Content uploaded by Anne Mcbride
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne Mcbride on May 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract
This experiment investigated the difference in recorded behaviours in Siberian
husky sled dogs between two types of housing systems (tethering and group
pen housing) and exercise. It was predicted that group housing would record
lower levels of repetitive behaviours and other behavioural indices of stress. The
experiment employed a repeated measures design with tethered/non-tethered,
exercise/no exercise conditions as the independent variables and various
behavioural indicators as dependent variables. Participants (n=9) were exposed
to four different housing conditions and filmed to record behaviours for analysis.
The conditions consisted of six-months with no-exercise/tethered (Condition A),
exercise (daily running)/tethered (Condition B), four weeks no-exercise/tethered
(Condition C) and no exercise/un-tethered (Condition D). The tethered housing
conditions produced evidence of more repetitive behaviours and fewer social
behaviours than the un-tethered housing condition. Un-tethering reduced
rebound and repetitive behaviours. Tethering without exercise (conditions A and
C) showed significantly greater levels of vigilance and agonistic behaviour than
all other conditions, indicative of compromised welfare. It can therefore be
concluded that long-term tethering without exercise is associated with abnormal
activity patterns and levels of behaviours expressed.
Comparison of Tethering and Group-Pen Housing for Sled Dogs (Siberian Huskies)
J. White, A. McBride, E. Redhead
University of Southampton, School of Psychology
Introduction
This study investigated the differences in behaviour between sled dogs based on
housing methods (tethering and un-tethering) and exercise (exercise/no exercise).
Research on tethering other domestic species found behavioural indicators of stress,
such as increased repetitive locomotory behaviour in sheep (Wemelsfelder & Farish,
2004), excessive vocalisations in cattle (Watts & Stookey, 2000) and stereotypic pacing
in pigs (Schouten, et al. 1991). However, the only study which had previously
investigated sled dog behaviour (Yeon, et al. 2001), found an increase of repetitive
behaviours when sled dogs that had traditionally been tethered were released from
tethers and housed in small, single pens. In this case, the small size of the pens and
single-dog housing could have been responsible for the increase in repetitive
behaviours, findings which are supported by other studies (Clark, et al. 1997; Hubrecht,
et al. 2002). In contrast the current experiment used group housing in large pens as the
alternative housing condition to tethering.
Sled dogs are highly motivated by social facilitation (Coppinger & Coppinger, 2001),
behaviour which is expressed while running with others in a dog team. The current
research hypothesised that the prevention of this highly motivated behaviour would
impact significantly on behaviour. Therefore “extended periods without exercise” was
included as a variable for analysis, as sled dogs are often not exercised (group running)
for anywhere between 4 and 6 months during the summer.
Dogs were filmed in four conditions for a period of 13.5 hours over three days (4.5 hours
per day). The film was analysed and four behaviour categories noted were: locomotory
behaviours (active vs. inactive); investigative behaviours (object-directed) such as
scavenging or eating; social-directed behaviour (directed at another dog, human carer or
visitor); and self-directed behaviours (such as self-grooming or licking fur). An ethogram
was used to record each participant’s behaviours on the subsequent review at one
minute intervals. Previous research had suggested a significant difference in locomotory
behaviours between restricted housing environments, therefore this current experiment
assessed activity levels overall (active and inactive behaviours) to provide an initial
indicator of differences due to the independent variables of tethering and exercise. As a
significant difference between activity levels was found between conditions, the
experiment then looked at the most frequent behaviours within the active and inactive
categories. For example, although the dogs would lie down, the difference in the amount
of actual sleep versus lying down/alert behaviours between conditions was recorded.
This experiment therefore predicted that a significant difference in behaviours would be
found between the four conditions.
Method
Objective
The experiment considered previous research on sled dog housing and investigated
whether there would be a difference in behaviour between the independent variables of
exercise, pen housing and tethering.
Participants
Nine dogs (3=male; 6=female) were selected at random from a population of 300 purebred
Siberian husky dogs at a commercial sled dog establishment. All dogs were born at the kennel and
raised there from birth. All have been tethered continually from four months of age. The
participants ranged in age from 3 to 7 years old, with a mean age of 4.5 years (SD = 1.75).
Design
Repeated measures design. All dogs participated in all conditions.
9 dogs were exposed to four different housing conditions and filmed to record
behaviours for analysis. The conditions consisted of six-months with no-
exercise/tethered (Condition A), exercise (daily running)/tethered (Condition B), four
weeks no-exercise/tethered (Condition C) and no exercise/un-tethered (Condition D)
(Table 1).
Apparatus and Materials
Three digital video cameras on tripods were used to film the dogs’ behaviour in all
conditions. Tripods had been installed 10 metres away from the dogs 24 hour prior to
filming to allow them to habituate to the filming equipment. Video cameras were installed
each morning by the observer, 30 minutes prior to filming to habituate the dogs to her
presence. For filming accuracy the participants were divided into three groups of 3 dogs.
