is an easily recognizable form of positive reinforcement, which facilitates the handler's pleasure in the dog's actions in a manner that the dog readily recognizes. In short through conditioning by with holding of the appropriate reward, we can teach the dog to regulate its own threshold to suit our needs.

Various training exercises require various thresholds; Obedience requires the dog to have a higher threshold for prey as even though it is through this area we will eventually rewards the dog. The dog will only be rewarded by raising his threshold to prey and remaining in social so as to facilitate our control. This brings up the issue of when training with the more experienced dog we are actually rewarding the dog for the prolonged period of concentration rather than a particular exercise. This is important to note as it is commonly referred to as the dog being able to focus. When people discuss that food rewards should not be used in training it is this same scenario they are actually discussing. Constant rewarding of the exercise no matter what the reward is not desirable. It is however probably more noticeable in the training with food.

The dog is used to attaining a food reward and as per operant conditioning if the reward is constantly applied each and every time the exercise is

attempted the learning is impaired. Constantly rewarding to initially teach an exercise and then rewarding intermittently there after facilitates the greatest learning. It is this process that is referred to by rewarding the concentration not the act. The dog must remain focused on the handler or the task at hand until such time as the handler directs otherwise. This is achieved by raising the thresholds of the undesired modes to the point where by very specific stimulation is required to engage the threshold of another mode.

In nosework we require a low prey threshold (we want the dog to switch to prey mode rapidly) but in obedience we require a far higher threshold to maintain control during heeling (we want the dog to resist the switch to prey until it has completed exactly what it is we want). In bite work we require different thresholds for different exercises, guarding an object requires a far higher threshold (resist the trigger) of defense than a face attack does (rapidly trigger). All of this is attained through the use of prey play as the basic reward for the dog. It should also be noted that some dogs have very low prey drives and as such prey play is not a truly desired behavior for that individual. The experiences with this system has proven that play activity is still a suitable reward which although slower to impact on the dogs training does indeed still retain the same beneficial effects.

Thresholds are activated or triggered at the emotional level of the dog. Each of the three modes has a particular emotive state that will immediately switch the dog over to the most appropriate mode for the current situation. These emotional states and their triggering emotions are: defense - fear, social - security, prey - excitement. Of particular importance when assessing the integrity of this information is to understand that with regards to prey, during the domestication process we have altered the dog significantly from its wild ancestors by encouraging and selectively breeding for individuals which retain many infantile behaviors through out their life span, Fogle 1990. This has significantly impacted upon the dog in the prey mode, as such instead of the true emotive response of hunger a state of excitement/playfulness is now the trigger. This statement would support the

observations of social type play still having a beneficial effect on dogs with low prey drives.

This alteration through domestication is understandable when a person realizes that it is largely through the medium of play that a wild dog learns its hunting, social and defense skills such behaviors are not as once thought, totally instinctive, Fox 1978. It would then stand to reason that if we have retained the infantile state to a large degree that the dog which has no real needs to hunt its own food would retain the infantile trigger for such play behavior through out its life. It is also fair to say that dogs with extreme drives in the prey area will tend also to be triggered by the more traditional hunting triggers. This can lead to owners having greater degrees of difficulty in controlling such extreme drive dogs and is why such dogs should not really be considered good candidate for family pets.

Control can be difficult for some owners to attain primarily through the inability to engage the social threshold. This may be due to a number of different factors including the owners dominance, the heightened state the dog is in, the strength of the dogs innate drives, etc. The control can and will only be attained if the dog can be switched back into social mode. Many dominant people who have high drive dogs fail to gain control because the dog is unbalanced in its drives and has particularly low thresholds for its strongest innate potential. Hunting dogs would be good examples; their prey mode is particularly strong due to the high degree of the innate potential this mode covers. They operate in this mode frequently and really enjoy their work. In this mode the desires of the superior are not given the highest priority as a result actively following game either by scent or sight is far more relevant to the dog. To this end once on the trail of a game species these dogs are very hard to control if at large.

If the dog is to be worked in heightened states frequently, such as a Police or security dog, they must be taught to refine the thresholds of their modes early in life. This is again achieved using the play process. This is also an area

of considerable debate, which to the author is not warranted. O'Farrell 1992, is very specific about not engaging the dog in high stimulus prey and never encouraging aggression in the form of possession. This can be considered to be playing it safe and as a result people who have purchased either intentionally or not high drive dogs will begin to have problems. If the dog has high drives and if the dog is going to be worked frequently in a heightened state of arousal, the refinement of the social trigger must take place when young and in a stress free manner. This is facilitated by play.

This use of play to refine the switch back to social to gain control when a dog is young also negates the need for stronger corrections on dogs when older and engaged in bite work. Too frequently trainers can advocate a building of the defense drives of the young dog and all the time stressing that control exercises will limit the dogs potential if taught too young, this has no basis in fact to support it. In fact it should be considered that rather than acknowledging the social superiority of the handler dogs trained in this manner are really only expressing avoidance and as such can remain in defense mode which results in a potentially dangerous situation. If the dog while young is engaged in tug of war games with its owner we have the ability to switch the dog back into social quite quickly as long as we are remaining in control of the game. This is the key to success as we are able to clearly demonstrate that if the dog is not willing to play by our rules this really fun game will stop. One of the keys to this is to not allow the dog to play with the training toy at anytime the handler is not present and actually actively involved in the game.

If the dog is given free access to the toy it can invent its own games and thus begin to exclude the handler from its play/learning. This does not mean that the dogs cannot have toys left with them but the handler should not engage the dog in play with these toys. A single highly desirable play toy is used for the handler dog play times, it is special to the dog and the very sight of it means that the handler wants to play with the dog. If we bring this back to human terms it is like a child knowing what the box of chocolates in Dads hand is or the wrapped p [resent on a birthday. It becomes such a source of enjoyment to the dog that it is very difficult to understand why the common

approach is to avoid this positive interaction because it is feared it will be miss handled by some owners. The better answer has to be better education of the dog's owner in the way that such games need to be played.

Summary of Part One A mode is an emotional state of mind, which prioritizes environmental information received through the senses. This prioritization is to ensure that only information which is relative to the subjects current emotional state is given greatest importance and hence the innate drives associated with the emotional state are given the ability to rapidly react to such information. The dog can switch from one mode to another, this is achieve through the in acting of thresholds which are described as the level of external stimulation required to engage a particular mode and the innate potential within that mode of the individual concerned. The threshold stimulation required to engage a mode is self-governed by the dog and can vary subject to the dogs innate drive potential as well as the dogs motivation.

It is through this threshold manipulation that we as trainers achieve the prolonged concentration and rapid response to control we desire. We cannot preset a dogs threshold, it must be taught using positive reinforcement to self regulate the various thresholds to achieve the balance we desire for the various exercises it will be taught.

A dog's innate potential can and is effected by its early environmental interactions particularly through the critical periods of 3-14 weeks. Every effort must be made by breeders to provide a stimulating environment for the pups so as to fully develop their innate potential. Drives not sufficiently utilized will become impaired if this environmental work is not carried out. Whilst genetics plays a significant role in the potential of any dog, it is now recognized that without sufficient stimulation from the environment breeders are wasting their time trying to improve the versatility of their dogs.

One of the major reasons the owner of a dog is unable to maintain control over the dog when at large is due to not being able to recognize which mode the dog is operating in and the inability to switch that dog to the social mode. The dogs behaviors and reactions whilst training give the handler evidence as to which mode they are currently in. Dog actions and behaviors also give the handler indications of the level of a particular threshold. It is through interpretation of these behaviors and the implementation of succinct training practices that a handler will achieve a greater level of communication with the dog and thus facilitate a better environment in which learning can be accomplished.

The modes, drives and thresholds all work together as a survival mechanism for the dog. It is a very natural process, which has great similarity to the human emotional responses. As such it also has the ability to express itself in dysfunctional and maladaptive ways. There is significant evidence that dogs are disposed to many of the human emotional disorders. For this reason all handlers should seek to obtain a balance in the innate drives of their dogs and to refine the threshold s of the various modes to ensure that the correct level of stimulation will engage the mode best suited to whatever task is asked of the dog. It is theorized that this inability to interpret the dog's emotive state is a significant reason why many people have difficulty handling dogs when attempting to achieve the higher levels of training and is a significant cause of emotional disturbances in domestic dogs.

Part Two: Operational Descriptions of the Modes

Introduction This section deals with what each of the modes actually are and what their triggers are. To implement this theory it is vital that this section be clearly understood. As modes act to prioritize information, knowledge about each mode and the ability to determine what mode the dog is in at any particular time is necessary for effective communication. Each of the three modes has particular relevance to the canine education process. Prey mode is the primary rewarding and stress reducing; Social is the mode in which control over the dog is attained and Defense is the mode from which all non-psychotic aggression is enacted. Once the basic knowledge of what information is given greater importance in each mode is understood, practical application of the theory is easily mastered. In should go without saying that the information which we want the dog to learn must be presented in the best possible manner. Unfortunately many of the old dog training methods simple consist of telling the dog what it is to do and then forcing it to adopt the behavior we want. This type of training does not consider the cognitive abilities of the dog or the receptivity of the dog to the information we are imparting.

Advances in the human educating process should be seen as proof that we need to get the student motivated and enjoyably involved in the education process. None of us like to learn something we consider boring or irrelevant, a dog is no different. As with Human children the basis of the dog's education process starts during the developmental period. With dogs of course such a period is of a far shorter duration than its human counterpart, which is one reason why such a vital part of the dogs like is frequently overlooked until it has passed. All handlers must seek to involve their dogs in the training process; it is simply not enough to expect the dog to be a passive participant. If the dog is able to be trained using methods whereby the dog is relegated to the role of a passive observer which, many are, it should be asked just how

much better the dog could have been if the dog was encouraged to be involved in a more active manner. This very simple process is frequently used to justify methods, which have over time been demonstrated to be less effective. The aim of training should be to get the best possible performance from the dog not simple to reach criteria where by the dog could pass a certain test.

As discussed in the previous section the refinement of the modes, drives and the thresholds form the basic framework for the effective communication between the dog and the handler. To fully implement the refinement process we must understand what each of the modes considers the most relevant and what stimulus will allow the handler to effectively manipulate the emotional status of the dog to insure it is in the best state to learn the particular exercises we desire it to. This section will cover each of the three main modes in detail, giving a number of practical examples to achieve this aim. Such information, like the previous section should be applied during the developmental stage to firmly entrench the stimulus we as handlers can instigate to facilitate the activation of the mode we require. As stated this section together with the previous one, must be thoroughly understood by any handler attempting to instigate this system on education.

Prey mode In prey mode the dog will give a greater priority to events which are relevant to that mode such as rapid sideways movement, the desire to chase etc. It should be again noted that a mode does not effect the cognitive abilities of the dog, rather it prioritizes what is happening in the dog's environment with relation to the mode it is in. A dog in prey mode will still use its cognitive abilities to think its way through problematic situations to best achieve the result it desires. For example the raising and lowering of the threshold or trigger for a desired behavior. A dog will voluntarily control the desire to chase a prey object until it in itself is reasonably sure that the

chances of this chase being successful are relatively high. Failure to do so would impact on the viability of survival for the individual.

This internal control is a learned feature based on the particular experiences of the individual in question. The classic example of this mode in the wild state is the rapid escape of a rabbit as it bursts for cover will trigger a response in the dog to chase. In a training sense the throwing of the object is what we use to lead a dog into retrieval exercises, be they for formal training or play. This rapid movement is triggering the dog's emotional response in exactly the same way as the fleeing rabbit.

Fox 1978, noted that true prey behaviors in the domestic canine, such as prey catching, killing and ingestion also had a significant learned component and that frequently, when compared to hybrid dogs and other canids, domestic canines showed a tendency to engage in play activities with prey species. Fogle 1990, in a number of different contexts frequently mentions this retention of infantile behaviors. It is put forward by both Fox and Fogle that such infantile behaviors could be regarded as having been specifically bred for during the domestication process. Should this lead to a renaming of the prey drive to the play drive? No, whilst many areas covering all three modes can be impacted on in the prey mode it still does retain the primary function of being the mode in which hunting is carried out. It is also fair to say that the dogs who have high to extreme prey drives are also usually very effective in the more natural hunting activities.

Scott and Fuller 1965, frequently made mention of the importance of play in the psychological development of the dog. Subsequent research by many others has confirmed this most important part of the pup's development. There is however a lot of misunderstanding as to what is appropriate play for the domestic canine to be involved in with its human owner. O'Farrell 1992, suggests that tug of war playing is best avoided especially if it is with an innately dominant dog. This is not supported by this theory as if the play is controlled by the human it is in effect causing the dog to switch from

prey to social mode which is highly beneficial for treating dominance disorders in dogs. Rogerson 1998 adopts a stance, which is more consistent with this theory as the use of social position is utilized to obtain control of the dog in a heightened state of arousal. Fox 1978, suggests that through play the dog learns its physical and mental limitations and those of whom it engages in play with.

