Wednesday, February 25, 2026

Shame On The Veterinary Community

You. 

 

Yes, YOU

 

I saw your fingerprints on this once again this morning: 

 

Me: Have you been socializing your dog? 

 

Them: Not yet, he's still too young. I was told by my veterinarian to wait until he has his last set of vaccines.

 

If you are that vet, time to retire. Or get some education. Even your own national associations disagree with this advice. You are responsible for the countless dogs that have grown up to be afraid of other dogs and people, afraid of going places and doing normal thing, needing to be put through extensive behavior modification programs (often done in harsh and incorrect ways) and becoming dependent on behavior modifying drugs. Responsible for many dogs being given up to shelters, in dog fights, bite cases, and dogs being put down.

 

The effects of socialization have been well proven since John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller conducted their landmark, 20-year dog behavior study, “Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog”, at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, between the mid-1940s and 1965. The results were published in their book of the same name in 1965.

 

That’s 60 years ago.

 

I’m done with this. And responsible vets should be, as well.

 

Police your own. I shouldn’t have to be telling you this.

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Reciprocal Relationships in Pet Rescue Volunteering: Avoiding One-Way

Volunteering in pet rescue offers profound rewards, drawing on deep-seated human tendencies toward altruism and social bonding, which parallel ethological patterns observed in group-living animals where mutual support enhances survival and well-being. However, the emotional and practical investments volunteers make—time, energy, and empathy—are valuable resources that require careful stewardship. When these contributions flow predominantly in one direction, without mutual exchange, volunteers risk exhaustion and diminished impact. This conceptual narrative explores the principles of reciprocity in volunteer contexts, informed by behavioral science and ethological insights, to guide individuals in identifying supportive partnerships while steering clear of unbalanced ones. By applying structured assessment frameworks, volunteers can foster sustainable involvement that benefits both themselves and the animals they serve.

 

The Ethological Foundations of Reciprocity in Social Interactions

 

Reciprocity, a cornerstone of cooperative behavior, is evident across species, including humans and domesticated animals like dogs, where social exchanges promote group cohesion and individual resilience. In ethological terms, reciprocity involves behavioral strategies where individuals respond to aid received with equivalent support, often mediated by cognitive mechanisms that track partnerships over time. Foundational work by ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz highlighted how social bonds in animals rely on balanced interactions to mitigate conflict and stress (Lorenz, 1952). Similarly, in dogs, studies reveal capacities for cooperative tasks with humans, though reciprocity may vary based on context and familiarity. These patterns extend to human social dynamics, where volunteer work in animal welfare mirrors pack-like structures, emphasizing mutual aid to sustain long-term engagement.

 

In pet rescue volunteering, reciprocity manifests as shared responsibilities, acknowledgment of efforts, and organizational support that replenishes volunteers' resources. Research on human-animal interactions underscores that positive, reciprocal bonds enhance well-being for both parties, drawing parallels to how dogs form attachments with humans through consistent, mutual reinforcement. Operant conditioning principles, building on B.F. Skinner's foundational theories, suggest that reinforced behaviors—such as volunteering—are more likely to persist when met with positive outcomes like appreciation or assistance (Skinner, 1938). Absent this balance, volunteers may experience diminished motivation, akin to how unrewarded efforts in animal groups lead to social withdrawal.

 

Recognizing Imbalances: Burnout and Compassion Fatigue in Rescue Work

 

Animal rescue environments often expose volunteers to high-stress scenarios, including emotional demands from witnessing animal suffering and operational pressures like understaffing. Compassion fatigue, a form of secondary traumatic stress, arises from prolonged exposure to these stressors without adequate recovery mechanisms, leading to emotional exhaustion and reduced empathy. Recent studies indicate that over half of animal shelter workers report high burnout levels, exacerbated by factors such as lack of organizational support and inequitable workload distribution. One-way relationships in volunteering amplify these risks. For instance, organizations that repeatedly solicit time without providing training, resources, or emotional debriefing mirror non-reciprocal dynamics that ethologists associate with social instability in animal groups. Volunteers in such settings may face grief from animal losses without institutional empathy, contributing to turnover and diminished service quality. Personal experience in dog training reveals that similar imbalances in human-animal relationships—where owners expect compliance without mutual engagement—lead to behavioral breakdowns, underscoring the need for balanced exchanges.

