Scent Marking in Dogs: What Urine Marks Communicate

1. Introduction: More Than Emptying a Bladder

1.1 A Behavior Everyone Sees

Few dog behaviors are as visible as marking. A male dog walks along a fence, stops, lifts a hind leg, releases a few drops and moves on to the next post. A female squats on a tuft of grass that another dog has just sniffed. A dog scratches the ground with its hind feet after urinating and throws grass behind it. Owners see these sequences every day, and most have an explanation ready: the dog is claiming territory, showing who is in charge, or simply being a male.

The research picture is more interesting than those explanations and also more modest. Marking is studied as a communication system in which a dog leaves chemical and visual traces that other dogs investigate later. Some answers about what these traces carry are solid, some rest on a single study, and some are still open.

1.2 What This Article Covers and What It Leaves Out

This article is about scent marking as behavior and communication. Two neighboring topics are covered elsewhere: the neurobiology of the canine nose and the general role of odor in dog behavior (how olfaction shapes dog behavior), and the clinical question of urine and feces in the house, including medical causes and separation-related elimination, which is taken up again in section 9.

1.3 How to Read the Evidence

Three features of this literature shape every conclusion. First, much of the systematic data on domestic dogs comes from one research program that observed shelter dogs during leash walks in the United States. Shelter dogs live with an unfamiliar environment, many unfamiliar people and, in most of these samples, neutering, and the authors themselves documented that marking in their shelter differed from figures reported elsewhere. Transfer to family dogs is a question, not a given.

Second, most other work comes from free-ranging dogs in Italy and India and from a laboratory colony. Third, several key studies are small: one dog, eleven dogs, fifteen dogs. They are named as small where they appear.

2. What Counts as Scent Marking

2.1 Elimination and Marking

Not every urination is a mark, and the distinction is behavioral. Elimination empties the bladder. Marking deposits small amounts of urine, often repeatedly and on conspicuous objects, often after the dog has investigated the spot. A classic laboratory study of beagles described the contrast: females tended to empty the bladder at once, whereas males deposited small amounts many times and sometimes went through the motion of urinating with no urine expelled. Male urinations appeared oriented toward the scent of other males or toward conspicuous vertical objects; female urinations were distributed more at random, although a substantial number were also directed at vertical targets (Sprague & Anisko, 1973).

A review of canine olfaction describes urine marking as the most common form of scent marking in dogs and states that marking is not tied to the need to pass urine, although the wolf data behind part of that statement are not dog data (Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021). The beagle observations of repeated small deposits and "dry" leg lifts point in the same direction.

2.2 Postures

The postures used during urination are the most visible part of marking. In the usual description, adult males use the raised-leg posture, which leaves an elevated mark; juvenile males use a lean-forward posture with all four feet on the ground; and most females squat (Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021). The beagle study recorded twelve distinct elimination postures in total, with females using a wider range of urination postures than males: eight compared with four (Sprague & Anisko, 1973).

The idea that only males lift a leg is not supported. Female Jack Russell Terriers used the squat, a squat with one leg raised (the most common), an arched posture with one leg raised and even a handstand, and raised postures were used more often away from the home area than on it (Wirant & McGuire, 2004). How male and female behavior differ more generally is discussed separately (what the research on male and female dogs shows).

Posture is not fixed even in adult males. At one shelter, adult males used the raised-leg posture in 73 percent of urinations, compared with 94 to 97 percent reported for mature males in other settings, and adult females raised a hindlimb in 6 percent of urinations, compared with 19 to 37 percent elsewhere (Gough & McGuire, 2015, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020). The comparison figures come from different studies, so the gap is an indication rather than a controlled effect.

2.3 Countermarking and Overmarking

Marks are often placed in response to other marks. Countermarking is the general term for depositing a mark in response to an existing one. Overmarking is the narrower case in which a dog places its mark directly on top of another individual's mark (Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021). An owner who watches a dog sniff a post intensively and then urinate on exactly the same spot is watching overmarking.

In a single-dog study, the dog rarely urinated over his own urine but marked over the urine of other males more often than over that of females (Bekoff, 2001). In free-ranging dogs in India, overmarking was observed predominantly in males, especially toward male marks and marks from neighboring groups (Biswas et al., 2024). As summarized in two later papers, a study of countermarking in domestic dogs found countermarking in both sexes, overmarking mainly in males, and a relation to both social and gonadal status (Lisberg & Snowdon, 2011, as summarized by Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021, and by Quaranta et al., 2026). The summaries differ on whether females overmarked at all, so that detail stays open.

2.4 Ground Scratching and Pedal Scent

Ground scratching, the vigorous backward scraping with the hind feet after urination or defecation, has long been read as part of marking. In the beagle study, a small amount of ground scratching was recorded, most of it by males, who scratched only after urination; the authors suggested that scratching may disperse odor and make a conspicuous mark on some surfaces (Sprague & Anisko, 1973). In a pack of free-ranging dogs, raised-leg urination and ground scratching probably played a role in both olfactory and visual communication, in males and in females (Cafazzo et al., 2012).