This is fundamental to the practical applications of this theory. By engaging in play we can consistently and positively reinforce human dominance over the dog in a non-stressful and non-forceful manner. O'Farrell's position however is understandable if we consider than the majority of dog handlers have difficulty remaining consistent in the rules they apply to their dogs. It is easy to see by taking the information from Fox and re-examining O'Farrell's position that, if an owner is not consistent, an innately dominant dog would be able to derive information about the human which could be used in a future dominance challenge. The fault however is not with the type of play rather the consistency of which the rules of the game are applied. But this does not detract from the fact that the use of play and the subsequent refinement of the modal switching performance are still the best way to constantly reinforce the handler's dominance over the dog.

Especially in light of a dominant dog it should be stressed that correction for undesirable play behaviors should be a recommitment from the human play partner that they control the game. The only alternative to using prey/play as a medium which dominance can be easily and consistently applied is to use force to dominate the dog. This is more fully covered in another area of this section of the theory but it is by no means as effective as the prey to social modal switch. O'Farrell does not in her work actually cover a practical alternative; rather it is suggested that ignoring the dog should be the method of choice for correcting undesirable behaviors. This is simply not practical in the majority of situations encountered during the training of the dog. In fact it could be suggested that such an approach whilst having some limited applications could be detrimental to the longevity of the social bond if overused and could foster a more independent attitude in the dominant dog. The most effective form is to end the game and leave the dog alone to

consider what has happened. This does use the ignoring treatment suggested by O'Farrell, but it is not so much that the handler is ignoring the dog which in practice has the beneficial effect rather it is the handlers ability to end the game and stop it from recommencing which is the true demonstration of dominance. If this is consistently applied it will curb the desired behavior and elevate the social stance of the human concerned. This is achieved without placing any pressure on the dog; it is its choice: either play by the rules of the game or its social superior will not engage in play activities with it. The difference is between this stance and that suggested by O'Farrell may be subtle but they are never the less still apparent. In O'Farrell's position, it requires the dog to adopts a passive wait and see position where by the owner when they feel like it will invite the dog to play. In the position of this theory the dog can choose not to break the games rules, rules which are laid out by the dominant superior, the dog uses it own cognitive abilities to decide to obey and acknowledge the social superiority of the handler.

This is not to say that the dog is operating in two modes simultaneously. It is not, play is carried out in prey mode and the dog is switched from prey mode to social to be corrected. When an owner enforces rules from a position of dominance the dog's threshold for social drive is activated. Play ends and control begins. This again refers to the refinement of the dogs switching abilities as described in the previous section. As stated a dog can switch back and forward between modes very rapidly and does so in the natural course of events. Finally on this point Fox 1978 stated that it is through play behaviors that social behaviors are learned at least in part in the domestic and wild canids. Such research provides a very strong argument that it is through the controlling and stylization of the games we play with our developing dogs that the basis of our very control over these same dogs is achieved. This clearly mimics the natural behaviors of other wild pack type canids and as such is an easily applied and more importantly readily understood means of achieving social dominance without resorting to force.

Of greater concern in play behavior leading to behavioural problems is the loss of control by the owner in other areas, which do not involve a direct challenge. Actions such as keeping's off, where by the dog runs away with the

toy and won't bring it back to the handler have far greater significance to the dog exploring the weaknesses of its human playmate. If a dog is engaging in such behavior it needs to be brought back into social mode which by the very rules of this game will be difficult if the dog is at liberty. But the punishment should be the same and that is if the dog won't play by the superiors rules then play stops, but only after the toy has been taken from the dog. A dog which is the instigator of the play is also of greater concern pertaining to dominant behaviors. O'Farrell 1992, recognizes this point in her work. If such a situation is paired with a de-motivation to play when the human partner elicits such the dominance structure is already demonstrating a bias towards the dog. This is clearly demonstrating an imbalance in the way the dog has been handled and serious social work with a prey reward for successful working performance is an excellent readily understandable and relevant solution, providing that such types of games have the dog still remain clear within the boundaries set down by the handler.

When in prey mode the dog will give relevance to environmental stimulus based on what information is stimulating for this modes innate drives and the degree of development of these said drives. Stimulus for prey will always involve activity, be it strong or attractive odors which lead to investigation and area searching, rapid sideways movement, a play bow which elicits a game with a peer or social superior. All the triggers of this mode refer to activity and usually high level and exciting activity. This can be a difficult situation for a handler to remain in control within, again giving further evidence to the need to strongly establish a low social threshold when engaged in prey mode behaviors.

Frequently handlers will mention that when their dog sees a cat or a rabbit that it will not listen. This scenario is equally seen in dogs, which have a high level of obedience training. It is not a disobedient reaction from the dog, nor is it a failure of the dog to recognize the wishes of its social superior. It is that such information is given such a low priority with regards to the current activities the dog is engaged in. The fault is with the handler and not the dog. If the refinement of the threshold for social mode had been correctly achieved then the dog would readily understand and more importantly obey

the directives given. In human terms we have a very clear example, try talking to a person who is really involved in the activity they are completing, such as watching a final in a sport they actively support. In the majority of cases what you say will not be comprehended and possibly not actually heard. Does this mean that these people who may be your children or work subordinate are failing to acknowledge your superiority, of course not. At that specific moment in time their brains are focused on a specific set of environmental stimulus and what you have to say especially when not relevant to the activity they are engaged in simply is not given sufficient priority to impact on their current activity.

Prey type play to a dog is a stronger attractant than most other environmental stimuli. As a result dogs which have high innate potential within this mode will frequently have very low thresholds for prey and very high thresholds for the other modes. The dog needs to be brought into balance and this is achieved through correct prey play with the dog having to frequently switch to social to demonstrate submission so as to be allowed to continue to play.

If we look at the training methods used to teach a dog the call off from attack in the French ring program we can clearly see the power prey rewards have to offer. In the exercise mentioned the dog is engaged initially in prey mode to effect the chase. Its fun and the dog goes out very fast, as the dog nears the decoy the dog switches to defense to effect the aggression required. At a distance, which will be covered in seconds, the dog must switch back to social to effect the call off without touching the decoy at all. This distance is frequently less than 2m. At this distance and with the speed the dog is traveling at the dog has its mouth already open to effect the bite. The rules for French ring are very specific the dog must return to the handler at the same peed as that which it went out to attempt the attack.

This is achieved by the dog when training having a prey play reward with the handler for a clean call off and rapid return. In effect it is the perception of the dog that it is about to have a chase with the decoy and subsequent attack

which provides the motivation for the dog to leave the handler at a fast pace. It is fair to suggest that a similar motivational response must be attained to achieve a comparable return. So in training the dog is taught that a call off command becomes a trigger to switch to social mode but it also gives the dog the invitation to return to the handler and begin to play with its social superior which with regards to the dogs own dominance position is far more beneficial than attacking a unknown decoy. Now the dogs perception is that its social superior wants to display its appreciation for the dogs efforts in driving off an intruder by engaging in play, this not only is fun but clearly shows all concerned that the dog is highly favored by its social superior. For those readers not Familiar to the French system the call off from attack is not performed at a specific stage in the program, a handler is informed by the ring assistant after the dog has been sent that this flee attack will be the call off. Also the decoy is still moving, unlike some other systems he does not stand still to lessen the motivation to attack.

This same highly beneficial reward system can be put in place in far less demanding circumstances. The obedience dog can be taught that its reward for prolonged concentration to the boring and mundane activities required for most obedience titles will be play as soon as each specific exercise is termed over. When obedience trials are observed frequently seen are the dogs, which are so over trained that their reactions are almost robotic. These poor dogs have done and redone exercises over and over again with presumably the ubiquitous pat on the head being considered to be sufficient reward. In fact to most of those dogs it is the end of the session, which is the real reward. Yet more and more we are now seeing bright happy dogs which are competing at high levels of competition, a far more pleasant sight. All of these dogs have one very important thing in common, at the completion of the exercise as directed by the judge the dog is actively encouraged to play with its owner. Not only does the owner have a more attentive and responsive dog which is actively using its own brain to assist the handlers desires but it becomes an enjoyable pass time for both handler and dog. This improves the social bond, reduces stress on both participants and facilitates the kind of relationship every true dog owner wants with their dog. It is difficult to understand why apart from sheer habit other less effective means of reinforcement are still used.

Herding dogs are another high level example of prey work. Here the dogs drives have been specifically selected not to include those prey killing behaviors, a monumental feat in itself but watch the level of control a top level handler has over a dog working at great distances from himself and frequently on the other side of a herd/flock. Again the dog in this instance is operating on prey but still maintaining a low social threshold so as to facilitate the orders of its social superior. This would have to be as close as we get to coordinated pack hunting with our dogs. These dogs are not only expected to listen to all commands given by their handlers and to obey those commands instantly but they must also exercise their own judgment and work with their own initiatives.

Herding is now becoming a popular event with the exhibition dog community and the respective Kennel bodies should encourage this. The benefit of handlers having to work with their dogs in a situation where force is totally counter productive is one which should be fostered and encouraged at all costs. It is usually only true prey type behaviors such as searching, tracking and herding and their exhibition classes where a handler cannot use force to obtain a passing performance. Obedience, agility and lower level protection exercises can all be taught using forceful means but if force is attempted in the three prey type fields mentioned the handler is almost guaranteed to not get a passing score.

Why? This theory puts forward the proposition that if the dog is consistently corrected using force or perceives that it will be that it is impossible for that dog to actually remain in prey mode. As stated a dog cannot be in two modes at any one time so if the dog is feeling constant stress or anxiety with relation to the issue of its security within the pack then it will be in social mode. The activities required to obtain a pass clearly rely on the dog exercising its own initiative and processing information from its environment, which is relative to the task being asked of it. This it cannot complete if due to its emotional state of mind it is prioritizing information on its social superior's behavior in order to try, admittedly unsuccessfully not to get into trouble. In short due to

the dogs priorities being security/pack orientated the information relevant to the prey actions the dog has been asked to be involved in are actually given a lower priority.

Social Mode Social mode is the most common mode in which a dog will operate. In this mode the emphasis is placed on the dogs pack. Dogs have an innate need to belong to a pack, domestication has not altered this requirement rather it has incorporated humans into the dogs view of its pack. Freedman, King and Elliot 1961, and Scott and Fuller 1965, demonstrated that if human contact is a part of the pups environment in the first twelve to fourteen weeks of its life it will socially interact with humans. Further studies by Woolpy 1968, Fox 1971, 1978 and Dehasse 1997 further support this concept and add that ongoing contact is still required to maintain the social bond. Appleby 1997 puts forward the supposition that breeders are still largely unaware of the harm they are doing by allowing older pups to go into the pet market which have not had sufficient social and habitual interaction with a stimulating environment. This would certainly seem to be the case despite all the published works on the subject. O'Farrell 1992, suggests that although the dogs concept of social relationships is similar to the human view it is different enough to allow for misunderstandings to occur. This specific issue is one, which this theory hopes to address.

The comments of Appleby 1997, about the need to socialize and habituate a pup to various environmental stimuli are vital for a truly successful relationship with a dog. His work added further weight to the positions of earlier researchers. Discussed latter in greater detail but it is pertinent to mention this in this section. Just as the prey drive is impacted upon during the early weeks of a pup's life so is its social drive. If the dog is not exposed to a stimulating environment when young the purchasers of the pup are facing an up hill battle that very few are capable of winning without professional assistance. One of the problems frequently seen is whilst the pup has received

adequate socialization, i.e. has spent time with people in its formative weeks it lacks exposure to a wide variety of environmental stimuli to be able to lead a life in the human world. It should be remembered by looking at the works of Mech 1970, Fox 1971 and Zimen 1981 that this distrust of environmental factors previously unknown is a survival instinct of non domesticated canids which is still present in some form with our domesticated species. Systematic desensitization as put forward by Appleby 1997 is the best way to overcome this largely genetic trait.

All control exerted by the handler is achieved through social mode. Control is defined for the purposes of this theory as the ability to change a dog's behavioural action through the recognition of a pack superiors direction. Such control is achieved by the handler acting as a superior of the dog's own pack and making a request of a subordinate. The dog acknowledging the handler's social superiority attains the dog's compliance to such a request. The canine pack is a dominance hierarchy, yet it is not an autocratic system. Lockwood 1979, in studies of wolves, demonstrated that packs function in a less rigid manner where different animals would assume the lead position subject to the activities the pack was engaged in. This position is identical to feral dog research done by Fox 1978, where the same actions were observed. This would also be mirrored by the role of Police dogs who, at times, take the lead or dominant role in certain situations. If the dog failed to take the lead/dominant position it would require a command to come to the defense of its handler or to effect an arrest without command from its handler. It could not be said that this dog was being territorial as frequently the dog will be on unfamiliar ground and just as often working at reasonable distances from its leader. From such an example it is fair to consider that domestic canines have a similar view of the pack as their wild relations. This may be a significant factor in why so many dogs owned by people who feel the need to control every facet of their lives are frequently in need of behavioural therapy.

