What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 6pm Friday 9am - 4pm

North Toronto Veterinary Behaviour Specialty Clinic, 2974 King Road, King City, ON (2026)

We apply scientific methods to diagnosis and treatment of all emotional and mental disorders, and accompany you throughout the process.

09/02/2026

Does your dog blink back at you?
Dogs notice far more about us than we sometimes realize.
A new study published in 2026 looked at something surprisingly subtle: whether dogs respond differently when they see their own owner blink.
Researchers studied 35 dogs and showed them videos of either their owner or an unfamiliar person. The people in the videos were either blinking or maintaining a more neutral facial expression.
The dogs blinked more when they watched their owners blinking. The same effect was not seen when they watched unfamiliar people.
That is interesting.
But it does not mean that your dog is deliberately blinking to tell you “I love you,” despite how easily a finding like this can be interpreted online.
The researchers did not find evidence that dogs precisely synchronized their blinks with their owners. In other words, this was not a case of the dog simply seeing a blink and immediately blinking back.
Instead, the study suggests something broader: dogs may be particularly sensitive to very subtle facial behaviour from people they know well.
That fits with what we already know about dogs.
Dogs pay attention to our body posture, movement, facial expressions, voices and even odours. Over thousands of years of domestication, and through their individual experiences living with people, they have become remarkably skilled at extracting information from human behaviour.
But we need to be careful about what that information means.
If your dog looks at you, blinks or changes their facial expression, we cannot automatically assign a human meaning to it.
A blink is not a sentence.
It does not necessarily mean affection, reassurance, submission or trust.
Behaviour needs context.
What was happening immediately before the behaviour? What is the rest of the dog’s body doing? Are they approaching or moving away? Are they relaxed or tense? Is this something they normally do in that situation?
Those questions are much more useful than trying to translate one movement into a specific human emotion.
This is also why short social-media videos can be misleading.
We often see a few seconds of behaviour and immediately label it:
“He feels guilty.”
“She is jealous.”
“He knows exactly what she is saying.”
Sometimes our interpretation may be reasonable. Sometimes we are simply projecting a human explanation onto an animal.
The interesting part of this new research is not that we have discovered a secret canine language based on blinking.
It is that dogs may be paying attention to aspects of our behaviour that are so subtle that we barely notice them ourselves.
And that is another reminder that communication between people and animals is happening all the time, even when neither side is saying a word.
Reference
Royal Society Open Science. 2026. Study examining dogs’ blinking responses while viewing videos of their owners and unfamiliar people. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.260512.

