Separation-related problems are a common condition of companion dogs, affecting the emotional, and often physical, welfare of the dog. The resultant separation-related behaviours can also cause considerable distress in owners. Previous articles within this series have considered the veterinary profession's current understanding of the issues associated with owner absence-related problems in dogs. An accurate understanding of what is triggering the dog's separation-related behaviour and the associated emotional systems is important to the treatment of such problems. As separation-related problems can be very complex, treatments have traditionally matched that complexity, often becoming too protracted for owner compliance to be maintained. A previous article (Hargrave, 2024) concentrated on the benefits of initially focusing a treatment programme on improving a dog's sense of safety, both within the environment and within the human-dog relationship. This article considers further interventions for when an individual dog's response to owner absence requires a greater level of support.
Initiating factors for separation-related problems
Many initiating factors for separation-related problems have little to do with the intensity of the human–dog bond. Being alone is an unnatural state for a social species such as a dog; yet, for the majority of dogs who fulfil a role of social companion to a human, periods of social isolation are a daily occurrence. A small proportion of the dogs that cause damage to a home during owner absence will do so as a result of filling their time with activities that are normally prevented, or at least controlled, when owners are present. These may include scavenging or actively seeking items to investigate and with which to play or chew. Such activity can be identified during videoed absence periods, and suitable management of length of absence, along with the provision of suitable mental stimulation within appropriate environments, can be implemented. Other dogs will have an enhanced requirement for proximity to their carer, either because of the nature of the relationship with their owner (potentially excessive attachment or inadequate attachment; Manteca, 2016), or because of emotional changes that occur within the dog following exposure to events that are conditioned to periods of owner absence.
Once an owner has been guided through enhancing their dog's expectation of safety within their home environment, and ensuring that the owner is meeting the dog's requirement for a safe, social relationship, further treatment options can vary widely depending on causative factors. As the success of the behaviour modification plan will also depend upon efficient use of owner time and ease of application, accurate identification of initiating and maintaining factors is essential. The accurate identification of the dog's emotional states during owner absence is crucial to this (Santos de Assis et al, 2020). Without such clarity, any treatment plan remains non-specific, often introducing interventions that are pointless and time consuming for owners; such treatment programmes inevitably limit owner compliance.
The need for further intervention
For some dogs, improving a sense of safety within the environmental base and ensuring that the animal is receiving what it requires from the human–dog relationship, may not be sufficient to bring about a resolution to the it's separation-related problems. This may be because:
Even when owners provide a ‘safe place’ where the dog has previously experienced no harm, situations may occur that result in the dog experiencing distress within their safe haven. An example may be a sudden exposure to a sound event such as a thunderstorm or firework display, during owner absence and while the dog is within the home (Tiira et al, 2016). The dog has no understanding of the context of these events and will try to use previous skills to deal with the problem; if a safe haven has been provided, then it is likely to retreat to that environment. However, the safe haven may not be able to resolve the dog's problem; there may be a loud noise to the left, so the dog attempts to move away, as far as it can to the right; however, the next noise may come from the right. The dog finds itself in a situation where it has no competencies to protect itself, as nowhere is safe. The dog cannot be expected to understand that these stimuli are outdoor events, and that the interior of the home is secure. As the sound sensitivity generalises, it starts to include household and daily sounds. Eventually, the safe haven where ‘no harm occurs’ is no longer safe.
Coping with social isolation
If dogs cannot cope with periods of social isolation while an owner is in the home, they are unlikely to cope with owner absence. Families will often recognise the need to prepare a puppy or newly homed adult dog for periods when owners are absent from the home, gradually increasing periods of absence as the dog becomes competent at remaining relaxed within its safe haven, often with an enrichment activity to occupy it. However, it is rarer for owners to include preparing the dog to be able to relax and occupy itself during periods when the owner is home; owners are often content to accept that the dog will follow them around the house and sit at their side as they work or relax. It is difficult for a dog to remain in an emotional state that promotes a sense of coping and safety during owner absence from a home if the dog requires the owner's presence to maintain wellbeing while the owner is within the home. Hence, developing a dog's capacity to cope during owner absence should start with enabling the dog to maintain a sense of self-determination and control while independent of owner proximity while the owner is in the home.