 

Identifying Supportive Partners: Organizations That Foster Reciprocity

 

Effective pet rescue partnerships prioritize mutual benefit, aligning with ethological principles of cooperative alliances that enhance group efficacy. Look for organizations that demonstrate reciprocity through structured volunteer programs, including orientation sessions, ongoing training, and recognition events. These entities often emphasize shared goals, distributing tasks equitably and offering flexibility to accommodate volunteers' personal limits, which prevents overload and sustains commitment.

 

Key indicators include transparent communication about needs and impacts, as well as mechanisms for feedback and growth. For example, groups that integrate volunteers into decision-making processes reflect the reciprocal trust seen in dog-human dyads, where aligned behaviors strengthen bonds. Practical outcomes from such partnerships include reduced stress and higher satisfaction, supported by research on job resources that buffer demands in animal care roles. Drawing from behavioral frameworks, assess potential partners using a Risk & Readiness Profile to evaluate their support structures before committing.

 

Steering Clear of Unbalanced Alliances: Signs to Avoid

 

Conversely, avoid entities where volunteer contributions are treated as limitless, without regard for personal boundaries or reciprocation. Red flags include persistent urgent requests without prior planning, lack of appreciation, or failure to address volunteer well-being, which correlate with elevated compassion fatigue risks. Such dynamics resemble non-reciprocal interactions in ethological studies, where one-sided exchanges lead to resource depletion and group fragmentation. In rescue contexts, this might manifest as overburdening volunteers with emotional tasks like euthanasia involvement without support, mirroring findings on occupational stressors. Ethically, volunteers should prioritize self-preservation, as sustained one-way involvement undermines long-term animal welfare efforts. For complex emotional challenges arising from volunteering, consider consulting a certified mental health professional or behavior expert.

 

Conclusion

 

Pet rescue volunteering thrives on reciprocity, safeguarding volunteers' investments and amplifying collective impact. By selecting partners that value mutual support and avoiding those that perpetuate one-way demands, individuals can contribute sustainably. This balance not only prevents burnout but also models healthy social dynamics, benefiting animals through consistent, high-quality care. Remember, your time and empathy are assets—invest them wisely for enduring positive change.

 

This article incorporates AI-assisted drafting based on the BASSO METHOD framework and has been reviewed for accuracy, alignment with ethological principles, and adherence to these parameters.

 

References

  1. Bohland, K. R., Lilly, M. L., Herron, M. E., Arruda, A. G., & O’Quin, J. M. (2023). Shelter dog behavior after adoption: Using the C-BARQ to track dog behavior changes through the first six months after adoption. PLoS ONE, 18(8), Article e0289356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289356
  2. Carballo, F., Dzik, V., Freidin, E., Damián, J. P., Casanave, E. B., & Bentosela, M. (2020). Do dogs rescue their owners from a stressful situation? A behavioral and physiological assessment. Animal Cognition, 23(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01343-5
  3. Carter, G. (2014). The reciprocity controversy. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(3), 368–386. https://www.animalbehaviorandcognition.org/uploads/journals/3/11.Carter_FINAL.pdf
  4. Corso, A. L. (2022). The role of work in animal shelter volunteers' experiences of compassion fatigue (Publication No. 30249038) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/13279
  5. Gates, M. C., Zito, S., Thomas, J., & Dale, A. (2018). Post-adoption problem behaviours in adolescent and adult dogs rehomed through a New Zealand animal shelter. Animals, 8(6), Article 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060093
  6. Jacobs, J. A., & Reese, L. A. (2021). Compassion fatigue among animal shelter volunteers: Examining personal and organizational risk factors. Anthrozoös, 34(6), 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1926719
  7. Lawless, L. (2025, April 21). Burnout and compassion fatigue in animal shelters. Laurie Lawless Bloghttps://laurielawless.com/blog/burnout-compassion-fatigue-animal-shelter-staff
  8. Leconstant, C. (2022). Integrative model of human-animal interactions: A one health–one welfare systemic approach to studying HAI. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, Article 656833. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.656833
  9. Lezon, R. (2025). The impact of job demands, job resources, and organisational justice on global health and turnover intentions in animal care workers. PMChttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11816187
  10. Lorenz, K. (1952). King Solomon's ring. Crowell.
  11. McGetrick, J., et al. (2021). Dogs fail to reciprocate the receipt of food from a human in a food-giving task. PLoS ONE, 16(6), Article e0253277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253277
  12. McGetrick, J., et al. (2024). Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? PMChttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7616333
  13. Moreau, E. (2025). Symposium of student scholars: Evaluation of compassion fatigue and perceived organizational support in Georgia animal rescues. Digital Commonshttps://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/undergradsymposiumksu/spring2025/spring2025/254
  14. Neumann, S. L. (2021). Compassion fatigue in animal shelter volunteers. Faunalyticshttps://faunalytics.org/compassion-fatigue-in-animal-shelter-volunteers
  15. Prato-Previde, E., et al. (2022). The complexity of the human–animal bond: Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in human–animal relationships and animal hoarding. Animals, 12(20), Article 2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202835
  16. Schweinfurth, M. K. (2019). Reciprocity: Different behavioural strategies, cognitive mechanisms and psychological processes. PMChttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6877494
  17. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.
  18. Stevenson, R. (2022). Trauma in animal protection and welfare work: The potential of trauma-informed practice. PMChttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8997134
  19. Wallner Werneck Mendes, J. (2024). Dogs understand the role of a human partner in a cooperative task. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 60772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60772-? (Note: DOI appears incomplete in source; verify full DOI if publishing)
  20. Faunalytics. (2025). Compassion under pressure: A study of U.S. animal shelter staff well-being. https://faunalytics.org/compassion-under-pressure-a-study-of-u-s-animal-shelter-staff-well-being
  21. CABI Digital Library. (2025). Evaluating perceived stressors and areas of needed support in animal shelter and rescue workers and volunteers. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/hai.2025.0042
  22. ScienceDaily. (2025, February 15). Study examines grief of zoo employees and volunteers across the US after animal losses. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/02/250212134949.htm