This point is worth expanding upon; a dog just like a human child needs to make mistakes to learn. How it is corrected by its social superior for these mistakes has a profound effect on its motivation to learn and its relationship to its

social superior and even its peers. Many different leadership styles have been noted by wild canid researchers and provided that the style of leadership (including disciplinary) is consistently applied the majority of balanced dogs will adapt. This is given by this theory as an explanation of why some dogs that are owned by abusive handlers still remain totally loyal to their superior. It is not however seen as the best alternative, but it does highlight the dramatically emotional effect inconsistency has on the dogs well being. The whole concept of leadership and punishment styles is discussed in greater depth in the next part of this theory.

To consider social issues we must address dominance. The dominance potential of an individual is at least largely genetic in origin, Scott and Fuller 1965, Fox 1971,1978 and others. Environmental factors do impact on this innate predisposition, Fox 1978, noted that many pups reared in isolation lacked the communicative skills to socially interact successfully with others of the same age and species and that such interaction frequently ended in aggression. This is largely the same situation in which humans and dogs develop difficulties in their interspecies relationship, (inability to effectively communicate). This supports the view of this theory that an approach to educating a canine must have a strong basis in play (see prey mode section). If communication is unclear both humans and dogs are left with what they perceive to be the intention of the other party. It is worthy of note that a perception is, to the perceiving party real. With in this theoretical framework the perception of the individual will effect its emotional position and as a result which emotional mode it is in. If the dogs perceptions are that it is under threat aggression or avoidance are the most likely out comes. This is identical to the reactions shown in Fox's research of dogs and other canids reared in isolation and then introduced to their own and other canid species. Such animals had incomplete repertoires of behavior, caused by the lack of play, to successfully facilitate social interactions.

The dog's innate need for the security of its position in a pack is the emotional trigger for this mode. A handler achieves this by exerting control in a non-forceful manner, which in the dog's perception, failure to comply may jeopardize its position or even its continued existence within the pack. This is

not however delivered as a threat; it is simply a fact of life and thus is how it should be portrayed. To invoke a threat is to invite a fear based defense reaction, this must be avoided in all dogs and especially those of a high innate dominant personality. To a dog a quite dominant presence is all that is required. All too often people believe that being dominant involves a significant degree of being loud and forceful, this is not the case and in fact has in the main a negative reaction. O'Farrell 1992, points out very specifically the power of avoiding contact. To a dog this is one of the most painful things emotionally they can experience. In human terms it is hard to define an example, a spouse or parent giving the cold shoulder is as close as we can get. To the dog though it is a lot more as the effect is felt very strongly but does not contain the resentment we, may feel if the above example was applied to us. But simply avoiding contact is insufficient to establish and maintain control.

Whilst the issue of using banishment as a punishment is discussed in great detail in the next section it is relevant in this section to discuss just how it effects the dog emotionally. When banishment is carried out correctly it is done without fan fare and with out malice on the part of the handler. The rule is simply if you don't work to my rules then I don't want to be near you. This does impact directly on the dog's social mode. Its position in the pack is in doubt as is its continuance with in that pack. If the handler was to add aggression to the removal of the dog then a defense or social avoidance reaction would take place and this must be avoided.

The ideal is to remove the dog as soon as it is consistently refusing to accept the handler's higher social position. This as stated is done without aggression and without interaction with the dog. The most successful is to place the dog back under lead control with out calling it to you. The dog is then transported to the place of detention without any further verbal interaction and left. In the case of repeat offences then the dog is given a longer time in isolation. It should be noted that kenneling with other dogs is not isolation. The dog is to be deprived of all social contact. The duration of the isolation is subject to the individual dog. Harder temperamented dogs, i.e. of a more dominant nature will usually require a longer period in isolation. Age of course is a significant factor; a young pup may only need an hour or two to achieve the same result as

an adult, which is isolated for 24 hours. Watch the dog for signs that it has learnt it did something wrong and then release it from isolation with immediate prey or social play.

When this is established very early in the pup's life, the pup learns that continual verbal correction will lead to banishment. This is attained very quickly in the mind of the young pup as of course they at such an age require the pack to provide protection. As a result the impact of banishment is profound and must be monitored very carefully. The handler too must consider that if the dogs are not comprehending what it is they are asked to do then of course their will be need of frequent correction and in this case banishment would have a negative effect. You cannot punish a dog especially with a method which emotionally makes it consider that it ability to remain in the pack at all is in doubt when it is simply a case of not understanding. Banishment is best used then only when the exercise desired is known to the dog and not when teaching a new exercise.

What is vital to instill and refine in the dog is that a social trigger must over ride all other stimulus. In the case of dogs involved in work which creates a high degree of excitement, such as herding or bitework this cannot be emphasized enough. It is also fundamentally important that such a control trigger is instilled when the dog is very young. In bitework in particular this is only now being used as the older methodology was that you would stifle the dogs aggression if control work was done too early. This is simply not the case and has resulted in very heavy-handed methods being required to attain a clean release in bitework. If the developmental work is again considered Fox 1978, clearly shows that it is during the developmental stages when a pup learns the behaviors which facilitate social interaction and that pups deprived in this area have incomplete behavioural patterns. If the behavioural pattern is incomplete then we can expect either resistance or other dysfunctional reactions.

By working control triggers side by side with defensive triggers a more balanced dog is attained and the whole system is being developed to respond instantly to a handlers social superiority. This work should start very young during the socialization stage and continue through the juvenile stage. Attempting to refine emotional triggers in the older dog can be successful but they do lack the instantaneous responsiveness of those who have had the work done when younger. The basic philosophy is that as the degree of heightened state of arousal increases so does the need for the control trigger to be able to swing the dog back immediately to the social mode. Play is how this is achieved. It is through the prey mode that we refine the dog's social trigger. In this mode we can achieve high levels of arousal which the dog finds enjoyable that are not dangerous to us or others and teach the dog clearly that only when it responds to the social superiors requests will it be allowed to continue the game. If the dog is destined for defensive work once the control has been established in prey mode it is easily transferred to the defense/social trigger. This is then further reinforced by an immediate return to prey to facilitate positive reinforcement.

The establishment and maintenance of the handler/dog social bond is therefore of major importance in the education program of all dogs. As social structure forms the basis of all control exerted over the dog It cannot be stressed enough how important it is that breeders ensure that this structure is well established prior to the pup being sold and that all new owners should be give considerable information on how to improve this structure. (See Part 3.)

Defense Mode Defense mode is always responsible for aggression, unless such aggression is of a psychotic nature. All forms of aggression are triggered by a fear of something; this fear need not be directly attributed to the recipient of the aggression personally. Fear can be felt if the dogs position in the pack is threatened, a member of the pack is threatened, the packs territory is threatened etc. As fear is such a black word in the dog world, it must be heavily stressed that the fear need not be for the dogs personal safety.

Also when treating an aggressive disorder care should be taken how such an explanation of fear is made to the breeder, if such a consideration is not made it will be very difficult to obtain the breeders involvement in the treatment. O'Farrell 1992, raises this point and others when discussing the clients involvement (attachment) to their dogs. A dominant dog for example will switch from social to defense anytime it feels that its position in the pack is under threat as it is fearful of the loss of station. The clients considerations about fear aside, if the dog is demonstrating inappropriate aggression, which is not psychotic, the causation of such aggression will be a fear based response.

Interestingly to note is that nearly all forms of non-psychotic aggression noted by canine research derive from a switch from social mode to defense mode. The exception being predatory aggression required for the acquisition of food, even fear has an element here as the dog will be fearful of not being able to eat. It could also be argued that the social concerns of the pack also play a part in this as well but as yet this still remains very unclear. With this in mind it brings the practice of training bite work from a prey basis into question as the ideal model of education for this activity. The position on this is supported by research (Fox, 1978) which demonstrates that whilst prey and aggressive behaviors have distinct and separate motivators certain variables may effect both modes equally or at least in a similar direction. Surely an approach from a social mode would be more relative to the dog and would give an increased aggressive response and yet improve the control level of the dog in call off exercises. In this manner the confusion mentioned by Fox might be avoided and the safety aspects of such work improved.

Fogle 1990, and O'Farrell 1992 and others frequently state that inappropriate aggression is the most common reason for a dog to be brought to a specialist for behavioural therapy. It is interesting to note that such a disproportionate response is not noted in studies of wild canids. Mech 1970, Fox 1971, Lockwood 1979 and Zimen 1981 all have made considerable references to aggressive behaviors of wolves in both social and defensive situations. The absence of such behaviors with anywhere near the frequency in

wild canids would suggest either an innate predisposition or Freudian type defense mechanism, Freud 1905. This theory considers it to be largely a defense mechanism, which is more frequently triggered in dogs, which have a higher innate dominance potential. Freud's position is that such behaviors are reactionary and designed to relieve anxiety. This would correspond with the Fox 1978, position on internal conflict within canids mentioned earlier. Yet no real works sourced thus far covers this aspect. Lorenz 1966 and Fogle 1990 address aggression and over reactivity of same but still fail to consider it in a Freudian framework. O'Farrell 1992 covers the topic in great detail as well but fails to see the process as being an anxiety reducing action. It is postulated here that such an inability to consider the Freudian model is at least partially responsible for the reasonably poor prognosis of the treatment of such disorders.

To consider the Freudian model in a canine sense we have to accept that all non-psychotic aggression is motivated by fear. Fear whilst a normal and healthy emotion does cause an increase in the anxiety level of the sufferer. In practical terms a dominant dog which has usurped the pack leadership is by that action alone increasing its anxiety levels. Being responsible for the welfare of the pack is a stressful business. If this is added to inconsistent leadership of the handler anxiety levels are further increased in the dog. By this it is meant that a dog which in its mind is forced to take over the leadership on occasion due to perceived flaws in its human handler and at other times forced to take a subordinate position is suffering from significant inner conflict. On the surface this might appear to correspond with Lockwood 1979's observations of wolves. It is not the case. The fluid transitions displayed by wolves are based on mutual benefit. The situation within a dysfunctional canine/human relationship is not one of mutual consent rather one of ineffective leadership being displayed by the human. These situation forces the dog to accept responsibility as its very survival, in a canine sense is under threat. The implied difference is one of consent as compared to one of forced survival need.

In the case of dominance aggression being shown by dogs it should, as stated, be viewed as a fear based reaction. The dog is fearful for the security and

functionality of the pack. If it has attained the dominant position it will also be fearful of the loss of station. It may also be fearful of punishment methods used by its owners as well as fearful of taking on the responsibility for the pack. All of which combine to create conflict within the dog as depicted in Fox 1978. If such a disorder is treated primarily by increasing the dominance level of the human, it will be successful in some cases but is likely to reoccur as the same fears to the dog resurface. This inconsistent result mirrors the published works of O'Farrell 1992, Campbell 1975 and Fogle 1990.

Successful treatment will only be attained when the humans involved in the dog's life are able to relieve the dog's anxiety in a more productive manner or to educate the dog in anxiety relieving methods which are more socially acceptable. To achieve this, the owner needs to understand his or her own shortcomings as a pack leader. The owner must exercise a greater degree of consistent leadership, communication between dog and owner must be addressed and improved, relative and reasonable punishment must be implemented and the dog must be taught what its responsibilities pertaining to the pack actually are. Experience with the use of this theory has demonstrated that provided the owners are prepared to remain consistent permanent results can be attained in every case. In the initial stages the owners must be sure that they are not placed in situations whereby environmental factors can combine to demonstrate a lack of control, but once the respective stations are firmly established normal life events have no impact on the permanence of this therapy.

Also worthy of note is the means of which desensitization training is undertaken. Dogs which are fearful of environmental stimulus do, as Appleby 1998 suggests, benefit from desensitization. The most common problem associated with this is the degree of anxiety the dog feels during the desensitization process. If the dog is highly anxious at the time the desensitization is being carried out it will have no positive benefit and is likely to lead to increased defensive behaviors. An example would be a dog, which is fearful of crowds, if such a dog was forced to continually confront crowded situations its fear of such stimuli is likely to be increased as it, still has no

outlet for the anxiety it feels. There is also a definite possibility that the social bond between the dog and the handler could also be eroded in this process.

A dog under the influence of fear must have this fear relieved to a degree where by cognitive functioning is no longer impaired and that it can in begin to develop more rational means of lowering its anxiety. Handlers all too frequently reinforce avoidance behaviors during desensitization. Fogel 1990, O'Farrell 1992 and others. When a dog is demonstrating a dysfunctional avoidance response the most common mistake is for the handler to try to calm the dog and reassure it. This should never be done as from the dog's perspective the pack leader is approving of the behavior it is exhibiting. In the wild species of pack forming canids the pack leader would ignore such behavior totally and human handlers must mirror this approach. If the handler is not anxious about the stimulus and adopts an attitude of indifference then the dog has the ability to make the assumption that as the pack leader is responsible for the welfare of the entire pack their really cannot be a threat. This may seem to be far fetched to some but it is a clear example of how the dog will use its own cognitive abilities to overcome dysfunctional behaviors.