07/29/2026

Why “It’s the Breed” Is Not Enough to Explain Dog Behaviour Problems

Many people want a simple explanation for a dog’s behaviour problem. A Border Collie chases cars because it is a Border Collie. A German Shepherd barks at strangers because it is protective. A Labrador steals food because Labradors love food. A mixed-breed dog is reactive because someone thinks they can see a certain breed in its face. These explanations are tempting because they feel clear, but they are incomplete. Breed and genetics matter, but breed alone is never enough to explain an individual dog’s behaviour.
A dog is not only a breed label. A dog is a mammal, a canine, a domestic dog, a member of a breed or breed mix, and, most importantly, an individual animal with its own genetics, development, learning history, health, environment, and daily routine. At the broadest level, dogs share mammalian systems involved in fear, reward, attachment, arousal, stress, pain, motivation, and learning. As canines, they have inherited capacities for chasing, hunting, social interaction, territorial behaviour, and communication. As domestic dogs, they have also been shaped to live closely with people, read human cues, and form social relationships in environments controlled largely by humans.
Breed adds another layer. Selective breeding has shaped tendencies such as herding, retrieving, guarding, tracking, sound sensitivity, responsiveness to people, and working motivation. Those tendencies can affect risk. They can help explain why certain triggers are powerful for certain dogs. However, they do not diagnose the dog in front of you. Two dogs from the same breed can have completely different thresholds, fears, motivations, medical problems, and learning histories. When someone says, “It’s the breed,” the more accurate answer is, “Maybe, partly, but that is not a diagnosis.”
Research supports this distinction. In 2019, MacLean et al. studied behavioural data from more than 14,000 dogs across 101 breeds. They found that breeds differed, on average, across traits such as trainability, chasing, fear, aggression, attachment-related behaviour, and energy level. They also found genetic associations linked to some breed-level behavioural differences. This matters because it shows that breed is relevant. The key phrase, however, is “on average.” The study describes population-level patterns. It does not show that every dog in a breed behaves the same way, and it does not make breed a reliable stand-alone explanation for an individual behaviour problem.
In 2022, Morrill et al. published a major study in Science examining dog genetics and behaviour. They found that breed explained only about 9 percent of behavioural variation in individual dogs. That number is clinically important. Breed is not meaningless, but it is a weak predictor for the individual dog standing in front of the owner, trainer, veterinarian, or behaviour professional. Breed background can shift probabilities, but most of an individual dog’s behaviour reflects a combination of genetics, development, learning, health, and environment.
Consider a Border Collie that chases cars, bicycles, or running children. Movement sensitivity may fit the breed background. The dog may be more visually triggered by motion than many other dogs. That information is useful, but it is not the whole case. The problem still depends on arousal, anxiety, frustration, repeated rehearsal, access to safe outlets, reinforcement history, leash handling, sleep, exercise, and the environment. If the dog lunges at traffic every day and the behaviour is repeatedly practised, the pattern becomes stronger. The breed gives a clue. It does not provide the full explanation.
Now consider a German Shepherd that barks, growls, or lunges at strangers. Owners often describe this as protection. That label can be misleading and sometimes dangerous. The behaviour may reflect fear, poor early social exposure, repeated exposure beyond the dog’s threshold, frustration, pain, or learning. If barking and lunging make people move away, the behaviour may be repeated because it works. Calling it “the breed” or “protection” can hide the real problem and may even make owners proud of behaviour that is unsafe and distressing for the dog.
A Labrador that steals food, jumps on visitors, or grabs items provides another example. Food motivation may be relevant, but it is not the full case. Feeding routines, reinforcement, impulse control, frustration tolerance, household management, owner responses, and health factors that affect appetite or arousal still matter. A dog that receives attention, food, chasing games, or conflict after stealing items may keep doing it because the behaviour has been reinforced. Again, breed may explain part of the tendency. It does not explain the individual problem.