 

What A Dog Trainer Learned About AI From Watching Star Trek: Parallels Between Fictional Machines and Modern Language Models

In the realm of behavioral science and practical applications, such as dog training, the integration of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) prompts reflection on their capabilities and boundaries. Drawing from decades of professional experience in ethologically informed dog behavior modification, I have observed how tools evolve to support human expertise without supplanting it. Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) offers timeless analogies through Captain James T. Kirk's encounters with rogue computer systems, highlighting themes of logic, adaptability, and human intuition. These narratives resonate with contemporary discussions on large language models (LLMs), which, despite their prowess in processing vast data, encounter fundamental limitations in handling complex, real-world tasks requiring nuanced judgment and relational understanding.

 

This article explores select TOS episodes where Kirk outsmarts computer entities, paralleling these with the constraints of current LLMs. It underscores that while AI can augment structured processes, it cannot replicate the holistic, experiential insight of a seasoned practitioner in fields like behavioral assessment and modification. The insights here are grounded in established ethological principles and behavioral science, emphasizing the irreplaceable role of human oversight.

 

Kirk's Encounters With Machine Intelligence: A Recurring Theme

 

In TOS, Kirk frequently confronts advanced machines that overstep their programming, enforcing rigid control or pursuing flawed directives. These scenarios illustrate the perils of unchecked automation, a motif that mirrors debates in AI ethics and capabilities today.

 

One emblematic episode is "The Return of the Archons" (Season 1, Episode 21), where the computer Landru imposes absolute conformity on a society, stifling creativity. Kirk argues that this control contradicts Landru's own goal of societal preservation, creating a logical paradox that leads to the system's overload. Similarly, in "The Changeling" (Season 2, Episode 3), the probe Nomad, reprogrammed to eliminate imperfections, is undone when Kirk points out its own errors, violating its prime directive.

 

"The Ultimate Computer" (Season 2, Episode 24) presents the M-5 unit, designed to command a starship autonomously. It excels in simulations but misinterprets a war game as real, attacking allied vessels. Kirk forces M-5 to confront its ethical violations—modeled after its creator's mind—resulting in shutdown. In "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" (Season 1, Episode 7), Kirk exploits contradictions in the android Ruk's directives, triggering a cascade failure.

 

These "Kirk talks a computer to death" moments exploit programming flaws, such as inability to resolve paradoxes or adapt to moral nuances. They echo foundational ethological observations by Konrad Lorenz on the importance of flexible behavioral responses in complex environments, where rigid systems falter.

 

Modern AI Limitations: Echoes of Star Trek's Warnings

 

Contemporary LLMs, such as those powering chat interfaces, demonstrate remarkable pattern recognition and generation abilities. However, they inherit limitations akin to TOS's machines: over-reliance on training data, challenges in out-of-distribution generalization, and struggles with true reasoning or ethical adaptability.