The difficulty in rectifying excessive defensive reactivity is the handler needs to have the ability to read the emotional status of the dog and to evaluate the dogs anxiety level. Evaluation of the anxiety level is best achieved by looking for definitive signs that cognitive functioning is beginning to be impaired. If the dog were failing to recognize known commands or even the handler's social position then it would be fair to say that a chemical imbalance is in effect blocking successful cognitive functioning. When this is occurring it is vital for the dog to have its anxiety level reduced and it would also be a good indicator that too high a level of stimulus has been allowed to successfully complete desensitization training. If on the other hand the dog is acting avoidant but is still responsive it can be assumed that the right level of stimulus has been attained to facilitate desensitization work.

Once the correct level of stimulation has been achieved the dog's anxious state needs to be reduced. Again prey play is the most effective means of achieving this. If the dog is engaged in prey play with its superior it cannot experience anxiety and also clearly demonstrates to the dog that the handler, its superior, doesn't consider the stimulus to be of a fear-worthy nature. This has a massive anxiety reduction benefit and when successfully applied allows for rapid desensitization. Dogs, just as with humans will not engage in play in situations where they are actually under threat so logically if with the stimulus present a game can and is enacted then the stimulus cannot be of great concern. If the dog has been over stimulated the dog must be moved away from the stimulus until it is seen that cognitive functioning is no longer impaired. When this is achieved the above information is applied and over time the distance from the stimulus to the dog is decreased with a constant vigil maintained by the handler to keep the dogs anxiety level within the bounds whereby cognitive functioning is not impaired.

The understanding from trainers that it is not the fearful situation that needs to be treated but the resultant anxious state is a situation which hopefully will improve as more trainers adopt methodologies which consistently cater to the dogs cognitive functioning. This will lessen the damage done by well meaning persons who believe the best way for the dog to overcome its anxiety is to be surrounded or flooded with the fearful stimulus. It also must be noted that in some cases this treatment is successful but in practical terms it has done more damage to dogs than it has done good and has frequently resulted in a dog moving from a defensive avoidant position to one of overt aggression. The fault in this case cannot be the dogs, if it cannot flee from a fearful situation it must for its own preservation adopt a more aggressive position in the hope that in doing so it will ultimately either be left alone or create an opening whereby escape from the stimulus is possible.

This whole situation is frequently misinterpreted as poor temperament. Dogs with low defense threshold are not poor temperamented dogs as a rule rather they are poorly handled by people who don't understand that the dogs

emotional triggers are unbalanced and that the dog is actively seeking a reduction in its anxiety level. When this situation is allowed to continue a maladaptive or more permanent response is likely to be established which is similar to that of a genetically fearful dog. Dehasse 1997 has written extensively that in his opinion fear is a learned response, which has little or no direct genetic link. This is disputed by the majority of research completed thus far but it would be fair to state that truly genetic fear would be a very rare event as in the majority of cases significant environmental situations which have reinforced the dogs fearfulness have occurred. Such influences in Dehasses opinion include maternal imprinting from excessively fearful dams, which is given as the reason for the appearance of fearful lines. If further research bears out this point it would be in breeders best interests to ensure that regardless of the dogs desirable attributes bitches displaying excessive reactivity are removed from breeding programs. If such a line was of vital importance then only males should be considered for inclusion in a breeding program as they cannot under normal husbandry practices imprint these behaviors onto their offspring.

Modal Theory
Part Three: Implementation of the Modal System
By Iain MacDonald

Introduction Within this section we seek to explain the basic roles and needs of the canine and human parts of the partnership. Consideration of the dog, its early experiences, and innate potential are required to insure that this theory is effective in educating dogs. No one method will work on every dog. The modal system is a system rather than a method. It allows for the use of many traditional methods to be tailored to the individuality of the dog to attain the behavioural responses desired. Whilst traditional methods are still largely used the modal theory uses them to attain higher results due to improved communicative abilities between the dog and its handler. When considering the owner the emphasis will be placed on knowing who you are and how the dog perceives you, ways to ensure communication is effective, anxiety reduction techniques and how to build the social structure with your dog.

All breeders are urged to become familiar with the research done on canine development. This paper is not the correct forum to go into enough specific detail on the subject but this does not lessen its importance. The canine education process will begin as soon as the each of the dogs senses begin to operate will. As the dog is born with tow senses operating, touch and smell, this means that the impact of the dog environment will begin to interact with its innate potential from the day it's born. Breeders to the detriment of the dog frequently overlook this area. Further senses, being sound and sight come into being between two and three weeks and at this time it is vital that dogs begin to experience stimuli in these areas as well. This is not adequately

achieved in a kennel environment without significant input from the breeder. Fox 1978 did a large body of research in this area and makes suggestions as to what is considered to be the minimum stimuli to be introduced to the dog. Practical experience of the author suggests that even more and varied stimuli should be used to achieve the maximum potential from the dog. Easily read literature on the subject is available and specifically recommended reading is Fox 1971 Understanding Your Dog and Fogle 1990 The Dog's Mind and O Farrell 1992 Problem Dog.

The Attitude of the owner once the pup has been homed is also of great importance. All owners will interact with their dogs differently and will have at least a degree of expectation of what their dogs will be. This may be they want a show dog or a working dog or even as simple as a family companion. These expectations will play a significant role in how they interact with their dog and as a result will effect the developing personality of the dog, some times for the good and other times not so good. This again emphasizes the need to take care in choosing the right dog for the purpose you have in mind for that dog when it matures. It should also point out that frequently owners do put a great deal of pressure on very young stock to perform certain functions very early in life. This degree of pressure frequently has the opposite effect to the desired one.

The interaction between the owner and the young dog is therefore colored to a large degree by the early experiences of the pup and the owner's attitudes. This system hopes to bring those two variables into a balance to minimize stress on both parties and to maximize learning performance and developmental potential

The young dog As stated previously, much of the framework from which the dog builds its behavioural patterns are developed during the first 12-14 weeks of the dog's

life. Appleby 1997, stated that unfortunately many breeders are still unaware of the importance of this period in the pups life despite the works of Freeman, King and Elliot 1961, Scott and Fuller 1965, Fox 1971 and 1978, O'Farrell 1989 and 1992 and Dehasse 1997. To summarize this work there are three main developmental phases in dogs with depending on whose research is taken a number of transitional stages. Neonatal (birth to 3 weeks), Socialization (3 to 12 weeks) and Juvenile (12 weeks to maturity). Fogle 1990 stresses the value of this research to dog breeders by making specific reference to Fox 1971 and how brain development is impacted on by the environment in which the pup is raised. Fox found that EEG readings demonstrated that pups exposed to mild stressors in the neonatal and socialization stages matured faster (mentally), fine tune the adrenalpituitary system, and were better at problem solving in latter life. Furthermore Fogle, states that pups which undergo mild stressors in the neonatal period will have accelerated body growth, a reduction in emotional over reactivity and possibly an increased resistance to certain diseases. This emotional over reactivity is what in this theory is described as low and unbalanced thresholds.

Fox developed a series of stimuli involving touch, temperature fluctuations, clicking and strobe lights as well as balance work. All breeders should be aware of this work as it attempts to find the optimum levels of stressors to improve canine development. It should also be noted that Fox did also find that excessive stressors had a negative effect on development. In plain terms we know from research such as that completed by Fox and others that the pup has an incomplete sense of touch at birth and a developed sense of smell. This would suggest that handling at a young age has definite benefits to the developmental process. Short and frequent exposure to cold is also another stressor, which has been found to be beneficial in very young pups. In the wild dog the bitch leaving the den to feed and or relieve herself would facilitate this exposure to cold. We can assist this process in our domestic dogs by the use of a metal tray. If each pup is removed in turn from the litter box and placed on this cold surface for short periods (30 sec). This procedure can be repeated every second day for the same period and gradually increased as the pup gets older. It must be stated though that this should not be the only time that such young pups are handled or an unpleasant association with handling could be formed.

Scent development can be begun right from birth. If the pup is exposed to a wide Variety of smells especially during the first few weeks when its other senses are not yet operational it has in practice had a beneficial impact on the pups developing personality. Dogs are primarily scent animals; it is without doubt their most developed sense and as a result will play a significant role in the dogs perception of its environment. It is for this reason that the more we can expose the dog to in this area the better the dog will adjust to unfamiliar situations latter in life. Of course a reasonable balance must be reached and the Author has found in practice that introducing a single new scent each day to the pups during the first two weeks is sufficient to have a beneficial effect. Such scents should be of organic origin and are things which the dog is expected to come in contact with. This scent work should always be a pleasant experience for the young pup. The scent is introduced using a cotton bud, which has been saturated by the scent, and this is positioned directly in front of the nostrils of the pup. The pups should not come into contact with the scent receptacle and should not be restrained. A pleasant stroking motion from the breeder is acceptable. The range of scents which can be used is vast, various human scents, compost, flowers, grass, other dogs, manure's of other animals, etc.

Between two and three weeks the other senses become more developed and begin to impact on the development of the young pup. At this time sounds and visual stimuli should also be added to the work on the other senses mentioned. It is important to note that this is additional and not a replacement for the previous work. Fox 1978 and O Farrell 1989 made specific reference to sudden and sharp audible stimulus and flashing visual stimulus. Again it is suggested that such stimulus should be of a short duration (30 sec to 1 min). This stimulus should be additional to that which the pup will experience through the normal process of its day. When ever possible such stimuli should occur when the breeder is not perceived by the pups to be the direct cause. It is not recommend to have stimulus present when the pups are not being observed but it is not desirable for the pups to associate the arrival of the breeders with different or possibly stressful fluctuations of their environment. All stimulus which can be directly associated with the breeders

presence should be of a pleasurable nature so as to reinforce the bond between human and dog.

Audible stimuli can be something as simple as a clicker used for training. This is highly beneficial if the positive reinforcement of the clicker can be established this early in life if this method of training is to be used latter in the dog's life. If the dog learns at this age that this audible cue is a prequel to a pleasurable experience it is very easy to incorporate this method into a training program at a latter stage. In this manner the clicking sound becomes classically conditioned in the same manner as in Pavlov 1927. In practice clicking is a good place to commence audible stimulation but should not in anyway be considered to be the only desired stimulus. Like all stimulus added to the pups environment it should begin gradually and increase slowly over time to include all kinds of stimulus which the dog may be expected to encounter in normal life, or more correctly in the life the dog is destined to lead. This particular point is very important when matching a pup's early experience to the owner's expectations of the pup's future role. In the case of a working Police dog for example they should have been exposed to a wide and diverse range of stimuli which could possibly invoke a fear response in an unexposed animal. This early systematic desensitization will refine the dog's reactivity so early in life that it is far less reactionary to such stimuli latter in life.

Visual stimulus can begin with the strobe lights, which Fox suggests, and then progress to other means such as rapid moving objects, brightly colored objects, and large and/or oddly shaped objects. Again this work begins slowly and gradually increases in intensity and duration as the pups are desensitized to such stimulation.

By the time that the pups are 4 weeks such enrichment of their environment can now begin to combine two or more of the dogs senses. The use of a lawn mower or line trimmer will activate visual, audible and scent receptors as will vacuums or other appliances commonly found in the average home. Television is also useful as it provide sound and strobe like pictures. By the time the pups

are at this stage exposure of 5 to 10 minutes daily to such combined sensory stimuli should be sufficient. It is advised that such stimulation be performed on pups, which are isolated by themselves, as well as when they are with their littermates. Observations of the pups as individuals and as a group will give the breeder strong indications as to the pups developing personality which will assist in matching the pups up to the most appropriate owners.

At 5 weeks the motor coordination of the pups has developed where by they can now be exposed to other stimuli which are more of a problem solving nature. The use of a scaled down agility course is particularly useful here, as it will improve the dog's confidence in itself as well as providing improved coordination. Items such as ramps, walks, seesaws, ladders and the like can all be used. It is not advisable to include jumps as the pups skeletal development is not sufficiently mature to accommodate the jarring on landing. Unstable footing is also highly useful and can be as simple as a tarpaulin stretched over a frame, this is perfectly safe for the pup but it moves and required constant balance for the pup to remain upright. The author also agrees with Fox 1978, that it is beneficial for the pups to be exposed to stimuli, which impacts on their depth perception. The use of fine wire mesh or Perspex as a walk from a raised platform facilitates this.

By the time a pup is 8 weeks old it should have been exposed to virtually all the environmental influences it will be expected to come across when it arrives at its new home. Many breeders also make a huge point of not exposing pups to strange people until they have had all their inoculations. This is a grave mistake as by the time that this has occurred the attachment periods of the pups life are concluded and unless the breeder has a large family it is likely that the pups will not have had sufficient exposure to people to form the bond with their new owners. The better compromise is that after the pups have received their initial temporary inoculations that they begin to socialize with people outside of the family and as frequently as possible.