Whether dogs attend to scent from the feet was tested with pet dogs. Of 48 dogs recruited, 34 entered the analysis. Males sniffed other males' pedal scent longer than a control sample taken from the ground, while females showed no difference in sniffing duration but a nostril bias for other females' scent. The authors concluded that dogs recognize scent from other dogs' pedal glands, while it remains unclear whether they use it to tell the sex of the depositor (McClanahan & Rosell, 2020). The sample is small, and the nostril-bias reading relies on assumptions discussed in the laterality literature (what side biases in dogs can and cannot show).

Ground scratching is not universal. In the shelter samples, it was performed by a minority of dogs (McGuire, 2016, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020), and walker sex did not predict it (McGuire et al., 2020).

2.5 Feces and Anal Sac Secretions

Chemical signals are described as being excreted in urine, feces and the secretions of several glands, including the anal sacs and pedal glands (Quaranta et al., 2026). Behaviorally, the evidence for a communicative role of defecation is weaker than for urine. In the free-ranging pack, defecation did not seem to play an essential role in olfactory communication (Cafazzo et al., 2012), and the olfaction review describes it as less important in dogs than in wolves (Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021), although the beagle study recorded almost a quarter of male defecations on the fence (Sprague & Anisko, 1973).

3. Who Marks, and How Much

3.1 Sex

The clearest sex difference in canine marking is one of frequency, posture and target, not of presence or absence. In the beagle colony, males urinated in more tests, more frequently and with a shorter latency than females (Sprague & Anisko, 1973). In shelter dogs, males urinated more frequently than females and directed more urinations onto vertical targets (McGuire, 2016, as summarized by Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021). Females mark too, raise a leg in some urinations and use raised postures more away from home (Wirant & McGuire, 2004).

The size of the difference depends on circumstances. In 100 shelter dogs walked by unfamiliar people, the usual higher urination rate of males was present when the walker was a woman and disappeared when the walker was a man (McGuire et al., 2020).

3.2 Age and Maturation

Raised-leg marking in males is a maturational change. Juvenile shelter dogs urinated, defecated and ground scratched less often during walks than older dogs (McGuire, 2016, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020), and in a later sample of 113 shelter dogs, mature males had higher urination rates than juvenile males, while mature and juvenile females urinated at similar rates (McGuire et al., 2023).

3.3 Body Size

Smaller dogs marked more often than larger dogs in a shelter study of body size (McGuire & Bemis, 2017, as summarized by Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021, and by Quaranta et al., 2026). Both summaries add an interpretation: marking may be a lower-risk, indirect form of communication that suits small dogs, who might otherwise face costly direct encounters. That is a plausible functional reading. It was not tested by asking what happens when small and large dogs meet.

3.4 Reproductive State in Females

In females, the reproductive cycle matters. In preliminary observations of female Jack Russell Terriers, urine marking increased during proestrus and estrus (Wirant et al., 2007, as summarized by Quaranta et al., 2026). In the free-ranging pack, female urinations, especially in a flexed-leg posture, were interpreted as possibly conveying information about reproductive state (Cafazzo et al., 2012). The chemistry discussed in section 5 fits this pattern, but the behavioral data in family dogs are sparse.

3.5 Social Status, Without the Hierarchy Myth

Marking is often explained with a simple story: the "top dog" marks to show its rank. The studies are narrower. In a free-ranging pack in Italy, markings appeared to form a "property line" and were used to threaten rivals during conflicts, and both sexes used marking in connection with dominance and possibly with holding on to food (Cafazzo et al., 2012); higher-ranking individuals ground scratched more often (Cafazzo et al., 2012, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020). Overmarking was related to dogs classified as higher in status (Lisberg & Snowdon, 2011, as summarized by Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021).

Two points keep these findings in proportion. Dominance in such studies describes measured relationships within a specific group, based on who gives way to whom in particular contexts; it is not a personality trait that a dog carries into every encounter (why dominance is a relationship measure, not a trait). And none of these studies shows that marking produces rank. How free-ranging dogs organize their social life is covered separately (what free-ranging dogs show about social behavior).

In practice: An owner who hears that a marking dog "wants to be the boss" often starts to treat the dog as a rival, on walks and at home. In our training practice, this framing tends to make the relationship tenser without changing the marking. It is more useful to ask where, when and after what the dog marks.

4. Honest or Dishonest? The Raised Leg

4.1 The Hypothesis

Scent marks are often assumed to be honest signals: if a mark tells other animals something about the size and competitive ability of the depositor, there should be pressure for it to be accurate. The question is whether dogs follow that pattern or whether some exaggerate.