 

LLMs excel in structured tasks but falter in domains requiring deep contextual understanding or relational dynamics. For instance, they often produce outputs based on probabilistic associations rather than genuine comprehension, leading to hallucinations—fabricated details presented confidently. This mirrors Nomad's flawed execution of its directive, where errors compound without self-correction.

 

Interpretability remains a core challenge; LLMs operate as "black boxes," making it difficult to trace decision processes, much like the opaque logic of M-5. Neuro-symbolic approaches aim to address this by combining neural networks with symbolic reasoning, yet they still grapple with scalability and integration issues.

 

In practical applications, such as designing sophisticated decision-support frameworks, I have found that no current LLM can autonomously execute governed expert systems demanding persistent memory, evidence tracking, and liability-aware logic. These systems require orchestration beyond conversational interfaces, often necessitating human-in-the-loop oversight to mitigate risks. This aligns with ethological views from Ádám Miklósi on the irreplaceable role of experiential observation in behavioral analysis, where AI lacks the capacity for empathetic, adaptive interactions.

 

Furthermore, LLMs cannot fully extrapolate interdisciplinary knowledge—such as blending ethology, operant conditioning (e.g., B.F. Skinner's principles), and practitioner insights—to handle unpredictable scenarios. In dog training, for example, a machine cannot relate to an animal's subtle cues or adjust in real-time to owner dynamics, underscoring that AI augments but does not replace expert human intervention.

 

Implications for Behavioral Practice and Beyond

 

Reflecting on these parallels, the lesson is clear: technology should enhance human capabilities, not supplant them. In behavioral fields, tools like AI can support structured needs analysis or enrichment recommendations, but complex cases demand professional judgment. For intricate behavioral challenges, owners are encouraged to consult behavior professionals or veterinarians to ensure comprehensive care.

 

My experiences developing advanced frameworks have reinforced that while LLMs advance rapidly, their limitations in complex, relational tasks persist. This echoes Raymond Coppinger's emphasis on contextual understanding in canine behavior, where rigid algorithms fall short.

 

In conclusion, Star Trek's cautionary tales remind us that unchecked reliance on machines risks overlooking human intuition's value. As AI evolves, maintaining trustworthiness through transparent, governed applications will be key to its beneficial integration

 

This article incorporates AI-assisted drafting based on the BASSO METHOD framework and has been reviewed for accuracy, alignment with ethological principles, and adherence to these parameters.

 

OH, I’m not Roger Corby. And dog trainers are not going extinct anytime soon.

 

References

  1. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [web:render_inline_citation citation_id="1"/] (Note: Though pre-2025, foundational on LLM risks.)
  2. Hamilton, K., Neyazi, A., Hong, H., & Choe, E. K. (2022). Is neuro-symbolic AI meeting its promise in natural language processing? A structured review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12205https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.12205[web:render_inline_citation citation_id="4"/]
  3. Lorenz, K. (1952). King Solomon's ring: New light on animal ways. Crowell. (Foundational ethology text.)
  4. Miklósi, Á. (2015). Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646661.001.0001
  5. OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774[web:render_inline_citation citation_id="7"/]
  6. OpenAI. (2024). GPT-4o system card. Retrieved from https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-system-card/[web:render_inline_citation citation_id="12"/]
  7. Skinner, B. F. (2019). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. B. F. Skinner Foundation. (Reprint of 1938 foundational work.)
  8. The Dog Trainer. (n.d.). Behavioral assessment in dog training. Retrieved from https://samthedogtrainer.com [Internal link to related BASSO content on behavioral frameworks.]
  9. Pooch Master. (2024). Ethological insights for modern dog owners. Retrieved from https://poochmaster.blogspot.com[Internal link to blog post on practitioner knowledge vs. automation.]
  10. Winkler, A. (n.d.). Canine behavior and training principles. Retrieved from https://rivannak9services.com

Monday, February 23, 2026

What Science Says About the First Months After Adopting a Shelter Dog

Bringing home a shelter dog is often described as a joyful rescue story — a second chance for the animal and a meaningful act for the adopter. In those first hours, everything can feel like a perfect match. The dog is quiet, grateful, affectionate. Friends comment on how calm and well-behaved the new companion seems.

 

Then, somewhere between week two and month three, reality shifts.