Puppies can be taught to settle in a resting place with plenty of resources to investigate. However, teaching an older dog to rely less on an owner–dog relationship based on nurturing and dependency, and more on companionship with independence, can be difficult, particularly as owners may consider that their own emotional needs require dependency from their dog. Gradual integration of increasing periods (of frequency and duration) of independent investigation with enriching resources can build a dog's self-confidence and develop an increasing sense of security. However, such learning should continue to accommodate an individual dog's need for proximity to an owner and gradually introduce the concept that the dog can be proximal to the owner, but will receive a gradual reduction in owner interaction at such times. This should be combined with increasing opportunities for self-amusement.
In addition, particular care should be taken in the incremental introduction of periods of self-sufficiency to dogs that are recognised as having a low threshold for experiencing frustration. Ensuring that capacity for independent amusement is built without initiating a sense of failure and subsequent potential burst of destruction or aggression will be essential for such dogs.
Should owners be spending time on reducing the predictability of departures?
As dogs need to prepare themselves to deal with challenging situations, they learn to recognise the cues associated with owner departure. Until recently, the thorough and time-consuming desensitisation to owner departure cues intended to assist dogs in being more relaxed as owners leave the home was an essential part of any support programme that was designed for a dog experiencing separation-related problems. As early as 1970, research on punishment and anticipation had demonstrated the importance to animals of being able to predict and prepare for aversive events (Weiss, 1970). This concept has been further developed in more recent studies on human patients experience chronic anxiety (Fonteyne et al, 2009).
Amat et al (2014) recognised that the perception of predictability is one of the major psychological modulators of the stress response, and began to introduce the concept that dogs that experience distress during owner absence need to understand that their owner is unavailable.
Predictable events are less aversive than unpredictable events
It is now considered that improving the predictability of owner separation can be beneficial in reducing the distress experienced by a dog during owner absence. This more recent technique involves adding an extra, very obvious and completely novel, cue to those normally associated with owner departure, yet ensuring that this cue is only used at and during departure periods (so it must be removed immediately upon return). This enables the dog to recognise that whilst the ‘cue’ is present, the dog can predict that there will be a period of solitude, yet, having been provided with a safe haven, and having learnt about coping with safe departures associated with a positive expectation of safety and security while alone, the dog can remain in a less negatively biased state while is awaits the return of the caregiver (Heath, 2023). A very detailed explanation of this technique is freely available within the webinar series mentioned in the ‘Resources for veterinary staff ’ section at the end of this article.
The role of conditioned fear and frustration
As several emotions are likely to play a role in the development and maintenance of separation-related problems (Denenberg, 2021), it is likely to be important to not only identify them, but to also recognise that an array of neurochemical networks will be functioning during an individual dog's experience of owner absence (Mills, 2020). These networks will be modified by the individual dog's life experience and learning.
The anxiety or fear that has become associated with their experience of what may occur during owner absence and the subsequent frustration involved in the dog's inability to resolve their situation are particularly important to the development of separation-related problems in many dogs. The dog's senses are intended to provide early warning of potential challenges to their safety, so sensitivity to sound can be considered to be a natural state for dogs (Sherman, 2008). As a result, a considerable number of dogs with separation-related problems learn to expect that separation from an owner predicts exposure to an aversive sound event that has occurred during a previous owner absence (eg thunder, fireworks, gunshots, security alarms, emergency vehicle sirens). But, less obvious events such as domestic sounds from boilers and dishwashers can be equally alarming during owner absence. Other events, such as deliveries, unexpected visitors ringing doorbells or attempted entry into the home by burglars can be highly traumatic for a dog during owner absence, resulting in conditioned fear and frustration. Alternatively, the dog that has always exhibited frustrationrelated responses towards, for example, postal and delivery staff can cause significant damage to a home if owner absence allows a dog free and unrestrained access to doorways and windows.