This is where many people confuse correlation with destiny. A breed tendency means that a behaviour may be more likely in a given breed. It does not mean that the behaviour is guaranteed, fixed, untreatable, or irrelevant to welfare. That distinction matters because behaviour problems are not just personality quirks. They involve emotion, learning, physiology, environment, safety, and health. When owners believe behaviour is fixed by breed, help is often delayed. Problems are tolerated too long. Punishment may be used because the dog is labelled stubborn, dominant, protective, or difficult. In some cases, dogs are given up when they could have improved with proper assessment and a realistic plan.
Mixed-breed dogs make breed-based thinking even weaker. People often guess breed from appearance, but visual breed identification is unreliable. In 2018, Gunter et al. compared shelter-breed labels with DNA-based breed-heritage testing and found poor agreement between visual labels and genetic results. In 2009, Voith et al. also found that adoption agencies identified at least one breed detected by DNA testing in only 7 of 20 mixed-breed dogs. This matters because labels change interpretation. A dog called a shepherd mix may be treated as protective when the issue is fear. A dog called a terrier mix may be dismissed as stubborn when the issue is confusion, poor reinforcement, or an unsuitable environment.
Even physical structure can correlate with behaviour. In 2013, McGreevy et al. used C-BARQ data, a large owner-completed behavioural questionnaire, and found associations between behaviour, height, body weight, and skull shape across breeds. That is useful because selective breeding for appearance and function can affect behaviour. However, correlation is not certainty. Skull shape, body type, breed category, and visual labels cannot diagnose a dog’s learning history, emotional state, health status, pain level, household routine, or daily pressure. The individual assessment still matters most.
The better question is not only, “What breed is this dog?” The better question is, “Why is this individual dog behaving this way?” That question forces a broader assessment. It includes genetics, early development, social exposure, health, pain, sleep, fear, frustration, reinforcement, owner behaviour, household structure, training history, environmental pressure, and recovery time. These factors are not secondary. They govern behaviour alongside genetics. That is why two dogs from the same breed, and even from the same line, can behave very differently. One may be confident, resilient, and quick to recover. Another may be fearful, easily overwhelmed, slow to settle, and in need of a much more structured treatment plan.
Working lines and show lines add another layer. Two dogs with the same breed name may have been selected for different traits for generations. A dog bred for field work, herding work, or protection work may not have the same behavioural profile as a dog bred mainly for appearance or companionship. Line can provide more information than breed alone, but even line is not enough. The individual dog still matters more.
The correct use of breed is practical, not fatalistic. Breed information can support prevention, early socialization, activity choices, trigger awareness, management, risk assessment, training plans, and realistic expectations. It may tell us where to look first and why certain triggers are powerful. However, it should never be used to say that nothing can be done. Behaviour comes from the interaction between genetics and experience. That includes canine genetics, domestic dog genetics, breed genetics, individual genetics, development, learning, health, and daily life.
Breed matters, but it does not explain the whole dog. It can influence risk, tendency, and likely challenges. It can help guide assessment. It can help owners set realistic expectations. But it does not replace assessment of the individual dog, and it does not decide the outcome. When a dog is aggressive, fearful, reactive, compulsive, noise-sensitive, unable to settle, or getting worse, “it’s the breed” is not enough. The dog needs a formulation based on the individual, not a stereotype.
References
Gunter, L. M., Barber, R. T., and Wynne, C. D. L. 2018. A canine identity crisis: Genetic breed heritage testing of shelter dogs. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202633
MacLean, E. L., Snyder-Mackler, N., vonHoldt, B. M., and Serpell, J. A. 2019. Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286, 20190716. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0716
McGreevy, P. D., Georgevsky, D., Carrasco, J., Valenzuela, M., Duffy, D. L., and Serpell, J. A. 2013. Dog behavior co-varies with height, bodyweight and skull shape. PLOS ONE, 8(12), e80529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080529
Morrill, K., Hekman, J., Li, X., McClure, J., Logan, B., Goodman, L., et al. 2022. Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes. Science, 376(6592), eabk0639. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0639
Voith, V. L., Ingram, E., Mitsouras, K., and Irizarry, K. 2009. Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700902956151