Film from each condition was digitally transferred to computer and DVDs for analysis
Procedure
After the installation of each camera, participants were filmed remotely (observer
not present) in each of the four conditions for a period of 13.5 hours over three days (4.5
hours per day). Of this, 1.5 hours of filming occurred each morning, from 8:30am to 10:00am,
and 3 hours each afternoon, from 2pm to 5pm prior to the evening feed. There was no interaction
between the participants and the observer during filming, prior or after filming. Weather conditions
were noted, as were uncontrolled variables as they occurred.
Table I
Description of Independent Variables (Conditions)
CONDITION
Mean
Temp
Tethered/
un-tethered
Housing Exercise
A 8C Tethered. Individual No exercise for 6 months
B 4C Tethered Individual Dogs received daily exercise
of a minimum of one-hour on
dog sleds, except during the
filming period
C 11C Tethered Individual No exercise for 4 weeks
D 24C Un-tethered Group pens
of 25 metres
sq.
No exercise for 3 months.
Figure 2, The Tethered Conditions
In conditions A, B and C dogs were
secured by means of a 2.3 metre chain-
tether attached to each individual dog’s
leather collar. Dogs were tethered in front
of their individual dog-houses. The
surface area was dirt. Each dog had
freedom of movement within the radius of
the tether, as well as on top of and inside
their doghouse. The tethers permitted
some physical contact with neighbouring
dogs, but this was inconsistent.
Most Common Behaviours
Sleeping is the most frequent
behaviour in Condition C
Little evidence of sleeping in the three
remaining conditions.
Lying down awake is the second most
frequent behaviour in the tethered
conditions (A,B,C).
Pacing is the most frequent behaviour
in the un-tethered condition (D).
Results
Most Common Behaviours
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cond A Cond B Cond C Cond D
Conditions
Frequency
lying down
pacing
sleeping
Sleeping
Significant difference between conditions
(p<.01). The dogs remained vigilant in the
non-exercise conditions the variable of un-
tethering did not have an effect on sleeping.
Aggression
Significant levels of aggression
seen in non-exercise conditions A
and C (p<.05).
No aggression occurred in
condition B (dogs were exercised
daily).
Criticism of Methodology
This study took place in a commercial sled-dog facility. A number of uncontrolled variables periodically occurred: dogs escaping from tethers or puppies wandering through kennels. Daily routines were
interrupted causing additional confounding variables. In the exercise condition, the number of non-participating dogs taken out on sled runs varied over the filming period. Dogs received more one-on-one
human contact during the dog sledding season. Only nine dogs were selected at random for the study as a larger number could not be accommodated in the group-pen condition furthermore, although it has
been suggested that smaller group pens, for example 10 m2, could house up to five dogs (see Hubrecht et al., 1992), insufficient time prior to filming prevented the habituation of more than 3 dogs to the group
kennel condition. A larger sample in the un-tethered condition may have produced different results.
This study also did not assess the sequences of behaviour patterns, which may have revealed different results. An example of this occurred in analysing “pacing”. The function and motivation of pacing in
Conditions A, B, and C differed substantially from D, although in this experiment, they were both defined as “pacing”. For example, pacing was repetitive and seemingly functionless in A,B and C but
allelomimetic in D, in that the dogs would follow each other around the pen.
Another criticism of this study was that data of the dogs once returned to baseline could not be included in this paper due an abnormal number of uncontrolled variables (i.e. neighbouring bitches in oestrus).
Therefore, although the results from this study indicate a change in behaviour between conditions, the inability to control variables meant that conditions could not be standardised to the degree expected for an
experimental study. One aspect that could be controlled, however, was the prior experience of the dogs, as they had all been born and raised in the kennel and reared identically.
Behavioural analyses were conducted post-hoc. Upon the first viewing of video, the most frequent behaviours where divided into inactive and active categories. Only significantly different behaviours were
used in the analysis. Upon subsequent review of video footage, these categories were further divided into investigative behaviours, social-directed behaviours and self-directed behaviours. The most frequent
behaviours notes by the experimenter were used to create the behavioural ethogram.
A level of significance of 5% was used. The most frequent active (pacing, fast pacing, investigative and social behaviours) and inactive behaviours (lying down/alert and sleeping) were used in the analysis.
As difference in behaviour between the four independent variables was predicted but as the direction of that difference not predicted, the hypothesis was non-directional and the test was 2-tailed. One-way
ANOVA was carried out with conditions A,B,C, and D as the independent variables and frequency of behaviours as the dependent variable, followed by post-hoc paired t-tests.
Conclusion
Although differences were found in the occurrence of a number of behaviours between the un-tethered and the tethered condition, the effect of exercise (Condition B) was found overall to produce more a
significant difference, especially in the amount of time spent sleeping in Condition B, as was expected. By contrast, when exercise was not provided (Conditions A, C and D), the dogs remained alert.