It is during the socialization period when most pups are taken to their new and hopefully permanent homes. As this is defined as a critical period in the dog's development there are many very important facets which need to be addressed. Until this time of bringing the new pup home the prospective owner is largely at the mercy of what the breeder has done, but with taking the pup home the developmental process is now under their effective control. Appleby 1997, defines the socialization process as: whereby an animal learns how to recognize and interact with species with which it will cohabit. This is a good working definition of what is meant by the term socializing your puppy. Socialization experiences should not be limited to humans or dogs but should include all species with which the dog is expected to live with or tolerate. At the same time as socialization, as defined, is to introduce the pup to environmental stimuli. This is referred to as either environmental work or Habituation. Appleby defines this as: the process whereby an animal becomes accustomed to non-threatening environmental stimuli and learns to ignore them. Prior to the undertaking of work in this area it is vital that a new owner understands what is occurring in the young dogs mind.

Fox 1971 suggests that at the time most pups are placed in their new homes, the natural fearfulness inherited from the wild ancestors comes into play. If the wild model were considered it is an understandable adaptation as a fearless pup in the wild would not survive long. Being suspicious of anything new in the environment is a survival need this same need is innately present in the domestic dog. Through systematic desensitization it is overcome, whereby the dog is able to distinguish between non-threatening and threatening environmental stimuli. Appleby 1997 suggests that approaches to socialization and habituation should be addressed gradually and systematically. The ideal situation would be one whereby the breeder has commenced a systematic plan of desensitization and details of this plan are passed on the pups new owners for continuance and completion. Unfortunately this is very rarely the case and the new owner will start out with little advice and any mistakes made often have very long lasting results.

Woolpy 1968 and Fox 1978 also stress the fact that if such systematic desensitization is not continued through the juvenile stage then regression to

a more distrustful approach can occur. Considering the huge amount of research done in this area all with similar findings, it can be stated that without attention to providing environmental stimulation in the pups critical and juvenile periods there is little chance of producing/owning a dog which is able to tolerate stress and use cognitive abilities to problem solve successfully on reaching maturity. It is important that these works are clearly understood and again breeders are urged to read the specific scientific studies in this area and have a thorough working knowledge of the subject. Finally Dehasse 1997 indicates that true genetically based fear is a rare scenario, in most cases deprived environmental stimulation and/or maternal imprinting is the probable cause.

A workable solution for the new owner is that they should gradually introduce the dog to all the situations they expect the dog to encounter in their perception of what the dog's future role will be. This should still be done gradually and with increased exposure over time. A new owner must begin to read the emotional status of the dog and to insure as much as is possible that the dog is never exposed to more stimulation than it can emotionally cope with. An excellent indicator of a dog which is feeling anxious or stressed is if it will not engage a known person in a game whilst in the presence of the stimulus.

A dog which is experiencing significant stress or anxiety is unable to function cognitively during the time of such stress or anxiety at peak efficiency. This is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, which effects the brains transmission abilities. High levels of excitement induce a similar state. These physiological functions provide further proof as to why such environmental aspects as described above need to be addresses as a matter of priority.

The Owner

How the owner interacts with the dog is also of vital importance to create a strong and lasting partnership. When the pup is in its new home one of the first issues which needs to be addressed is how the pup will be controlled, i.e. rewarded and disciplined. This is frequently seen as a common problem in dogs demonstrating dysfunctional behaviors later in life. This theory has very few hard and fast rules of conduct but one is that an owner must use the least possible force to obtain a desired response from the dog and when correcting the dog for undesirable behaviors. Control has been defined as the ability to change a dog's behavioural action. The basis for control stems from the social relationship between dog and human.

Very little research appears to have been done on this subject, possibly due to the insufficient take up on the huge amount of work done on the early development of dogs. This is a shame as it would of course be the next obvious step to take. Studies on human parenting however have significant relevance to the human dog relationship. Izard 1991 suggested there were three type of attachment bonds, the securely attached, anxious avoidant and anxious resistant. Detailed examination of this study reveals distinct similarities in each type to behaviors exhibited by dogs. Practical experience also appears to support a direct transposition of this human research to canine behavioural therapy. In short, behavioural patterns identical to those mentioned for each attachment type have frequently been seen for the same reasons in canine behavioural therapy.

Securely attached individuals seek the comfort of the owner when needed but are more inclined to explore their environment, exhibit less anxiety when left alone and appear happy to have contact on the owners return. Anxious resistant individual do not explore their environments when in unfamiliar surroundings, show significant distress when left alone and tend to act ambivalent when the owner returns. Anxious avoidant individuals are relatively unattached, exhibit little or no anxiety when left alone and show little response on the return of the owner. It is obvious from the given examples that the most suitable is the securely attached. Securely attached individual come from homes within which the owners are responsive and sensitive to the needs of the dog. This does not however equate to giving into

the dogs every desire. Being responsive in a canine sense is that in times of need the owner is there to provide support.

The ownership style has, as the above example suggests has lot to do with the type of social bond created with the dog. Further human based research, Achermann, Dinneen and Stevenson-Hinde 1991, suggests that securely attached individuals have been exposed to effective, unconflicted problem solving behaviours which have fostered a sense of trust and security. The other less desirable types demonstrate a greater level of disobedience and resistance to authority due to a lack of unconflicted problem solving behaviors which has fostered a lack of trust and security. Again this research is seen to have significant relevance to the canine/human bonding process. Baumrind 1977 looked at parental discipline styles and the effect it has on social relationships and development of the human child. Three broad styles were identified, Authoritative, Authoritarian and Permissive. This too has relevance to the canine/human bond and in practice has proven to transpose directly from human subjects to canine/human subjects.

Authoritarian control is considered to be the enforcement of set standards of conduct with an emphasis on obedience and with the use of punitive, forceful measures to enforce proper behavior. Authoritative control directs behavior in a more rational fashion. Firm control is exerted with attempts to convey the reasons why discipline is required. Permissive control is affirming and attempts to consult about rules rather than requiring them to be adhered to.

Authoritarian households typically produce dogs which are conforming and submissive whilst young but may become rebellious and aggressive latter in life, vulnerable to stress, moody, with a low defense threshold. Permissive households tend to produce demanding, rebellious, impulsive, domineering and aggressive individuals. Authoritative households foster co-operative, selfconfidence, and friendly dogs, which cope well with stressors. In addition to these styles, the work of Patterson, Stouthamer-Loeber 1984 found in human studies that Authoritarian and Permissive type parents exaggerate the

negative effects if they are also cool and aloof towards their offspring. This provides a descriptive model of the effect owners can have and as is suggested here, do have on the social ability and development of their dogs.

In practical terms, related to canine/human relationships, authoritarian control is thought to exist in the majority of older dog training methods. If the training calls for continual physical corrections it would be fair to deem such methods as requiring authoritarian control. Authoritative control is thought to exist in the more modern methods of dog training, whereby force is kept to a minimum and the dog is guided through the learning process as opposed to being forced to comply. Passive control is thought to exist when an owner makes little or no demands of the dog and the dog is largely allowed to behave as it sees fit. This use of a type system does have drawbacks as it makes the assumption that the owner will remain consistent to a single type. This is frequently not the case and of all factors facing a dog owner the subject of being consistent with their approach to the dog and its behaviour must be held foremost in an owners mind. This point is stressed in the work of O'Farrell 1992.

Consistency regardless of the control type does allow the dog to adapt. Canines are highly adaptive but the constant need to adapt to ever changing reactions will lead to a greater anxiety level in the dog. This can manifest itself in many different forms but it would be fair to say that in behavioural modification therapy that the majority of cases where professional help is sought a significant degree of inconsistency from the handler has been observed. This becomes a serious problem when coupled with the innately dominant dog. A dominant dog will not continue to remain subservient under a leadership, which is actively inconsistent. There are two main reasons thought to be the cause of this. Firstly, the dominant dog will assess the inconsistent leader with regards to assessing for weaknesses which can be exploited in a later leadership challenge. Secondly, as the welfare of the pack as a whole is perceived to be at stake a dominant dog will seek to depose an inconsistent superior in order to insure the packs continuing survival. This second point must be taken from the dog's point of view, in reality the household is in no immediate danger but to the dog a pack is only as strong as

its leader. The biggest problem in attempting to explain this to the dog's owner is they frequently take it personally, as an insult from the dog to themselves. It is not the case.

To implement the theory of the Modal system an owner must remain consistently authoritative. Force is kept to an absolute minimum and communication is kept as effective and concise as possible. A securely attached dog operating under such a control type should be the aim of all dog handlers. This facilitates the optimum circumstances whereby the dog has the ability to use its cognitive abilities within the emotional framework of the species. It will have enhanced abilities to withstand stress and will as a result perform consistently better in problem solving tasks. As a result such dogs are less prone to over reactive emotionality and dysfunctional behavioural actions.

A further consideration is what owner's project emotionally on to their dogs. This phenomenae is covered very well in O'Farrell 1992. Owners frequently project their feelings onto their dogs, this refers to a well know psychological process where by the feelings of one individual are attributed to another. A classic example was highlighted in O'Farrell's research where it was found that dog owners with children tended to be less attached to the dogs they owned than did people who had no children or lived alone. It is argued that all dog owners project to some degree onto their dogs it is what makes our own dogs seem special, this type of projection is usually termed projective identification. This projection can also have its extreme form which is all too frequently see at dog shows when a dog the owner feels should have won is beaten. Interestingly and totally in support of O'Farrell's work is that this same phenomena is also seen at human baby shows. This is projective identification at a dysfunctional level; the owners have in their own mind exaggerated the attributes of their dogs to an unrealistic level.

Projective identification is in the main a helpful process, it provides owners with immense enjoyment of activities they engage in with their dog which in

reality are boring, repetitive and in some cases seemingly pointless. Owner's feel that in obedience their dog is doing the exercises to please them, they believe that they identify with how the dog is feeling, this may be the case but it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Where problems occur with projection is when the projector has made a wrong assumption about the feelings of the other individual. This is quite easily done with inter species projection as the observable behavior of another species can be very misleading. The dog standing over a crying child is frequently idealized as an expression of protective behaviour, in reality it is more likely the dog is expressing dominance. If the owner of such a dog considered this behavior to be desirable serious problems could result when in the dogs mind the child began to behave in a manner which does not recognize its higher station.

O'Farrell being a clinical psychologist went further and found that the early experiences of the owner's own lives impacted significantly on the way in which they idealized their dogs. Those owners who had less than desirable early experiences had a far greater incidence of idealization with their dogs. Their dogs became a substitute for what they had desired as a child, for example if their father had been cold and aloof their male dog would be the substitute for the relationship they feel they should have had with their father. Thankfully most dogs, especially those that have been raised in an enriched environment can cope well with the distorted reality their owner's project, but this is not always the case. The author sees the incidence of dominance aggression in dogs with in modern society as being at least partially caused by dysfunctional idealization.

If the owner has a distorted perception of the dogs actions it is very easy for them to be reinforcing dominant behaviors through their interactions with the dog, setting up a scenario where by a leadership challenge by the dog is far more likely to occur. It is also noted in the authors practical experience that frequently owners will tolerate overtly aggressive behavior by describing it as a personality trait of the dog, "its just how he is", " he does have his little games", or "he's just in a bad mood today" are all expressions heard by the author from owners of dogs who clearly have a distorted perception of what their dog is doing. The famous Yorkshire vet "James Herriot" in one of his

books described two terrifying west highland white terriers which would attack the vet whenever he came to visit and how the owners though such a display was loving and playful. Whilst such an experience can be amusing when read in a book, the reality is not.

In practice such distorted views are more frequently seen in small dogs, which is thankfully the case. A display such as described by Herriot would have been far less amusing if it had been done by two St Bernard's or any other large breed. But within the context of this theory the dogs displaying such behaviors must be experiencing fear to display aggression. This can then hardly be considered to be an acceptable way for these dogs to live and as a result should not be condoned or trivialized due to the smaller stature of the dog. The fact is though that we do, it would be a very rare case where a small dog is deemed dangerous and forced to be confined or muzzled. In such cases it is usually the result of severe injuries inflicted on a child. The fact that such a small dog has probably frequently displayed aggression or even attacked an adult has been overlooked as being of no major concern because it did little or no damage. If the same situation were done by a large guarding breed there would be a public out cry if measures were not taken to insure a repeat offence couldn't take place. The plain facts are though that the dog is suffering anxiety and regardless of its size it needs to be treated as a serious problem.

Such ambiguity is frequently used by the anti dog lobby as an excuse for the banning or mandatory confinement of large guarding breeds. It is the potential to do damage to an adult, which is then projected onto the dog to create fear in the public. An aggressive display from a small terrier is often seen as the dog having spunk or some other desirable attribute, if a German Shepherd did exactly the same display it would be considered as proof that the dog is dangerous. It must also be noted that the author has always owned large guarding breeds and thus due to his own projections may have his objectivity in this matter called into question. This having been said it would be a fair statement that the owner of a small dog is far less likely to be put through the courts over a dog attack than the owner of a large dog displaying exactly the same behaviour. This lack of accountability however though does not

lessen the owner's responsibility for the damage they doing to their dogs emotionally due to their dysfunctional projection.