Other strategies may be required
Dogs with conditioned fears and frustration associated with owner absence will require enhanced efforts to ensure that they experience a sense of safety, both when an owner is present and when they are absent from the home. Such dogs may also require a suitable desensitisation and counter-conditioning programme to fully resolve the separation-related problems; however, this can be highly problematic for owners, who often struggle with the detailed requirements and the necessary sensitivity and patience needed for successful implementation (Mills, 2020). Hence, owners of dogs experiencing conditioned fear as part of a separation-related problem benefit from being encouraged to maximise the efficiency of management strategies associated with the provision of a sound-proofed safe haven. If necessary, the provision of alternative care during owner absence (although often complicated to arrange) is likely to be a more efficient resolution for time-strapped owners than detailed and protracted behaviour modification programmes – particularly if a local council is threatening to take action regarding noise complaints. However, such arrangements may prove expensive, and veterinary advice should always support long-term compliance with the advice intended to enhance the dog's overall welfare.
Preventing ‘failure to cope’ because of pain and ill-health
A thorough exploration of potential health-related factors will be a veterinary surgeon's first response to an owner's report of any behaviour change in a patient, and separation-related problems are no different in their need for medical links to be ruled out or resolved. A dog that is physically uncomfortable will have an increased requirement for an owner's support and a decreased ability to settle while alone. A dog with a medical problem that alters toileting or gastric behaviour will require increased owner presence to enable access to outdoors. A dog with hormonal imbalances may have an increased requirement of food, pre-disposing to scavenging and destruction during owner absence – the list goes on. However, in addition to veterinary intervention before referring a dog with separation-related problems to a clinical animal behaviourist, it should be understood that fresh health issues may arise during treatment of a behaviour problem.
Separation-related problems that are hard to resolve may benefit from ongoing veterinary assessment and consideration of the role that pain may play in depleting a dog's sense of coping and safety during owner absence. It has been suggested that in cases that are difficult to resolve because of constant relapse, or if an owner is losing confidence in their ability to sustain the relationship with a dog experiencing separation-related problems, a veterinary surgeon may wish to use their discretion to trial analgesia (Mills, 2020), even in an otherwise seemingly healthy dog. If an owner is showing a high degree of compliance with a programme designed to reduce a dog's separation-related problem over a 3-week period, but there is no improvement, the involvement of ill-health becomes increasingly likely (Mills, 2020).
Common owner interventions are unlikely to be helpful
Owners may have tried an array of interventions to address their dog's separation-related problem before approaching their veterinary surgeon for support, and there are several that are particularly unhelpful. Although it is totally inappropriate to the dog's welfare needs, some desperate owners will accept advice to punish their dog following a return to a home that is soiled or damaged; hence, physical punishment is still common. However, many owners who would not hit or physically punish their dog deem behaviours such as shouting or raised voices and pointed fingers as acceptable, despite the likely increase in distress that such behaviour will cause, with the inevitable negative effect upon the security of the bond between dog and owner. So, despite the rather obvious nature of the request to owners that they do not punish their dog, it is important that veterinary staff also explain the range of human behaviours that a dog may interpret as threatening (Santos de Assis, 2024).
The assumption that introducing a new puppy or re-homed dog to the home will alleviate another dog's distress during owner absence is quite common. As the separation-related problem is associated with the absence of the owner, an owner's anthropomorphic drive to ‘add a friend’ is unlikely to help (Denenberg, 2021). In addition, either dog may not be emotionally suited to sharing their ‘safe space’ with another individual and there may be an element of competition for access to owner attention and other resources, further disturbing the initial dog's sense of safety and intensifying the separation-related problem.
Although a common owner intervention, confinement in a crate will limit opportunities for the dog to engage in its normal coping activities and can result in panic, attempted escape and resultant, potentially severe, injuries. Hence, confinement within a crate or other small area may lead to confinement distress (Ballantyne, 2018) and increase anxiety or fear (and if coping strategies are hindered or unsuccessful, frustration), around being confined, whether the owner is present or not.
Many owners will have been advised to ignore their dog, particularly following a return to the home. Although it can be generally helpful to support the dog in developing a calmer response to owner return, attempting to ignore the dog can further destabilise their relationship with the owner, further impair the dog's welfare, result in learning that intensifies distress associated with anxiety and frustration as the expected time for owner return nears, and potentially be dangerous to the owner if the dog is prone to frustration, as it can initiate a sustained aggressive response (Santos de Assis, 2024).