07/22/2026

Dominance Theory in Dogs: Why the Pack Leader Model Is Wrong

Dominance theory is one of the most persistent myths in dog behaviour. Owners are often told that dogs pull on leash, jump on people, guard food, growl, ignore cues, or sleep on furniture because they are trying to be “dominant.” The usual advice is to become the “pack leader.” This sounds simple, but it is usually wrong. Most behaviour problems are better explained by fear, frustration, anxiety, pain, learning history, lack of training, or a mismatch between normal dog behaviour and human expectations.
The problem started in 1947 when Schenkel published observations of captive wolves. He described social tension, threat displays, submission, and hierarchical relationships in wolves kept in captivity. The later flaw was applying those captive-wolf observations too broadly to free-living wolves, pet dogs, and dogs living with people. That leap helped turn a narrow observation into a broad belief that owners must dominate dogs to prevent behaviour problems.
The alpha label became more influential after Mech published The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species in 1970. That book helped popularize the language of alpha wolves and pack order. The concept then moved into dog training, where it was used to explain ordinary household behaviours as rank challenges. A dog walking ahead, sleeping on a bed, guarding food, or resisting handling was often framed as an attempt to control the owner.
Mech revised this interpretation in 1999. He argued that “alpha” is misleading when applied to natural wolf packs because free-living packs are usually family groups led by breeding parents. That matters because the dog-training version of dominance theory was built from an oversimplified wolf model and then applied to a different species living in a human household. The result was a simple story that sounded authoritative but did not explain most dog behaviour accurately.
Dominance theory appeals to owners because it offers a quick explanation when they feel overwhelmed. If the dog barks, lunges, bites, steals food, ignores cues, or growls, the owner is told that the dog is testing them. That explanation feels decisive. It gives the owner something immediate to do: be firmer, take control, and stop the challenge. The problem is that confidence is not accuracy. If the dog is fearful, in pain, anxious, frustrated, confused, or poorly trained, treating the behaviour as a rank challenge overlooks the cause.
The first major flaw is that dominance theory ignores motivation. Dogs do not pull on leash because they want to control the household. They pull because the environment is interesting, forward movement is rewarding, to avoid certain areas or situations, or they have not learned how to walk on a loose leash. Dogs do not usually bark at visitors to assert social rank. They may be afraid, excited, territorial, frustrated, or conflicted. Dogs do not guard food because they want power. They guard because food is valuable and because people approaching may predict loss.
In 2009, Bradshaw et al. argued that dominance is often a poor explanation for domestic dog behaviour. Their key point was that dominance is not a fixed personality trait that explains every difficult behaviour. It is a description of a relationship in a specific context. Calling a dog “dominant” often stops the owner from asking better questions, such as what triggered the behaviour, what the dog gained, what the dog avoided, and what emotional state was present.
The second major flaw is that dominance theory ignores emotion. A growling dog may be frightened, painful, trapped, conflicted, or worried about losing a valued resource. Labelling that dog “dominant” encourages confrontation rather than assessment. Growling is communication. It indicates that the dog is uncomfortable and may escalate if the pressure continues. Punishing the growl may stop the sound, but it does not necessarily change the fear, pain, or conflict behind it. A quieter dog is not automatically a safer dog.
The third major flaw is that dominance-based handling confuses suppression with treatment. If a dog stops growling, barking, or resisting after punishment, the owner may think the problem has improved. In reality, the dog may have become inhibited, shut down, or less willing to warn before escalating. In 2009, Herron et al. reported that some confrontational methods were associated with aggressive responses in dogs. That is the practical risk: the owner may increase danger while believing that they are solving the problem.
Training method also matters. In 2004, Hiby et al. found that reward-based training was associated with fewer reported behaviour problems, while punishment-based training was associated with more. This does not mean that every correction affects every dog in the same way. It means that punishment-heavy approaches are poor default tools, especially for dogs with fear, anxiety, aggression, or poor coping skills. Owners need structure, but structure should teach the dog what to do, not simply punish the dog for being wrong.
