# Resource Guarding Fallacies



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Here's an article on the subject by Jean Donaldson. 

There are several common fallacies
about resource guarding that cloud
our understanding and, thus, our
approaches to treatment of this
common behavior problem.
1. It is abnormal behavior.
Guarding food, coveted objects,mates, and physical space are highly
adaptive traits in a natural environment.
If dogs had to fend for themselves
tomorrow, guarders would
have the survival and reproductive
edge over nonguarders.
2. Because it is largely genetically
driven, rather than learned, it is
immutable.
This fallacy is not limited to
resource guarding. While it is true
that genetics can make certain
behaviors easier to learn in some
cases, or interfere
with learning in other
cases, there is no neat
correlation between
how much a behavior
is thought to be
genetically influenced
and its susceptibility
to behavior
modification.
3. It can be cured by
making the dog
realize that
resources are
abundant.
The idea behind this fallacy is that
all we have to do is convince the
dog that there are no reasons to
guard because resources are
plentiful (by providing a plethora of
toys, treats, and chewies). Alas, it
would seem that dogs were
snoozing in logic class. They do not
learn this way.
4. It is a symptom of dominance.
This fallacy is largely a legacy of the
pervasiveness of social hierarchy
models as explanation for dog
behavior, as well as springboards fortreatment techniques. Most dog
owners have sketchy, if any, understanding
of the most basic techniques
of operant and classical conditioning.
Yet, virtually all owners throw
around the word “dominance” with
abandon. Rank as the reason for
resource guarding has also provided
decades of quasi-justification for the
use of aversives in training.
In actuality, resource guarding
responds well to desensitization,
counterconditioning, and wellexecuted
operant techniques, which
raises questions about dominance:
• When the dog stops guarding,
has he become less dominant as
a result of the desensitization
and counterconditioning? If so,
by what mechanism?
• Is rank, therefore, not a fixed
trait? If not, can one still say a
dog is a “dominant” dog?
• If dominance is a relationship
rather than a trait, how could
simple desensitization/
counterconditioning exercises
change the relationship?
The behaviorist paradigm provides
a much simpler way to describe
post-treatment behavior. That is,
rather than expending energy on
why the behavior exists, the behaviorist
concentrates on changing the
behavior.
5. It is a result of “spoiling” the dog.
Guarding crops up in dogs with all
kinds of life histories. “Spoiled” is
also a very subjective term. I am
dismayed that people label dogs
spoiled simply because the dog’s
basic needs are being met, they are
well loved, and their lives are
relatively free of aversives.


----------