Owner/Dog Interactions The basis of owner/dog interactions is communication. Without effective and concise communication the social bond with the dog cannot be utilized as a means of control. Abrantes 1986 wrote extensively on the manner in which dogs communicate. Humans are primarily vocal communicators; we have language, which enables us to express ourselves to others of our species. Dogs of course do not comprehend human language, the primary means of canine communication of their emotional state is visual, the use of body language. Frequently an owner will consider that the dog understands what is being said to it, this cannot be supported with any empirical evidence. Instead the dog has learned by observing the owner what they are implying. As this theory seeks to utilize the emotionality of the dog to modify behavior the dog's body language is given a greater degree of importance in this paper.

Humans need to develop the ability to read the signals the dog is giving with its body to gain a better understanding of the canine cognitive process. It is beyond doubt that the dogs are attempting to communicate with their owners, they are social animals where communicative abilities are important for the survival of the species. Scott and Fuller 1965, Mech 1970, Fox 1971 and 1978, Fox and Cohen 1977,Zimen 1981 and Fogle 1990 all make specific references to the means of canine communication. Such published reference provides a greater detail than is available within this context and, as such this paper will limit itself to the visual.

Each and every time the owner and dog interact, both parties are attempting communication. Frequently when dogs are being trained the owners are aiming for robotic type results which are not doing justice to their dogs. Considering what has been written so far, a better approach is to engage the dog in

training activities whereby the dog itself is using its own cognitive abilities to work to solve training problems and achieve the desired behavior. Within this theory the most important aspects are to be aware of the signaling for switching of modes and to be able to perceive the intentions of some basic canine behaviors as a gauge to which mode the dog is operating in or if it is experiencing stress.

Each and every training session must be a joyful occasion for the dog. Forced learning will only lead to greater resistance and make application of this theory impossible. Prior to beginning and education the dog must be receptive and happy. Dogs express this status in a number of ways and familiarity with the individual concerned is required for an accurate identification. Most dogs will demonstrate attentiveness to their handlers, wagging tail, bright alert facial expressions and a general state of excitement and expectation. This should be perceived as a high state of social mode where by a switch to prey is imminent. This is due to the dog's use of play to establish and maintain social structure without the need to consistently use aggression.

The difficulty is that most training exercises require the dog to remain in social for control/guiding purposes. The owner must establish that whilst this activity is going to be enjoyable, they are in control. This is easily facilitated using a verbal correction whenever the dog is switching to prey or is loosing concentration. O'Farrell 1992 makes specific references to the dog displaying dominance by initiating interactions with the owner. This information is certainly relevant in this aspect. A dog that is, when undergoing obedience training which require the dog to remain in the social mode, continually attempting to elicit a game is most likely expressing dominance. This is based on the assumption that habituation and socialization training has been thoroughly worked through or it could as simply be a state of over excitement or even anxiety. It is also a very worthwhile test to see if the dog is the one which always elicits the game; a dog that only wants to play when it chooses the time and place is clearly dominant. If the dog, however, is always ready to play, it is more likely an overly excitable reaction.

Only the owner is in a position to differentiate between the three given possibilities. If the dog has had some training and particularly when the dog knows the exercise the most likely causation would be a dominant stance. In that case the owner should be communicating effectively to the dog that the owner is clearly in charge. In most circumstances following advice such as O'Farrell 1992 will bring about the desired result. This advice is that the owner should ignore the dog until it has completed a command. In practical terms the sit in front has proven to be the most effective and is an exercise, which is easily completed by a dog at almost any training level. The handler simply moves backwards away from the dog asking it to come to them. When the dog does it is asked to sit. If the dog fails to sit the owner gives a verbal correction and moves backward again asking the dog to come and again sit in front. A few repartitions of this are all that is usually required to get the dog to comply.

The owner can be sure that such an action by the dog is a clear sign that the dog is in fact in social mode. Do not excite the dog at this stage, calmly and quietly praise the dog, retain its focus on you and if the dog breaks go back to the beginning by moving backwards and calling the dog to come and sit in front. Of particular importance is that the owner does not seek to punish the dog for its disobedience, in practice this is difficult for most people to accept. The dog is in their perception ignoring their rights as a superior and this is frequently the case but to gain control using force is in most cases counter productive as the dog is avoiding a confrontation rather than accepting the superior rank of it handler. A dog can achieve this and remain in the social mode but if the punishment inspires fear in the dog then the dog has switched to defense mode and true control cannot be attained.

This action is the first exercise taught to the dog in this training system. It should be well ingrained in a pup as young as 8 weeks old. It gives the owner the ability to gain the dog's attention and resume control when control has been lost. Frequently seen when a dog has been trained under this methodology is that if the dog becomes confused the dog will assume the sitting in front position. If this happens the owner should take steps to insure the dog understands what is being asked of it and not punish it. It has become

an action intended to communicate a state of emotion, it is not disobedience; it does demonstrate that the dog is using its own cognitive abilities to try to find a solution. The owner needs to look carefully at their own communicative abilities and make adjustments to obtain comprehension from the individual dog concerned. A break down in communication such as described is frequently seen with handlers who have more than one dog. They usually have one dog, which is very successfully trained and assume that all dogs will be able to understand the education process in exactly the same way. They make no allowance for the individuality of each dog. All research listed in this paper clearly indicates that dogs are individuals which possess as many character/personality/temperament types as do humans. It is therefore vital that all training programs are continually revised based on observable comprehension of the individual dog, which is being trained.

If when the handler moves forward the dog bounces out again this exercise should be repeated until such time as the dog moves forward in a more controlled manner. Do not over do it though; if the dog is worked (drilled) in this exercise, the actions of the dog will become bored and robotic. This is undesirable; we want the dog happy and attentive but controlled. The sit in front facilitates a mild demonstration of dominance by the owner and yet is unlikely to engage a defense reaction even from highly dominant dogs. In the case of anxious or excitable dogs it requires them to remain calm and concentrate which facilitates positive reinforcement of a desired behavior. In the case of a young dog or any new dog, regardless of age, Sessions must be kept short. Five to ten minutes on any particular exercises is the maximum time which the dog should be expected to concentrate for. It is better to err on the short side rather than aim for the perfect behavior and work the dog too long.

Play should always follow each and every training session. This as stated previously has beneficial effects on the social bond between handler and dog as well as making the whole training process far more enjoyable for the dog in question. If the dog is prone to becoming bored easily then play sessions can be included as rewards for concentration. Care needs to be exercised here however as if the dog is over excited then its cognitive function will be

impaired as much as if the dog is experiencing anxiety. Again the chemical balance in the brain reduces cognitive functioning and poor learning results. It should be noted that whilst the effect on learning performance is similar as in is detrimental to optimum learning performance it is a totally different chemical imbalance and the two should always be differentiated as the solution is very different when seeking to rectify the training problems.

As stated play during a training session is usually only used consistently when working with young dogs, but occasionally an older dog will need to have its mood lifted during a training session, play is how this is best accomplished. Such a use of play is usually short term for the adult dog unless it has be over-trained continually where by the whole concept of training is perceived by the dog as repetitive and boring. In these cases the use of play and a less rigid structure to the training program will attain the desired attitude from the dog and lead to improved working performance. This is due to the increased motivation; dogs like people are more likely to learn if they feel motivated to complete the task at hand. When we look at the degree of repartition involved in most of the exercises we ask our dogs to perform, the actions themselves can hardly be considered to be stimulation or motivating to the dog. By working for shorter periods and using a more diverse training structure the dog remains stimulated and motivated, as a result optimum learning performance is achieved.

This point is particularly relevant to those looking at competing in organized obedience trials. These trails by there very nature are not stimulating and repetitive. In the lower level classes we find a higher proportion of dogs which are happily working and expressing the desired attitude in their work. The work certainly is not of the standard seen in the higher classes, but the dog's attitude is usually better. The repetitive nature of the training is the reason why many of the dogs competing in the higher levels are appearing robotic and generally uninterested in what they are doing. The aim of the handlers should be to improve the dogs work performance without reducing the dogs willing and happy attitude. Play and a varied program is how this is best achieved. This becomes even more important when you look at the areas in these higher classes where the dogs make mistakes, which results in a failing score. In the

majority of cases seen by the Author the dog would have been less likely to make the errors if its motivation to work had not been thoroughly trained out of it.

Heeling mistakes made in these higher classes are a classic example. The dog is bored so it lags behind or is easily distracted the result is sloppy work. Many trainers then attempt to fix the problem by increasing the amount of heeling work they are doing or drilling the dog hard in heeling exercises, this is fatally flawed as it doesn't come close to addressing why the dog is making mistakes. The dog's contempt for the repetitive actions required is hardly going to be improved by increasing the repartitions or by applying a greater degree of force when correcting mistakes. The dog is still bored and now would have even more unpleasant experiences to reinforce why it doesn't enjoy training or trailing. The answer is to address the whole boredom issue by making the whole process more stimulating and interesting, this will increase the motivation of the dog and improve its performance.

A program, which is from the onset varied, tends to produce dogs, which are more enthusiastic about their work, and as a result more motivated to learn. They have learnt through their training program that exciting things will happen. This is further reinforced during the course of their duties. If a trainer incorporates agility, tracking, searching or even protection work into their training program even when working with young pups they are more likely to produce the desired work ethic. If Police dogs were taken as an example the above statement would be seen to be true. A Police dog will frequently have to work for up to 12 hours on a single shift, this will involve long stints of heeling of a far greater duration than is ever called for in competitive trials. If a police dog loses concentration, the police officer may be hurt or the dog may miss a vital clue; as a result it is imperative that the dogs are able to function both in its ability to carry out its orders as well as retaining its own cognitive process to solve problems it encounters. The varied training program of a police dog is one of the major factors why Police dogs can perform the boring and repetitive tasks without becoming de-motivated, they have been conditioned to expect something more enjoyable will happen soon.

Another consideration is the handler. Competitive situations are by their nature stressful; you and the dog are being judged. Many handlers project this anxious state onto their dogs and effect the dog's performance as a result. Police work is also very stressful but the handlers know that even if it is a life and death situation they are there to support their dog and maintain optimum efficiency. This point is often lost in the competitive scene as a mistake made by the dog is viewed by the handler as a slight against their own abilities. In their striving for the perfect performance they forget the dog is a sentient being and has feelings which need to be considered. They feel anger at a silly mistake the dog has made; their body language expresses this anger very clearly to the dog. The dog then reacts with fear of the handler and the whole performance is lost. The dog cannot comprehend that it was because it heeled wide on the third turn that the owner is angry. Also worthy of note is that Police dogs are evaluated on their effectiveness and not the cosmetic appearance of their performance. No Policeman wants to be dragged along by his dog when heeling through a crowd but if the dog is not in the exact position required for competition purposes no one would care. The emphasis is on functionality.

Obedience competitions don't make this allowance, the dog is being judged on the precision of its work. The key is that whilst the obedience dog must be more precise in his work he only has to retain this intense concentration of a boring and repetitive activity for a very short period of time. If competitors looked at the time their dog is in the ring and then looked at the amount of that time they are actually working for on a single exercise they have a good idea as to the maximum time they should be training their dog on a single exercise without breaking the concentration with an enjoyable social interaction. This does make a total farce of the 1 hour-plus long training sessions practiced by many training clubs. Shorten the sessions, add play or pleasant social contact for the same length of time you have been training for between training specific exercises and reward the dog for concentrating as much as you do for doing the correct action. Evaluate the dog and ascertain what its motivation level is like and devise ways to make its training interesting. Drilling the dog into submission is only likely to have any beneficial

effect if the causation of the problem is the dogs perceived dominance over its handler and even that is doubtful as to if it is the best solution.

The interaction between the dog and its handler must always remain a pleasant experience. The dog needs to know that whilst at times it is expected to do boring and repetitive things something fun will always happen every time it is with its handler. To facilitate this in a trial situation the handler must make good use of the breaks between the exercises by ensuring that the dog receives the pleasant social contact required to keep its emotional state from impacting on its performance. At the conclusion of the dog's time in the ring a game which spans for the same length of time should be engaged. In this way the dog clearly knows that its social superior is happy with it and thus positive reinforcement of its pleasurable experience of being with the owner has been achieved. The additional benefit for competitors is that this kind of training program has the dog more focused on its handler, they are waiting to switch to the more pleasurable and fun prey mode. To make sure they don't possibly miss the all-important invitation to play they as a result watch the handlers very closely and are more animated in their movements.

Part Four: Practical Modal Education Applications

Introduction

Optimum learning performance requires a degree of motivation as well as clearly understood communication between pupil and teacher. O'Farrell, 1992, suggests that a dog does not have to be in a particular learning frame of mind to learn. This is correct as a dog is capable of learning in a wide variety of circumstances and emotional states, but also consider the work of Eysenk 1999, which puts forward the role of motivation and its positive effect on learning performance in humans. Such a position, improved learning performance being associated with a greater degree of motivation, would also be strongly supported by the work of Fox 1978, in dogs and other canids. This theory in its most basic form provides as a system of education. It utilizes the social needs of the dog to establish and maintain control; it utilizes the innate prey drives of the dog in an infantile form of prey play, Fox 1978, as the primary motivator/reinforcement. Within such a system optimum learning performance can be achieved, as communication is specific and easily comprehended, rewards and punishment if necessary are also clear and concise.