A better approach is to identify the function of the behaviour. What triggers it? What does the dog gain or avoid? What has the dog learned before? What emotion is present? A dog who barks at visitors may need distance, controlled exposure, and reinforcement for calm behaviour. A dog who guards food may need predictable feeding routines and exercises that teach people approaching that something good is coming. A dog who pulls on the leash needs teaching and reinforcement, not a lesson in hierarchy.
Training should focus on replacement behaviours. The dog needs to learn what to do instead. For jumping, reward four paws on the floor or a sit before greeting. For pulling, reward walking near the owner before the leash tightens. For window barking, block visual access and teach the dog to move away when called. For stealing objects, manage access and teach a reliable exchange. This is not permissive. It is structured, practical training. The owner still sets rules, controls resources, and prevents unsafe behaviour.
Dogs are highly responsive to people. In 1998, Miklósi et al. showed that dogs can use human-given cues, such as pointing and other gestures, to find hidden food. That matters because dogs are not simply wolf-like animals living beside humans. They are domesticated animals shaped to attend to human communication. Good training uses that strength. It gives clear signals, reinforces useful behaviour, and builds predictable communication between the owner and the dog.
Attachment also matters. In 1998, Topál et al. applied Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Test to dogs and found evidence that adult dogs show attachment behaviour toward their owners. In plain language, many dogs rely on their owners for safety and emotional regulation. A dog who sees the owner as safe and predictable is usually easier to teach than a dog who expects conflict. This is not sentimentality. It is part of how companion dogs function.
The human-dog bond is also biological. In 2015, Nagasawa et al. reported an oxytocin-gaze positive loop between dogs and people. Oxytocin is a hormone involved in social bonding. This supports the importance of calm, trusting interaction. Training based on intimidation risks damaging one of the dog’s most useful behavioural assets: its connection with people.
There is also a cultural clash between dogs and people. Dogs are social, opportunistic, sensory-driven animals. People expect them to live quietly in houses, walk politely on leash, ignore wildlife, avoid food on counters, tolerate strangers, remain calm when left alone, and accept handling that may feel invasive. Many so-called dominance problems are normal dog behaviours that become inconvenient, unsafe, or unacceptable in human environments.
Owners still need leadership, but leadership should mean clarity, consistency, and protection from situations the dog cannot yet handle. It should mean controlling triggers, preventing rehearsal of unwanted behaviour, reinforcing desirable behaviour, and seeking professional help when aggression, fear, or severe anxiety is present. It should not mean proving rank. The useful question is not, “How do I show the dog who is boss?” The useful question is, “What is driving this behaviour, and what does this dog need to learn next?”
Dominance theory survives because it is simple. Modern dog behaviour care is better because it is more accurate. Dogs are not trying to run the household every time they make a poor choice. They are responding to genetics, learning history, emotion, health, motivation, and environment. When owners move away from the pack leader model, they do not lose control. They gain better tools, safer training, and a stronger relationship with their dog.
References
Bradshaw, J. W. S., Blackwell, E.-J., and Casey, R. A. 2009. Dominance in domestic dogs: useful construct or bad habit?
Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., and Reisner, I. R. 2009. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors.
Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., and Bradshaw, J. W. S. 2004. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species.
Mech, L. D. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs.
Miklósi, Á., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., and Csányi, V. 1998. Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs.
Nagasawa, M., Mitsui, S., En, S., Ohtani, N., Ohta, M., Sakuma, Y., Onaka, T., Mogi, K., and Kikusui, T. 2015. Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds.
Schenkel, R. 1947. Expression Studies on Wolves: Captivity Observations.
Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., and Dóka, A. 1998. Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth’s strange situation test.