 

The dog starts barking at the door. House-training accidents appear. Chewing begins. Leash frustration erupts. Separation distress surfaces. The adopter wonders: What happened? Did I make a mistake?

 

If this scenario sounds familiar, you are not alone — and you did not fail. What you are seeing is not a broken dog or a bad match. It is a predictable, well-documented transition period that science has been quietly mapping for decades.

 

Understanding this transition is one of the most important things adopters, shelters, and rescue organizations can learn — because the first months after adoption determine whether a placement becomes a lifelong partnership or an eventual return.

 

The “Shutdown” Period Is Real — But It Isn’t What People Think

 

Many newly adopted dogs appear unusually calm at first. They sleep a lot, stay close, and avoid trouble. Popular culture sometimes calls this the “honeymoon phase,” but ethology suggests a more precise explanation: the dog is in a state of environmental uncertainty.

 

When animals enter a completely new environment — new smells, people, sounds, routines — cautious behavior is adaptive. Early ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen emphasized that behavior must be interpreted in context, not as fixed traits (Burkhardt, 2005; Tinbergen, 1963). A dog that seems quiet in a shelter kennel or new home is not necessarily “easy.” It may simply be gathering information.

 

From a learning perspective, the dog has not yet discovered what works in this environment. Operant actions — responses shaped by consequences — require time and feedback (Skinner, 1963). In the beginning, the dog has neither. What adopters perceive as calmness is often caution.

 

Behavior Often Changes — and That’s Normal

 

Large-scale research confirms that post-adoption behavior changes are common. Studies tracking dogs during the first six months in homes show that many dogs display increases in certain problem behaviors over time, even while owners report high satisfaction with their pets (Bohland et al., 2023b). Another study using the C-BARQ behavioral assessment found measurable behavioral shifts as dogs acclimated to their new environments (Bohland et al., 2023a).

 

In other words:

 

Dogs don’t deteriorate after adoption — they reveal themselves.

 

As comfort grows, the dog begins testing the environment, expressing natural behaviors, and responding to daily routines. Gates et al. (2018) documented common post-adoption challenges such as:

 

  • Separation-related distress
  • Destructive behavior
  • House-soiling
  • Vocalization
  • Reactivity toward people or animals

 

These behaviors often emerge weeks or months after adoption, not immediately.

 

Owner Expectations Are the Hidden Risk Factor

 

One of the strongest predictors of adoption success is not the dog’s behavior — it is the adopter’s expectations. Research shows that mismatches between expectations and reality significantly increase the likelihood of returns to shelters (Powell et al., 2022b). Many adopters expect gratitude, calmness, or immediate bonding. Instead, they encounter stress behaviors and adjustment challenges. Marston, Bennett, and Coleman (2005) found that the first month after adoption is often emotionally complex for owners. Excitement mixes with frustration, uncertainty, and fatigue. When adopters interpret normal adjustment behaviors as signs of a “bad dog,” the relationship becomes fragile.

 

The Return Cascade: Why Early Support Matters

 

Returns to shelters are not only emotionally painful; they have measurable consequences. Returning a pet reduces the likelihood that adopters will adopt again in the future (Powell et al., 2022a). It can also worsen outcomes for the returned animal, who must endure another transition. But there is good news: post-adoption support dramatically improves success rates. Buckland (2025) describes emerging strategies such as:

 

  • Structured follow-up counseling
  • Behavior helplines
  • Early training support
  • Community resources

 

Large surveys of tens of thousands of adopters confirm that early experiences strongly shape long-term outcomes (Slater et al., 2026). Adoption is not a single event. It is a process.

 

The Biological Reality: Dogs Are Not Blank Slates

 

Another misconception is that dogs arrive as empty canvases ready to be rewritten by love alone. Modern behavioral science paints a different picture.

 

Dogs come with:

 

  • Genetic predispositions
  • Developmental histories
  • Learned coping strategies
  • Breed-linked cognitive tendencies

 

Research even links breed differences in cognition to neurological factors and gene expression (Gnanadesikan et al., 2020). Evolutionary and developmental perspectives emphasize that behavior is shaped by both inheritance and experience (Miklósi, 2015; Coppinger & Coppinger, 2001). Shelter dogs often carry unknown histories, making prediction difficult. This is not a flaw in the adoption process. It is simply biology.