A few ‘first aid’ hints that can assist recovery
Although improving the dog's sense of safety within the home and supporting the bond that it has with its carer is relevant to the general welfare of any dog, a few other strategies can be suggested to owners while they wait for an appointment with a clinical animal behaviourist or veterinary behaviourist:
Can owners assume that a ‘cure’ of a separation-related problem is permanent?
As a dog's separation-related behaviours are likely to represent the individual dog's coping strategies for dealing with distress, a dog may present with very similar behaviours over a period of time that may be in response to differing circumstances. A dog that experiences separation-related problems is likely to have one or more predispositions to the condition. If these predispositions have not been addressed (eg has a dog with an early life predisposition to sensitivity to novelty been supported in increasing its neural plasticity), or if fresh circumstances have created further predispositions (eg an aging dog's reduction in general resilience to change, or a house move exposing a dog to fresh challenges during owner absence), then separation-related problems may reoccur. An animal's altering health status throughout its life is particularly relevant to potential reoccurrence (Mills, 2020). Each subsequent separation-related problem event will require reassessment and a targeted treatment programme.
The role of medication
As a result of the relative ‘emergency’ associated with many separation-related cases (the reduction in animal welfare, degree of damage to a home, threats of legal action and the potential for breakdown in the human-pet bond), an immediate reduction in separation-related behaviours may be required. However, such rehabilitation is likely to take many weeks and possibly months of consistent support for the dog. Additionally, the stress-related neurochemicals that are released as a result of the emotional changes associated with separation-related problems can destroy existing memories associated with stimuli that predict safety (Mills et al, 2013), prevent the creation and growth of new synapses that would enable fresh learning (Denenberg, 2021) and initiate bias within the dog's brain that will severely lower and impair the dog's capacity to learn new responses (Casey, 2018).
As many dogs with separation-related problems will have a reduced ability to learn within the context of separation, it will be extremely hard for owners to habituate the dog to periods of owner absence. Instead, they are likely to become increasingly sensitised and potentially phobic, possibly developing separation-related behaviours during even short periods of absence (such as an owner walking out of room) (Denenberg, 2021). For these reasons, the dog's rehabilitation may require immediate and potentially protracted pharmacological support. However, despite the licencing of psychotropic medication seemingly focussing upon supporting the resolution of specific behaviours or conditions, their role is to alter emotional networks and mood. This places extra prominence on the need for an accurate assessment of the dog's emotional state during owner absence.
For many other dogs, whose owners have to leave them in the middle of a period of behaviour modification but have no access to a pet sitter, situational anxiolytics will be required for periods of owner absence. Without this, the dog is unlikely to make progress in its rehabilitation and a state of depleted welfare will continue and intensify. Discussion of psychotropic support for separation-related problems is outside the scope of this article.
Conclusions
Every dog is an individual, with a unique experience of what social isolation means for them. Despite the frequency of cases referred after the owner recognises coping strategies, the condition of social isolation is likely to be aberrant to the majority of dogs, many of whom will be inhibited in their responses and remain unsupported. In general, separation-related problems are predisposed by limitations in early life experience of positive experiences to opportunities for independence, environmental experiences that impair a sense of coping and safety and owner–dog relationships that, in some manner, fail to meet the dog's needs. This combination results in periods of social isolation, creating emotions that have a negative impact upon a dog's welfare, temperament and mood.
Rather than focussing on specific initiating factors, such as sound sensitivities, there is currently a greater focus on altering a dog's emotional state, and the manner in which a dog's emotions may alter, during periods of social isolation and as the separation-related problems develop. Thus, the focus of treatment plans has shifted to enabling environmental management that avoids exposure to triggers and expression of predispositions, assisting dogs in experiencing a concept of coping and self-reliance during reasonable periods of social isolation and supporting improvements in emotional health. Through provision of these basic strategies, it is likely that both dogs and owners can be provided with more effective and permanent solutions to separation-related problems.