07/10/2026

How Animals Learn: Learning Theory, Training, and Behaviour Modification

Learning theory explains how animals change their behaviour through experience. These principles apply broadly across species, though each animal’s senses, motivation, emotional state, and normal behavioural needs shape how learning appears in daily life. For owners, learning theory is useful because it explains why behaviour develops, why some training works, why some methods fail, and why behaviour modification must address both behaviour and emotion.
Animals learn constantly. A dog may learn that barking at the front window makes the mail carrier walk away. A cat may learn that hiding behind the washing machine prevents being put in a carrier. These behaviours are not moral choices. They are patterns shaped by consequences, associations, context, and prior experience.
Classical conditioning is learning by association. One event begins to predict another event, especially one that matters emotionally. For example, if a cat only sees the carrier five minutes before a car trip to the clinic, the carrier may begin to predict restraint, travel, unfamiliar smells, and handling. The cat may hide before anyone reaches for it. If a dog hears the doorbell and then strangers enter the home, the doorbell may begin to trigger barking before the door opens. In 1980, Pearce and Hall described Pavlovian learning as a process in which cues become more or less important depending on how well they predict meaningful outcomes.
Classical conditioning matters because it changes emotion, not only visible behaviour. A fearful animal does not simply need to “stop reacting.” The animal needs the trigger to become safer, more predictable, and less threatening. A dog that barks and lunges at dogs across the street may need to start at a distance where it can still eat, orient to the owner, and recover quickly. At that distance, the appearance of another dog can be paired with food, space, and calm movement away. Over time, the trigger can begin to predict a safe routine rather than panic or conflict.
Operant conditioning is learning by consequence. The animal performs a behaviour, and what happens next changes how likely that behaviour is to happen again. If a dog sits in front of the fridge and receives a piece of cheese, they may sit by the fridge more often. If a cat scratches the sofa and the owner rushes over, the cat may scratch more because it reliably elicits attention. If a parrot bites when a hand enters the cage and the hand withdraws, biting may increase because it creates distance. Operant learning is not about whether the animal is “good” or “bad.” It is about whether the behaviour works.
Reinforcement means that a consequence increases behaviour. Positive reinforcement means something desirable is added after the behaviour. This may include food, play, access to a favourite person, access to a perch, permission to sniff, or distance from a trigger. Negative reinforcement means something unpleasant is removed after the behaviour. For example, leash pressure may stop when a dog turns back toward the owner, or halter pressure may stop when a horse steps forward. Both forms of reinforcement increase behaviour. The terms positive and negative mean “added” and “removed,” not “good” or “bad,” not “kind” or “cruel.”
Punishment is a consequence that decreases behaviour. Positive punishment means something unpleasant is added after the behaviour, such as yelling, leash corrections, spray, shock, or physical intimidation. Negative punishment means something desirable is removed, such as ending play when a puppy bites too hard. Punishment can suppress behaviour, but suppression is not the same as emotional change. If a fearful dog is punished for growling at a child, the growling may stop while the fear remains. The warning signal may disappear, but the underlying risk may increase.
Training methods matter. In 2008, Blackwell et al. reported that dogs trained using punishment-based methods were more likely to exhibit behaviour problems than those trained using reward-based methods. A practical example is a dog that is corrected for barking at visitors. The barking may decrease temporarily, but the dog may still feel unsafe when visitors enter. A better plan teaches the dog to go to a mat, reinforces quiet behaviour at a manageable distance, and changes the prediction that visitors create conflict.
More welfare-focused studies point in the same direction. In 2014, Deldalle and Gaunet found that dogs trained with negative reinforcement showed more stress-related behaviours and less attention to their owners than dogs trained with positive reinforcement. In 2020, Vieira de Castro et al. reported that aversive-based training methods were associated with poorer welfare indicators in companion dogs, both during training and outside the training context. For owners, the practical message is direct: methods that rely on fear, discomfort, or intimidation may stop behaviour in the moment, but they can worsen stress and reduce trust.
Observational learning also matters. Animals may learn by watching people or other animals. A young dog may follow an older dog through a dog door. A cat may approach a food puzzle after watching another cat use it safely. In 2016, Fugazza et al. showed that dogs could recall and reproduce human-demonstrated actions after incidental encoding, supporting the view that animals can learn some behaviours through observation. Observation can help, but it does not replace direct reinforcement, safety, and structured practice.
Food aversion is another important learning process. Animals can learn to avoid a food after nausea, vomiting, illness, or distress, even when the food did not actually cause the illness. This is called conditioned taste aversion. A cat that feels nauseated after eating a new kidney diet may refuse that diet later, even if the nausea came from disease rather than the food. A dog that vomits after receiving medication hidden in cream cheese may begin refusing cream cheese, tablets, or both. In 1966, Garcia and Koelling showed that animals form selective associations between taste cues and illness, meaning that some associations are biologically easier to learn than others.