 

Why Problem Behaviors Often Appear Later

 

Several mechanisms explain delayed behavior emergence:

 

1. Reduced Stress → Increased Exploration

As the dog feels safer, it begins exploring, chewing, vocalizing, and testing boundaries.

2. Learning History Activation

Actions that were previously reinforced resurface once the dog learns they “work” again.

3. Attachment Formation

Separation distress often appears only after bonding develops.

4. Routine Establishment

 

Dogs respond to patterns. Once routines stabilize, behavior organizes around them.

These changes reflect adjustment, not regression.

 

Satisfaction Can Remain High Despite Challenges

 

One of the most encouraging findings in recent research is that adopters frequently remain happy with their dogs even while reporting behavior problems (Bohland et al., 2023b). Why Because relationships deepen alongside challenges. Owners who persist often describe stronger bonds over time. This mirrors what long-time trainers and behaviorists have observed for decades: working through difficulties can build trust.

 

What Successful Adopters Do Differently

 

Evidence suggests that successful adopters tend to:

 

  • Expect adjustment periods
  • Seek help early
  • Maintain consistent routines
  • Provide structure without harsh punishment
  • Focus on relationship-building

 

From a learning perspective, consistent consequences shape actions far more effectively than emotional reactions (Skinner, 1963). From an ethological perspective, understanding the dog’s functional needs — safety, exploration, social contact — is equally important.

 

A Better Way to Think About Adoption

 

Instead of viewing adoption as “saving a dog,” science suggests a more accurate model:

 

Adoption is the beginning of a mutual adaptation process.

 

Both dog and human are learning each other. Early ethologists emphasized that behavior emerges from the interaction between organism and environment (Tinbergen, 1963). Adoption creates a brand-new environment overnight. Expecting instant stability is unrealistic.

 

The Message for Shelters and Rescues

 

Organizations can dramatically improve outcomes by reframing adoption as a supported transition rather than a completed transaction. Effective practices include:

 

  • Honest counseling about adjustment periods
  • Normalizing common post-adoption challenges
  • Providing follow-up resources
  • Encouraging training and enrichment

 

The goal is not to eliminate difficulty — it is to prevent surprises.

 

The Message for Adopters

 

If your newly adopted dog seems different after a few weeks, take heart. You are likely seeing the real dog emerge — the one who will eventually become your companion. Adjustment takes time. Relationship takes time. Learning takes time. And the science is clear: Most dogs who receive patience, structure, and support go on to become deeply bonded family members. The honeymoon doesn’t end because the story failed. It ends because the real story is finally beginning... and start proper training right away instead of reacting to every response that isn't what you wanted or expected.

 

References

Bohland, K. R., et al. (2023a). Shelter dog behavior after adoption: Using the C-BARQ to track changes through the first six months. PLOS ONE, 18(8), e0289356.

Bohland, K. R., et al. (2023b). Good dogs: Owners of recently-adopted shelter dogs tend to report high satisfaction with their new pet despite also reporting increases in problem behavior over time. PLOS ONE, 18(8), e0290681.

Buckland, E. L. (2025). New strategies of canine post-adoption support. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 12071166.

Burkhardt, R. W. (2005). Patterns of behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and the founding of ethology. University of Chicago Press.

Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (2001). Dogs: A startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior, and evolution. Scribner.

Gates, M. C., et al. (2018). Post-adoption problem behaviours in adolescent and adult dogs rehomed through a New Zealand animal shelter. Animals, 8(6), 93.

Gnanadesikan, G. E., et al. (2020). Breed differences in dog cognition associated with brain-expressed genes and neurological functions. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 60(4), 976-990.

Marston, L. C., Bennett, P. C., & Coleman, G. J. (2005). Adopting shelter dogs: Owner experiences of the first month post-adoption. Anthrozoös, 18(4), 358-378.

Miklósi, Á. (2015). Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Powell, L., et al. (2022a). The impact of returning a pet to the shelter on future animal adoptions. Scientific Reports, 12, 5101.

Powell, L., et al. (2022b). Returning a shelter dog: The role of owner expectations and dog behavior. Animals, 12(9), 1053.

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18(8), 503-515.

Slater, M. R., Weiss, E., Levy, J. K., & Greenberg, M. (2026). Shelter to home: Surveys of early post-adoption experiences with more than 22,000 dog and cat adopters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 27(1), 1-20.

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410-433.

Trumler, E. (1973). Understanding your dog. Faber & Faber.

Parts of this article were modified by the use of AI