Handle with care: Dogs show negative responses to restrictive handling restraints and tools during routine examinations (2025)

Cisneros, A., Carroll, A. D., Moody, C. M. et al.

Abstract

Routine veterinary visits are important for monitoring dog welfare; however, handling during physical examinations may elicit fear responses in dogs. Although handling recommendations exist to mitigate negative experiences for dogs, there is little empirical evidence to support these handling recommendations. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the influence of handling techniques and tools on dog behavioral and physiological responses during routine veterinary examinations. A total of 97 dogs were recruited from a local municipal shelter. Using a randomized block design balanced for age (mean age was 3.5), sex (49 female, 48 male), and size (40 small, 57 medium/large), dogs were randomly sorted into one of five treatments: 1) passive restraint, 2) muzzle-hold restraint, 3) basket muzzle, 4) soft muzzle, and 5) full-body restraint. A willingness-to-approach test was conducted to assess sociability toward the handler, followed by a handling phase (2-minute examination while in the handling treatment), and a post-handling phase (30-second observation period). Behavioral responses (posture reductions, lip licking, yawning, vocalizing, elimination, body shaking, trembling, avoidance, escape) were measured during the handling and post-handling phases, and physiological responses (temperature, respiratory and heart rate) were recorded during handling. A scale used to measure fear was also assessed during each phase using a 5-item scale (0 =no fear, 4 =extreme fear). Results indicated that across treatments, most dogs showed reduced posture during handling (63 %, 61/97), and neutral posture post-handling (95 %, 92/97). During handling, dogs in the muzzle-hold restraint displayed more escape attempts (p = 0.009) and dogs that received the full-body restraint performed more vocalizations (p = 0.008) compared to dogs in the passive restraint. It took longer to place dogs in the soft (p = 0.001) and basket muzzle (p<0.001) compared to the passive restraint. Dogs in the soft muzzle were more likely to display avoidance behaviors (p<0.001) than dogs in passive restraint. Physiological measurements did not vary by treatment group. Fear scores were lower during handling in passive restraint compared to all other treatments: muzzle-hold (p=0.001), basket muzzle (p=0.0157), soft muzzle (p=0.0001), and full-body restraint (p=0.0001). Results suggest that dogs display more negative responses when handled with the muzzle-hold and full-body restraints, compared to passive restraint and use of muzzle tools. This study can be used to inform evidence-based recommendations and support the implementation of less restrictive handling to mitigate stress for dogs during routine examinations.