The purpose of this section is therefore to give details on how in practice the trainer can best supply information to the dog, motivate and reward the dog and where necessary punish the dog. All three areas interplay to facilitate learning.

Dog training is mainly completed using the learning theory of operant conditioning. Whilst this is the aim in practice a dog can learn in a classical conditioning sense and this if available to the dog will override the operant conditioning exercise attempting to be taught. This point must be clearly

understood by the handler so that they will recognize when the training objective may be misunderstood by the dog and lead to the dog learning a totally different behaviour which may be undesirable. This will be covered in great detail in the first part of this section. It is also very likely, considering the observational learning achieved in wild canids, which domestic canines are capable of learning from observationally. If this is the case then many objectives (trained behaviours) could be taught to the pups simply by allowing the pup to observe an adult dog exhibiting the desired behaviours. This factor is still to be borne out by research but as such it is a highly credible field of future research.

The use of punishment in dog training is probably the most misused educational tool the trainer has. Trainers need to understand when to punish and the means of punishment which concisely let the dog know that it has done wrong but does not invoke an anxiety or fear response. In this section methods to correct the dog will be discussed as well as visual clues the dog will display to indicate a state of fear or anxiety.

Communication of Training Objectives

To consider the impact of the Modal theory on how we approach the training of the dog we should consider what mode the dog must be in to comply with what we have asked of it. We then must also accept as fact that since the purpose of the mode is to priorities events relative to the dogs needs it would be impossible for the dog to operate in two modes simultaneously. As a result we can theorize that a dog is able to rapidly switch from one mode to another and back again as is required to best priorities the situation, relative to its emotional reactions to obtain the highest degree of success for the activity the dog is engaged in.

An example of this would be that handler control is achieved through the social mode. A handler is using its higher position in the hierarchy to control

the subordinate dog as previously stated. As the required action will impact on the dogs security within the pack (its acceptance, position etc), the dog will switch from either prey or defense to the social mode to comply as the priority in this mode will give issues relative to the dogs security within its social system greater importance than the other two modes would. This is of course subject to the dog a) recognizing the handlers superiority within the pack, and b) the dog perceiving that disobedience to the command of a superior will have an effect on its (the dogs) security within the pack. It should be noted very clearly that this is one area where force can have a very negative effect. If the dog reacts through fear he is not in social mode he is in defense. Whilst the dog may comply out of fear of retribution it has not necessarily accepted the higher position of the handler. This is why force is not a valid way to ensure domination of a dog. If the threshold switching process is considered we must make sure that the dog does understand that obedience to the handlers requests must be its highest priority. This is where most handlers fail.

It is very easy to use our superior strength to obtain a desired behaviour but it is highly doubtful that in such instances much has been learned by the dog, or at least nothing greatly beneficial, it will however have learnt that its superior is stronger than it and prone to aggressive out bursts. This is a fair indication of the situation the dog perceives. Chances are that the dog did not fully understand what was asked of it; and, when its inaction or wrong action caused through confusion resulted in rage from its superior, it has learnt through classical conditioning that when it is confused the handler will get angry and forceful. Not an ideal situation. Handlers should strive to attain dominance using minimal force. This is attained by putting into practice the modal theory applications. If security is the primary emotional trigger for a switch to social mode then we must insure that the dog clearly understands that being in close contact with us is a privilege and not a right like food and water. The author is aware that some trainers use the basics of life, food and water, as a training tool this practice is inhumane and should not be encouraged.

This is most simply achieved by removing the dog from your presence or ignoring its presence whenever it fails to obey a KNOWN command. The emphasis is on known for if the dog is being taught a new exercise then there is little to be gained from punishing a wrong action. The simple facts are that the dog was not disobedient it simply doesnt know what you want; this simplification clearly shows that punishment in such instances is unwarranted. Does this not call into question the older style training methodologies which required lead corrections whilst teaching heeling right from the very start? In such circumstances we surely have not taught the dog anything of value other than we, as a race are prone to violent outbursts and use physical force to obtain what we want from subordinates.

A practical example of a switch to social mode triggered by issues of security in a training sense is the call off from attack as practiced in the French and/or Belgian Ringsport. (The dog is required to chase down a fleeing man and when commanded by the handlers just prior to coming in contact with the man, break off the attack and return to the handler at the same speed with which it had originally departed) A dog chasing a fleeing decoy is in prey mode as it nears the decoy switches to defense mode to attack; when the handler calls it off, it must switch back to social mode to comply with the wishes of its superior for the same reasons stated above. Fear of the handler has nothing to do with it and could not be used to obtain the result, at best what you would get would be a dog which will bite and then let go only if the handler was close enough to intervene. This again is not the dog acknowledging a higher authority rather the dog giving way to superior force. (Avoidance).

Such low thresholds are firmly established by handling methods which promote the bond between the dog and handler and then use the handlers abstinence or lack of attention as a potential punishment. Consider that a person has a special person in their lives, this person is always there to share the fun times, is so consistent in their affirmation of the friendship, has provided support and encouragement through difficult times and actively participated in the celebration of the others success. You have here a fairly accurate description of what the dogs would perceive to be the perfect relationship with a social superior. Now consider the effect, emotionally, on

the subject, if through the subjects own actions, this person suddenly removed all this emotional support and became aloof or indifferent to the subject or in a worst case scenario left the subject alone. The subjects world has effectively been turned upside down, no force has been used and the only fear generated is that of hurting the other feelings or a loss of security.

In human terms we would consider that if a person felt such a deep sense of loss that they were psychologically ill, they would be termed co dependant. But to a dog this is exactly the effect a normal emotionally healthy subject would feel. They are emotionally different to humans and require a far higher degree of cohesion between the pack members for the pack to operate at maximum efficiency. They are in effect co dependant on each other to maintain their respective positions within the pack structure and as a result their very survival as individuals is tied to the packs cohesion. Thus the effect on the canine subject to such an action from a social superior is to try to make back the ground they lost, to save face so to speak and redeem themselves in their superiors eyes. In dogs trained under this methodology we see in practice and increased effort on the dogs part to obey the handlers instructions to make sure they avoid that feeling of isolation. In doing so they often preempt commands, try several different behavioural responses, all of which is done at an increased pace. When the dog is exhibiting this kind of a response a good social superior lessens the dogs state of anxiety through calming directives and when the desired behaviour has been achieved honestly expressed their appreciation for the subjects effort. Thus the subject is no longer removed from their security and is clearly shown that no resentment remains as a result of their actions. Another positive effect is that in the dogs eyes this increased praise and attention from the social superior increases, in its perception the dogs position within the pack Arguably of greater importance to the field of education is that there is no lingering anxiety as a result, the dog knows that provided the wishes of the social superior are carried out there will be re occurrence. This should not imply that a dog treated in this manner will never again disobey, they will and it would be foolish to consider otherwise. The benefit of this approach is that disobedience can be corrected effectively in a clearly comprehended manner that all parties clearly understand without having to resort to the use of physical force. This is the primary objective of any handler wanting to exercise control over their dog.

It should be obvious from all the previous text that a detailed evaluation of the dogs emotional reactivity should be done prior to any serious attempts at educating. The Author intends to do further research in this area in future as it is believed that without an uncomplicated system to evaluate the dogs innate thresholds and emotional reactivity it is very difficult to ensure that information is presented in the best possible manner. It is considered that the 16 personality types put forward by Jung, Jung 1932, will provide the best platform from which to classify the various combinations of thresholds and emotional reactivity. This having been said Jung did specifically state that polar variances within each type will occur so even when this research has been completed there will still be a reliance on the handler to identify the dogs own personal thresholds and reactivity potential and adjust any training methods accordingly to best suit the individual concerned.

The concept that the level of the threshold for social mode is an accurate measure of how easily the dog can be controlled has been thoroughly put forward. A dog with a low threshold will easily be controlled by almost anyone the dog feels is superior to it within its pack. This however is not always as beneficial as it might first seem. If the dog with a low threshold also has extreme or very high innate drives within this mode the dog is easily put into an anxious state. The reason is that the dog needs to feel secure within the pack and any thing which jeopardizes that sense of security is anxiety provoking. This is due to extreme rated drives causing an almost pathological need within the dog. Couple this type of dog with inconsistent handling and the result will be a very anxious even fearful dog which will display an avoidance reaction with a possible shift subject to its defense potential and threshold to defense mode. If the innate potential is not as high (moderate or high drives) then the dog remains controllable and yet not quite as prone to anxiety as the fore mentioned dog. An extreme drive (social) dog with a moderate or high threshold will in turn need a stronger (mentally) more dominant handler to effectively trigger the threshold; as a result dogs of this combination are harder to control. Extreme social drive potential with an extreme threshold has not as yet in this research been encountered. It is reasonable to consider though that such a combination would be highly dominant and very difficult to control.

A high social drive dog with an extreme threshold rating would also be very dominant and would require specialized handling as the extreme threshold would be very hard to trigger. The same would be true of a moderate or low social drive dog which still had an extreme threshold. But the three examples just given would still require different approaches. A low social drive dog would not respond as effectively to banishment as a moderate or high social drive dog, the need to be part of the pack is not as high and thus this type of dog would be far more independent. High social drive dogs still need to be part of a pack and would be very social when the threshold had been triggered, a low social drive dog would not. The moderate drive dog would fall in between the two examples given.

It has also been stated that the impact of early experiences is seen on the dogs threshold levels as is many other interactions seen though out a dogs life. What has been frequently seen in practical applications is that if stimuli cause a very high level of emotional response in a dog they will tend to default back to their innate threshold levels until such a stimulus is removed. This doe not negate the need to work with the dog to teach it to be able to raise and lower its own thresholds but is yet another variant which needs to be considered by the handler. An example is that if you had an extreme social drive dog which had an innately low threshold you would work with that dog to raise its social threshold in areas of work where control by the handler was not the highest priority, take tracking as an example. A dog with extreme social drives and a low threshold would not be comfortable working at 15m from the handler unless it also had extreme prey drives and a low prey threshold. (The two would be incompatible and such a type has not been seen). To get this dog to track effectively it must be taught to raise its social threshold. But if stimulus was present that had such a profound effect on the dog which brought its security into question then it would, while such stimulus is present revert back to its original low threshold for social. Thus, whilst handlers can and do teach a dog to raise its threshold, we cannot alter the dogs reactivity to the extent that a low threshold dog can be made into a high or extreme under all circumstances. Thus the innate potential or positioning of the threshold still needs to be taken into consideration when handling a dog or even when breeding from the dog.

The dogs whole modal position or type will impact on how reliable the learnt raised threshold will be. For example, an extreme rated social dog with a low threshold can be taught to raise that threshold enough to complete the work of a tracking dog subject to its prey drive rating and its prey threshold. If the prey drives are low, it is doubtful that the dog would be able to work effectively in tracking; moderate prey drives would enable some tracking to be taught. High drive dogs would be able to perform at a higher level than moderate and extreme dogs higher again. The thresholds for prey mode also have an impact; the lower the threshold the better the dog will likely perform as the likelihood of a switch back to social is reduced. This is to say that the dog with a low prey threshold does not need much motivation to switch to prey mode and thus work; it derives its own pleasure from the work; the higher the threshold the less likely the dog is to be able to retain its learnt threshold for the social drive. Environmental stimulus will thus have a greater effect on such a dog and it will tend to become concerned that it is actually doing the right thing. This triggers the dogs need for security and in turn engages the social threshold and switches the dog to social mode. End result the dog is now in the wrong mode to be able to complete the task, in this case tracking.

The above example can be further built onto by considering the dogs defense potential and thresholds. If the dog mentioned above had high defense drives with a low threshold, it will also be more likely to be reactive and switch to either social or defense subject to whether the stimulus creates uncertainty or fear emotions. If the dog had low defense drives and a low threshold, it would look to the handler anytime it was unsure or felt fear and thus reverting back to a social position as the dogs has a higher innate potential within this mode. This in effect would cause the fear to trigger a switch to social which is achieved by fear causing a switch to defense mode; the dog has low innate potential in this mode; this creates uncertainty which in turn switches the dog to social. The most likely behavioural action would be avoidance which would most probably be attributed to the dog being fearful and thus the dog would be thought of as being in defense mode. This in turn can lead to other problems; if the handler then tries to switch a dog to social mode to regain control, the dog is already in this mode and any increase in the handler trying

to assert their position is only likely to lead to greater avoidance as the dog feels even more unsure of its position.

In short if a dog has low innate thresholds training can teach the dogs to raise their own thresholds. This learnt threshold will only be maintained by the dog provided it is still higher than the thresholds of not only the mode within which it is desired the dog should operate in but the remaining mode as well, and that the innate drives of the mode required for the work at hand is not significantly lower than the innate drives of the mode which has had its threshold raised by learning. This is true across all three modes.