Long-term tethering of sled dogs produced evidence of more alert and repetitive behaviours such as fast pacing and fewer social behaviours than the un-tethered housing condition. Placing participants in un-
tethered (group housing) reduced rebound and repetitive behaviours. The variable of exercise also affected behaviour. Tethering without exercise (Conditions A and C) produced significantly more vigilance
and agonistic behaviour than either tethering with exercise or group housing without exercise. It is likely that social facilitation through sled running exercise produced a calming effect, which enabled the dogs
to sleep more in Condition B (Clarke, et al., 1997).
Levels of aggression were highest in the tethered non-exercise conditions of A and C and did not occur in any significant level in conditions B or D. By contrast the most aggression occurred in the condition
with the least stimuli, C, when there were fewer caregivers in the kennel and no exercise. When stimuli were presented, such as a caregiver walking through the grounds, dogs would react with a frustrative
response which was re-directed onto neighbouring dogs. If the tethers allowed physical contact, aggression took the form of nipping neighbouring dogs’ noses and tails. Although actual physical contact rarely
occurred, there was evidence that these aggressive responses were not inhibited and that injury would have occurred more frequently had the tethers allowed more contact.
The lack of activity in the non-exercise conditions was expected to increase the number of self-directed behaviours recorded. This did not occur. Less than 1% of behaviours were self-directed, and this took
the form of grooming. The most grooming took place in the exercise condition B. This is self explanatory: the dogs had been running previous to filming on a number of snow, ice and road surfaces and were
therefore motivated to groom and clean their paws. These behaviours were of short-duration (less than 3 minutes per instance) and were not correlated with any individual dog or sex of dog.
There was no evidence of repetitive or stereotypical behaviours which supports with previous research on farm animal tethering and the incidences of stereotypies (Schouten, et al., 1991; Vieuillethomas, et al,
1995). In these studies, although there were no obvious behavioural indicators of stress from tethering, biobehavioural indicators, such as elevated cortisol and heart rate revealed significant stress levels.
Therefore, measurement of participants’ heart rate and/or cortisol concentrations in the current study may have revealed more obvious indicators of stress from tethering.
It can therefore be concluded that long-term tethering without exercise produces abnormal activity patterns and levels of behaviours in sled dogs, which may be indicative of compromised welfare. Further
research on sled dog welfare using biobehavioural indicators of welfare and motivation testing in a controlled experimental setting should be undertaken. Such research might provide evidence that the initial
investment in building group housing pen facilities would be offset by the physical and psychological benefits associated with good welfare.
Figure 3, The un-tethered condition
In the un-tethered condition (D) dogs were
moved to group pens measuring 16m2 and
un-tethered. This occurred one week prior to
filming to allow the dogs to habituate to the
new condition. Each pen was fenced with 3
metre high chain-liked fencing. The pens
contained two open wooden structures with
raised floors, which housed drinking and food
bowls. The size of these structures varied,
from 1.2m x 1m m to 3m x 1.5m. Each group
pen bordered another by chain-link fencing,
allowing visual and olfactory access to two
other pens.
Fast Pacing
A significant difference (p< 0.05) was
revealed in the level of fast-pacing
activity (running in a fast-pace two
beat gait and jumping on and off
boxes). In the un-tethered condition,
virtually no fast pacing occurs.
References
Clark J.D., Rager D.R., Crowell-Davis S., & Evans D.L. (1997). Housing and exercise of dogs: Effects on behaviour, immune function, and cortisol concentration, Laboratory Animal Science, 47 (5), 500-510.
Coppinger R., & Coppinger, L.(2001). Dogs, A new Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour, and Evolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hubrecht, R.C., Serpell, J.A., & Poole T. B (1992). Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 34, 365-383.
Schouten, W., Rushen, J., & Depassille, A.M.B. (1991). Stereotypic Behavior and Heart-Rate in Pigs. Physiology & Behaviour, 50 (3), 617-624.
Vieuillethomas C., Lepape G., & Signoret J.P. (1995). Stereotypies in Pregnant Sows: Indications of influence of the housing system on the patterns expressed by the animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science , 44 (1), 19-27.
Watts, J.M., & Stookey, J.M. (2000). Vocal behaviour in cattle: the animal’s commentary on its biological processes and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 67, 15-33.
Wemelsfelder, F., & Farish, M. (2004). Qualitative categories for the interpretation of sheep welfare: a review. Animal Welfare 13 (3), 261-268.
Yeon, S.C., Golden, G., Sung, W., Erb, H.N., Reynolds, A.J., & Houpt, K.A. (2001). A comparison of tethering and pen confinement of dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(4), 257-270.
Figure 1, Sled dogs in northern Canada.