Habituation and sensitization are also central to behaviour modification. Habituation occurs when an animal gradually stops responding to a repeated, harmless stimulus. A puppy may stop reacting to the dishwasher if the sound occurs daily and nothing frightening follows. Sensitization is the opposite: the animal becomes more reactive after repeated or intense exposure. A cat repeatedly chased by a dog may become increasingly reactive to footsteps, tags jingling, or movement near a doorway. Repetition alone is not therapy. Exposure helps only when the animal remains below the point at which fear, panic, or defensive behaviour takes over.
Extinction occurs when a behaviour no longer produces the expected outcome. A dog that paws at the table for food may paw harder, bark, or jump when food stops appearing. This temporary escalation is called an extinction burst. The animal is testing whether the old strategy still works. Extinction is rarely enough on its own because it can create frustration. It is more effective and fairer to reinforce a replacement behaviour, such as lying on a mat during meals, while preventing access to the table.
Training works best when it combines management, reinforcement, and emotional change. Management prevents repeated practice of the unwanted behaviour. Reinforcement teaches the replacement behaviour. Emotional work changes the animal’s response to the trigger. For example, a dog that jumps on guests can be managed with a gate before the door opens. The dog can be reinforced for standing with four paws on the floor, then for going to a mat, then for remaining on the mat while the guest enters. At the same time, guest arrival can predict calm food delivery rather than chaotic social contact.
The same principles apply to carrier training. The carrier should not appear only before stressful travel. It should remain available, contain comfortable bedding, and predict food, rest, and voluntary entry. Training can begin by placing treats near the carrier, then inside the entrance, then at the back. The door should close only briefly after the animal is relaxed, then enter and stay inside. Movement of the carrier, placement in the car, and short trips should each be trained separately. Each step should be easy enough that the animal can succeed.
Good training also requires timing and clarity. The reinforcer must occur close enough to the behaviour for the animal to connect the two. A marker signal, such as a tongue click or marker word, can identify the exact behaviour that earned reinforcement. In 2016, Chiandetti et al. compared food alone, a spoken word, and a mechanical marker when shaping novel behaviours in dogs, providing a direct study of secondary signals in reinforcement-based training. The marker is not inherently meaningful. It becomes meaningful because it is repeatedly followed by something the animal values.
The best training question is not “How do I stop this?” The better question is “What do I want the animal to do instead, and what does the animal need to feel safe enough to learn it?” If the behaviour is normal but inconvenient, such as scratching, chewing, digging, vocalizing, or seeking attention, the plan should redirect it to an acceptable outlet. If the behaviour is driven by fear, anxiety, or frustration, the plan must reduce the emotional load before expecting reliable responses. If the behaviour is reinforced by escape, attention, food, access, or distance, the plan must change the pattern of consequences.
Learning theory makes training fairer and more effective. It prevents owners from blaming animals for behaviours that have been accidentally reinforced or emotionally conditioned. It also gives owners practical tools: change the prediction, reinforce the behaviour you want, prevent rehearsal of the behaviour you do not want, and avoid methods that create fear or conflict. The goal is not obedience at any cost. The goal is a safer, more predictable, and more emotionally stable animal.
References
Blackwell, E.-J., Twells, C., Seawright, A. M., and Casey, R. A. 2008. The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behaviour problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3(5), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.008
Chiandetti, C., Avella, S., Fongaro, E., and Cerri, F. 2016. Can clicker training facilitate conditioning in dogs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 184, 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.006
Deldalle, S., and Gaunet, F. 2014. Effects of two training methods on stress-related behaviours of the dog and on the dog-owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9(2), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.11.004
Fugazza, C., Pogány, Á., and Miklósi, Á. 2016. Recall of others’ actions after incidental encoding reveals episodic-like memory in dogs. Current Biology, 26(23), 3209-3213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.09.057
Garcia, J., and Koelling, R. A. 1966. Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123-124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342209
Pearce, J. M., and Hall, G. 1980. A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87(6), 532-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., and Olsson, I. A. S. 2020. Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023

Address

2974 King Road
King City, ON
L7B1L6

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 6pm
Friday	9am - 4pm

Website

https://northtorontovets.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when North Toronto Veterinary Behaviour Specialty Clinic posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

North Toronto Veterinary Behaviour Specialty Clinic

09/02/2026

07/29/2026

07/22/2026

07/10/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request