This example tries to point out how imperative it is that the handler of any dog learns to read the dogs emotional state and without projection recognize the innate potential of the dog and can follow along the switches with objectivity. Dogs are complex animals but humans are very fortunate that the dog is far more visually communicative than we are and handlers need to learn what the dog is expressing through its body and facial expressions. This observable information is then considered against the dogs innate modal positions and an accurate idea of what the dog is feeling can be ascertained. Only in this manner are handlers in a position to ensure that all information is passed onto the dog at the most opportune time and in the most comprehensible manner.

Prey mode is responsible for play in the domesticated dog for reasons explained previously. All play regardless of which mode the participants were in initially is carried out in prey mode. In play with in a social setting, the play bow and other actions elicit a prey response from the recipient. There is also some research currently underway which suggests that the production of hormones also has a part to play through the sense of smell, Vandergeten,( personal communication), but this is most likely going to be unsuccessful as it is more likely that the observers observational skills have failed to notice the minute changes in body or facial expressions. These

actions trigger the emotive response so that the recipient is able to undertake the correct behavioral response. Failure to respond to such a trigger could engage the defense trigger and a fight would result. This mode is the primary mode within which we will reward our dogs for correct completion of exercises as the dog cannot whilst in this mode feel anxiety. Anxiety as explained is created through a conflict of the dog not being sure of the actions required, to this end anxiety can only be expressed when the dog is in social mode. Prey mode is still also triggered by food. This is the last remnant of true prey mode left from the domestication process. For some individuals this part of prey is a lot stronger than the desire to chase. It could be still speculated though that as our dogs are well fed, the enjoyment from food used in training is still based on the excitement of the dog pleasing the pack leader and as such still constitutes a modified play behavior. By switching our dogs to prey mode at the completion of an exercise we are displaying in no uncertain terms to the dogs that we are happy with them. This lack of confusion is why dogs trained in this manner are a lot happier in their work and have improved handler bonds over the more institutionalized systems.

Prey mode has a lot more to offer the trainer than simply a means of reward. Prey can be used to motivate a dog to complete an action, it can be used as a means of reducing anxiety and a means by which other thresholds can be raised, thus this mode is of great importance when considering how to effectively communicate the training objective to the dog. As such a handler should take great care to evaluate their dogs prey potential and innate threshold for this mode.

A dog with extreme prey drives and a low threshold will take very little to want to engage the handler in prey play, chase a ball or take a food treat. They will also be easy to teach tracking, retrieval and will have a natural desire to chase livestock but usually will be very hard to control in obedience or to keep quiet and calm. If that same dog also has a high social drive with an innately low threshold it will frequently be subject to anxiety reactions. This is due to both modes having a low threshold and the need this dog has as a result to please its superior. Such reactions are easily overcome by ensuring

the dog understands that the handler does want to play. Tracking with a dog of this type does require careful handling as if the handler allows the lead to suddenly become taunt (tension shock) the dog will begin to experience anxiety as its experiences a conflict between wanting to complete the prey behaviour (tracking) and the desire to please the handler (tension shock being interpreted as a lead correction). In this situation the handler must work to increase the social trigger by rewarding the dog for remaining focused in prey mode. If we add a high defense drive and a low threshold we again see a multi facetted problem occurring from the same tension shock, if the handler is particularly dominant and the dog receives a tension shock it is possible that the dog will switch from prey mode to defense as it becomes fearful. This situation requires careful handling as the handler must ensure that the fearful response is not rewarded. In this situation the handler should quietly encourage the dog to resume the tracking and make no attempt to physically comfort the dog.

If a dog presents itself for training and has a moderate or low prey drive, it will require a particularly skillful and patient handler to bring out the working abilities of this dog. For the average handler the dog needs to have whatever threshold it has for prey lowered and this threshold must remain lower than the other two modes. A handler of such as this would usually begin the dog in a social mode exercise like obedience and then reward with free play. This is usually accomplished by allowing the dog to run free in an enclosed area and encouraging the dog to chase you by running away. If there are some objects in the area where the handler can hide all the better as the ability to search is a prey modal behaviour. After several sessions of this the dogs usually begin to exhibit play bows and other prey behaviours such as scenting. If this dog has a high social drive with a low threshold the handler will have little difficulty controlling the dog off lead provided they are not too forceful and incite and anxiety response. The higher the social threshold the harder it will be to control the dog but conversely in practice we have found that the higher the threshold for social the faster we see a take up of the lower prey threshold. This having been said, the author has trained several dogs of high social potential and low prey potential. This is done by using social contact as the ultimate reward for the dog, but it does require very quick reactions and succinct timing to obtain the same results as that achieved through the use of prey behaviours as a reward.

Anxiety is still usually quite an issue with dogs of this type and could be responsible for the blocking of the dogs prey potential.

Again the defense mode will play a part; if this mode has a low threshold coupled with high innate potential then fear reactions are also common occurrences in the early part of prey training. These reactions must not be rewarded and largely ignored by the handler continuing the chase-me game. If the handler was chasing the dog and a fear reaction resulted, the handler should immediately reverse the roles and get the dog to chase him; this switches the dog back to prey and the game continues. Care should of course be taken to avoid as much as is possible a switch to defense when playing but if the dog has a low defense threshold they will occur. It is important to note that just because a fear reaction occurs a handler should not stop chasing the dog, rather simply tone it down a little by being less vigorous in the approach and quickly reverse the roles at the first sign of fear. This will over time increase the defense threshold as the dog begins to understand that its fear is unwarranted.

When evaluating a dog for prey potential and thresholds the handler must realize that the dogs innate potential can and often is blocked by either or both a fear or anxiety reaction. If a dog is clearly demonstrating anxiety when a handler attempts to engage the dog in play and shows no indication that it understands or has any interest in prey behaviours, the mostly likely reason is the dog has high to extreme social drives and a low social threshold. This may be the result of the dogs early experience (in the case of an adult) or its innate type. Either way the method described above will reduce the anxiety and allow for a detailed evaluation of the prey potential to be seen, but it is a long term process and will not even under intensive training rapidly rectify the problem. This resistance to prey behaviours is frequently seen in adult dogs which have changed home; obviously they have to bond with the handler before they will feel secure and until this is completed they will be more subject to security based issues. If the situation continues and the dog is still not displaying prey behaviours, there will frequently have been a learnt response involved.

An example of this is an adult dog which has been run with a number of dogs and then later rehomed into a home where it is the only dog. This dog has most likely been well down the pack hierarchy and has adopted omega dog or beta dog behaviours (omega dogs are the lowest of the pack with no aspirations of leadership, the beta dog is a dog which has not been able to attain leadership but does have the dominance to assume such a role). Beta dogs recover very quickly as they are natural leaders which have been suppressed; they tend not to have too low a social threshold which steadily increases over a reasonably short period of time. The omega dog usually does have a low social threshold and high drives in this mode; they will suffer a great deal of anxiety when faced with a beta position (they are the sole dog responsible to the owners). Time will remedy most of this anxiety but handlers must be careful not to try to do too much too soon.

Agility training has been found to assist low social threshold dogs of high drives get over their anxiety as they must conquer their anxiety to master the apparatus and then as they increase in speed it does in effect become play which allows for a switch to prey mode. It is also an area where handlers are very succinct in what it is they are asking of the dog and tend to show the dog what they want rather than simply order it to be done. Once in prey mode they can be built up in confidence not only of themselves but their relationship with the handler. Handlers should maintain a forward motion when handling an anxious dog on an agility course. If a handler stops moving to rectify a problem, the dogs tend to react with increased anxiety as the dog perceives the directed attention of the handler being intimidating. In practice the use of continual motion has had extremely promising results with highly anxious dog; as to whether this is the dog using its prey potential to reduce its anxiety or simply that the superior is allowing the subordinate to follow without rejection is unknown at this time.

Important to note is that whilst a dog can only operate in a single mode at a time, the influences on a dog in one mode can affect the threshold of another mode by means of the dog regulating its own threshold position. This does not

imply that one mode or another is consistently more important to the dog, rather that a dog controls the thresholds of each mode to suit the individual circumstances it is currently in and its innate potential. In obedience heeling exercises we use the social mode to increase the threshold of triggering the prey response. The dog is in social because the handler has obtained obedient responses to its requests of the dog. The objective for the dog is to complete each action requested by its superior knowing that successful competition will be prey or a food treat. This allows us to hold the dogs focus on the task at hand until we release it at the completion of the desired exercise. If a prey object such as a retrieval toy is used as the motivator for the dog to respond, we use the social mode that is our position with relation to the dog in the hierarchy to stop the dog from switching to prey mode and trying to play until we release the dog by throwing the article for it. In such circumstances the dog must raise the threshold to achieve the results desired by a superior prior to being able to switch over to prey mode and play with the prey object the way it desires. This is copying the method used by pack superiors in wolf packs to hold younger, lower ranked dogs from spoiling a planned stalk.

This is as close to setting the thresholds as we can come, but it is still a judgment call from the dog, which actually sets the threshold. We show our disappointment if they get it wrong by withholding the reward and making the dog go through the exercise again. This way the dog soon learns to wait until it is allowed to switch; this is true control. We've all seen dogs that have low thresholds unable to complete the scenario given. The handler is unable to switch the dog to social mode where by he can control the dog. In such cases the handler must look to ways which he can maintain the dog in social mode when the prey object is in sight. This is achieved very gradually by withholding the reward from the dog until he has remained in social mode (displayed calm and correct behavioural responses) for gradually increasing periods of time. The dog learns to heighten its threshold or the reward will not be made available. Again this principal is identical to that of a wild dog attempting to elicit play with a superior of the pack; it must observe all the correct social forms so as not to infer a challenge to the superior and evoke a corrective/aggressive response from him.

Prey mode is frequently used in the treatment of dogs having a behavioural disorder. Prey is as stated a stress free mode; it allows for fun interactions between dog and handler; it usually involves high levels of activity either mental or physical or a combination of both which is used to relieve boredom or correct displacement activities; it is also used to control fear and anxiety responses in dogs as described earlier. It should therefore be that every breeder should do their utmost to ensure that the prey potential of their dogs is fully attained. Sadly this is not the case and the author would attribute this breeder failure to the destruction of many dogs for behavioural based reasons.

In defense of the breeders, it is true that a dog with high or extreme prey drives and low thresholds are difficult to handle especially in the conformation show ring; but it is a simple matter of these breeders improving their handling skills and learning to create a balanced dog and the situation would be rectified without the causation of many of the behavioural problems all too frequently seen in modern dogs. It is also true that to maintain this balance when the breeder has 10 to 20 dogs or more would be a full time job all by itself, but it was the breeders choice to have so many dogs and thus they should accept the responsibility for the mental welfare of all their charges. Refusing to allow the dog to reduce its own stress level can hardly be considered to be ethical and not providing a stimulating environment with ample opportunity for prey behaviours is exactly that. This point could well be one of the major causes of the significant increase in dogs taken to specialists for behavioural therapy as could the ever increasing differences between working lines and show lines of the same breeds. Over time breeders in the show ring have selectively bred for a low prey drive dog for ease of handling, but in doing so have created a innately unbalanced dog. It is also true that highly specialized working kennels have created the opposite imbalance where if the dog is not constantly at work (in a world where opportunities for such are reducing rapidly) they are also highly subject to behavioural disturbances. It is not the intention of this paper to say which of the polar extremes is right or wrong, rather that as the breeders have specialized their dogs specifically for their own desires that the resulting unbalanced dog does on average make a very poor family pet. The key for the breeders is to achieve a balanced dog and to ensure that they are actually the right people to own the particular breed in question.

Modern husbandry practices have earlier in this paper come in for a fair degree of criticism, particularly in the area of exposure of young stock to stressors. One area which should be made use of though is the manufacturing of prey based toys which are unfortunately usually only used when the dogs behaviour has already slipped beyond the normal. Toys which are self rewarding (classical conditioning) do have a lot to offer the breeder. A number of such devices have an ability to hold food and release such food as the dog plays with the toy in small and gradual doses. These are ideal for stress relief and also provide in at least a marginal way a means by which breeders can ensure that the pups they produce do develop reasonable prey drives and maintain the lowest innate threshold. As the toy is intermittently rewarding the dogs behaviour towards the toy is highly resistant to extinction. It is doubtful that such equipment would replace a well structure early learning program but when incorporated as part of such a program, i.e. continuation of prey drive stimulation when the breeder is unable to engage the pups in prey play, they would appear to have highly positive benefits to the dog and its developing prey drives.

Dogs of an innately low social threshold and subject to anxiety should always be kenneled with a means to reduce that anxiety themselves. This may be one of the mentioned toys or it may be a dog, preferably of a lower social ranking, with which they can engage in play. Anxious dogs which are kenneled by themselves and no real means in moderating their own anxiety position tend to exhibit widely fluctuation responses to the handler approaching the kennel, ranging from extremely happy to skulking away at the furthest point subject to their anxiety level at the time of the approach. Practical usage of the toys mentioned resulted in a far more even range of behavioural responses to the owners approach and thus are considered to further illustrate the point that anxiety/stress self reduction is best achieved through the prey mode.