The Problem With 'Fixing' Dog Instead Of Changing Environments

In the canine world, behavioural challenges are often approached as faults within the dog. Dogs are labelled as difficult, stubborn, dominant, or broken, and the solution offered is to "fix" them. The use of "dominance" as an explanation for individual dogs' behaviour has been extensively criticised: the idea that a dog has a general dominant personality driving their behaviour is not supported by the evidence on how domestic dogs actually relate to people and to each other (Bradshaw, Blackwell and Casey, 2009). This mindset is not only outdated, but it overlooks one of the most influential factors in behaviour - the environment itself.

Behaviour does not exist in isolation. Behavioural science consistently shows that behaviour is a response to context. A dog who struggles in busy streets, chaotic households, or high-pressure training settings is not failing. Their nervous system is responding as it has evolved to do, prioritising safety in the face of perceived threat or overwhelm (Sapolsky, 2004).

When the focus remains solely on changing the dog, important questions go unasked. Is the environment predictable? Does the dog have access to rest and recovery? Are their sensory needs being respected? For many dogs, particularly those who are anxious, reactive, or sensitive, modern environments are demanding. Constant noise, restricted movement, social pressure, and lack of choice place strain on the nervous system. Research on dogs kept in restricted conditions shows lasting behavioural and hormonal signs of stress (Beerda et al., 1999; Beerda et al., 2000), and predictability and control over the environment are recognised as central to the welfare of animals in human care (Bassett and Buchanan-Smith, 2007).

Attempting to "fix" a dog without addressing these factors often leads to suppression rather than resolution. Tools and techniques that prioritise compliance may reduce visible behaviour, but a reduction in visible behaviour does not necessarily demonstrate a reduction in underlying stress. In fact, such methods can increase stress by removing a dog's ability to communicate discomfort. A survey of owners found that confrontational methods were associated with fearful or aggressive responses in a meaningful proportion of dogs (Herron, Shofer and Reisner, 2009), and aversive training is associated with poorer welfare outcomes without evidence of a corresponding effectiveness advantage (Ziv, 2017; Vieira de Castro et al., 2020). A dog who appears calm may simply be inhibited, a state frequently mistaken for improvement (Beerda et al., 1999).

Changing environments, by contrast, supports regulation. This might involve adjusting walking routes, limiting exposure to overwhelming situations, providing quiet recovery spaces at home, or modifying expectations around social interaction. These changes are sometimes dismissed as avoidance or coddling, yet they align closely with how learning and emotional safety actually work. Environmental enrichment has been shown to influence welfare and behaviour in kennelled dogs, supporting the broader principle that the environment is an important component of canine welfare (Wells, 2004).

Environmental change also restores agency. When dogs have the ability to move away, make choices, and predict outcomes, their nervous systems are better able to engage in learning. Experimental research in animals shows that the capacity to control or escape a stressor is one of the strongest buffers against its harmful effects (Weiss, 1971), and research across mammals shows that uncontrollable stress impairs the brain regions needed for flexible learning (Arnsten, 2009). This creates the conditions in which behaviour can shift organically, rather than being forced under pressure.

Importantly, this approach does not mean giving up on behaviour support. It means recognising that sustainable change comes from meeting needs, not overriding them. Training is more likely to be productive when the dog is able to engage with the learning process rather than being overwhelmed by the environment.

For guardians, this requires a shift in perspective. Success is no longer measured by how well a dog fits into an inflexible world, but by how responsibly we shape that world around the dog in our care. Advocacy becomes a core skill, whether that means setting boundaries with others or making lifestyle adjustments. Contemporary welfare frameworks make this explicit: the Five Domains Model places the animal's environment and its interactions with humans at the centre of welfare assessment (Mellor et al., 2020).

Dogs are not problems to be fixed. They are recognised as sentient animals for the purposes of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and they are navigating environments largely designed without them in mind. When we change environments first, behaviour follows, not because it has been corrected, but because the dog finally feels safe enough to respond differently.

References

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, c. 22. London: The Stationery Office.

Arnsten, A.F.T. (2009) 'Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function', Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), pp. 410-422.

Bassett, L. and Buchanan-Smith, H.M. (2007) 'Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3-4), pp. 223-245.

Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., de Vries, H.W. and Mol, J.A. (1999) 'Chronic stress in dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. I. Behavioral responses', Physiology and Behavior, 66(2), pp. 233-242.

Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., de Vries, H.W. and Mol, J.A. (2000) 'Behavioural and hormonal indicators of enduring environmental stress in dogs', Animal Welfare, 9(1), pp. 49-62.

Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J. and Casey, R.A. (2009) 'Dominance in domestic dogs: useful construct or bad habit?', Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(3), pp. 135-144.

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', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1-2), pp. 47-54.

Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Littlewood, K.E., McLean, A.N., McGreevy, P.D., Jones, B. and Wilkins, C. (2020) 'The 2020 Five Domains Model: including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare', Animals, 10(10), 1870.

Sapolsky, R.M. (2004) Why zebras don't get ulcers. 3rd edn. New York: Henry Holt.

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.

Weiss, J.M. (1971) 'Effects of coping behavior in different warning signal conditions on stress pathology in rats', Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 77(1), pp. 1-13.

Wells, D.L. (2004) 'A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3-4), pp. 307-317.

Ziv, G. (2017) 'The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs: a review', Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, pp. 50-60.