The APDT Chronicle of the Dog Summer 2020 | Page 46

FEATURE | SAFER AT THE DOG PARK
By far, the riskiest zone for dog conflicts is the
entrance/exit area. Dog behavior professionals
and formal studies assert this to be the case,
and the results from the survey confirms it.
According to the survey, 68 percent of the dog
conflicts occurred inside the dog park within
100 feet of the entrance/exit (with nearly half of
those within 20 feet of the entrance/exit).
(and cameras), and those using the park would have changed their
behaviors to portray themselves and their dogs in a positive light.
For example, park users likely would have reduced risky behaviors
such as tossing a toy or staying too long; and increased management
behaviors such as attending to their dogs, creating distance from
potential problems, and interrupting mounting and other behaviors
that tend to be precursors to aggression. Perhaps a more effective
approach is to examine interdog conflicts at dog parks to help
caregivers mitigate the risks.
Are some dogs more likely to be involved in a dog fight?
More study is needed in this area, but the “Bark Parks” study
reveals some patterns that could be significant to
guide future research. Of the 177 dogs observed,
there were 14 clearly aggressive incidents
involving 9 aggressors and 12 recipients. A dog’s
size did not seem to be a factor, but a dog’s age
did seem to be. All aggressors were older than
their recipients, and most recipients were less
than a year old. The aggressors tended to be
adults between 16 months and 7 years, were an
even mix of male (4) and female (5), and all were
neutered/spayed. (It’s important to point out that
85 percent of all the dogs were neutered/spayed
and that more research is needed to determine if
the intact status of a dog is a factor in interdog
aggression in dog parks.)
of this can be found in “Exploring the Social Behaviour of
Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) in a Public Off-Leash Dog
Park” (Howse, 2016). In this study, observers did not witness
any incidents of serious unambiguous aggression that suggests
interdog aggression in dog parks is uncommon. But this study
does not represent a typical dog park experience because the dog
density in this study is extremely low. Data collection occurred
in two-hour sessions between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. Observations were purposely made during
this time frame because the low rate of dogs entering the park
made it easier for the researchers to collect data. The average
peak density conditions were 5.9 dogs in the 30,000 squarefoot
park, which works out to be more than 5,000 square-foot
per dog. This is a generous amount of space for dogs to avoid
conflicts — a density that is far below many city dog parks,
especially during peak use. Compare this density to that of the
“Bark Parks” study where 14 to 28 incidents of aggression were
observed. Data collection in the “Bark Parks” study occurred
between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. three to five times a week, and
peak density ranged from 30-50 dogs in the 87,000 square-foot
park: approximately 2,900 to 1,740 square-foot per dog. The
“Bark Parks” study and the Howse study may not be well-suited
for supporting claims that interdog aggression in dog parks is
rare, but they are helpful for developing maximum capacity
guidelines and arguing for larger dog parks for safety reasons.
Formal dog park studies can also be biased towards a low incidence
of interdog aggression because the presence of observers and video
cameras can alter caregivers’ behaviors and, consequently, the dogs’
behaviors. In both the “Bark Parks” study and the Howse study,
park users were fully aware that they and their dogs were being
observed and recorded: signs were posted, video cameras were in
full view, and two or three researchers on site often engaged with
park users directly to gather more data. It could be argued this
likely resulted in fewer incidents of interdog aggression than would
normally occur. Some caregivers would have avoided the park if
they felt there was a risk of their dog aggressing in front of witnesses
Most recipients were male (9 males, 3 females) and were an
even mix of intact and spayed/neutered (4 neutered, 2 spayed).
The sample size is very small and more research is needed, but
perhaps it would be prudent for caregivers of adult dogs to be
more attentive when their dogs are around adolescent males; and
for caregivers of adolescent males to avoid dog parks or use them
with caution, such as ensuring they have trained a very good
recall and are supervising carefully in order to disengage their
dogs from potential trouble sooner.
What are the risks to a dog if a fight occurs?
“My pup is now skittish of bark park.. a friendly social pup”
~ survey respondent #226
“He loves the dog park but I’m the one who is more scared since
the attack.”~ survey respondent #221
“My dog's behaviour towards other dogs has not changed, but
he now hangs out near the gate, wanting to leave the park at that
particular location. (We don't go there often anymore.)”~ survey
respondent #253
“I'm so thankful that my dog's behaviour wasn't affected after the
attack. Yes he was scared immediately after, but then returned to
his normal self.” ~ survey respondent #5
44 Building Better Trainers Through Education