4.2 The Two Studies

A two-part study with adult male shelter dogs tested this idea (McGuire et al., 2018). In the first study, with 15 dogs, urinations were videotaped and the height of the mark was measured afterward. Both the angle of the raised leg and body size, measured as body mass or height at the withers, were positively related to mark height, and the raised-leg angle was the stronger predictor. In the second study, with 45 dogs, the authors measured raised-leg angles and found a negative relationship with body size: smaller dogs raised the leg at larger angles than larger dogs.

The authors concluded that the raised-leg angle is a usable proxy for mark height and that their findings provide additional evidence that scent marking can be dishonest: assuming that body size reflects competitive ability, small males may place their marks higher, relative to their own size, than larger males, which could exaggerate their competitive ability (McGuire et al., 2018).

4.3 What the Result Does and Does Not Show

Three limits matter. First, the authors note themselves that they did not control for overmarking, which could also explain the result: a small dog aiming at an existing mark left by a larger dog would need a higher angle to reach it (McGuire et al., 2018). Second, competitive ability was not measured, only assumed to follow body size. Third, the receiving side was not tested. Whether other dogs read the height of a mark as information about size, and whether they are misled, is unknown.

For everyday interpretation, the study supports a modest conclusion: the height of a mark does not reliably tell an observer how large the depositor was. It does not show that small dogs are compensating for anything in a psychological sense.

5. What a Urine Mark May Carry

5.1 Sex and Reproductive State

The best chemical evidence concerns female reproductive state. An analysis of more than a hundred samples of urine, vaginal secretions, vulval and anal imprints and anal sac secretions found that urine differed between cycle phases: carbonyl aromatic compounds and several methyl ketones increased during proestrus and estrus, while sulfide compounds decreased during estrus and rose abruptly in diestrus (Dzięcioł et al., 2018). The authors suggested a possible system of attracting and repelling signals, called the substances putative sex pheromones and noted that behavioral tests are still needed; samples other than urine showed no significant changes.

An earlier study had identified a single compound, methyl p-hydroxybenzoate, in the vaginal secretions of females in estrus and reported that males became sexually aroused and attempted to mount when it was applied to females that were not in estrus (Goodwin et al., 1979). That finding concerns vaginal secretion rather than urine, and the later multi-compound analysis did not name this substance in its summary of results. Taken together, the chemical work makes it plausible that urine carries information about reproductive state, while the exact signal remains unidentified. The use of synthetic signaling substances in commercial products is a separate question (what is known about pheromone products).

5.2 Self and Others

Dogs treat their own urine differently from that of others. In the single-dog snow study, conducted over five winters, the dog spent less time sniffing his own urine than that of other males or females, and his interest in his own urine waned over time while interest in others' urine stayed relatively constant (Bekoff, 2001). The study rests on one dog, observed by its owner.

A controlled version with canisters followed. Thirty-six dogs took part in the main study and twelve in a follow-up. Dogs investigated their own urine longer when an additional odor had been added to it than when it had not, spent longer investigating the odor of other dogs than their own, and in the second experiment spent longer with the modified urine than with the added odor alone, so novelty by itself did not explain the result (Horowitz, 2017). For marking, the relevant part is the discrimination: dogs distinguish their own urine from that of others and notice when it changes. What the finding means for self-awareness is a separate question, discussed elsewhere (what the olfactory self-recognition studies show).

5.3 Kinship

Whether dogs recognize relatives by scent was tested with preference measures, using a sire the dogs had never lived with or a sibling separated at seven weeks. Females showed no statistically significant preference, while males preferred the scent of the more distant relative when presented with sire and female sibling samples (Hamilton & Vonk, 2015). Scent can carry kinship-related information, but the result is limited to one design and to males.

5.4 Emotional State?

Whether urine marks reliably convey information about a momentary emotional state remains poorly studied. A recent study presented eleven male pet dogs with the urine of an unfamiliar estrous female and of an unfamiliar intact male described as agonistic toward other males, and measured hormones in the dogs' own marks (Quaranta et al., 2026). Cortisol was higher in marks deposited more than two meters from the stimulus, especially in the second session, and cortisol and oxytocin correlated with facial expressions coded as fearful while sniffing the male odor. The authors call the findings preliminary.

The limits are substantial: eleven dogs after six exclusions, one donor per stimulus, an unbalanced order of presentation, many tested interactions, and facial-expression categories that require interpretation. The study opens a research question; it demonstrates neither reliable transmission of an emotional state nor its recognition by a receiving dog (why hormone measures are not simple stress meters).

5.5 How Strong Is the Evidence?

The overall picture is uneven. Discrimination of own and others' urine and cycle-related changes in urine chemistry are supported by controlled work; claims that a mark carries detailed information about health, age, mood or social relationships rest on much less. The olfaction article makes the same distinction between discriminating an odor and "knowing" someone from it.

6. Reading Marks: Sniffing as Information Gathering

6.1 The Other Half of Marking

Marking is only half of the system. The other half is investigation, and it takes up a large part of a walk. The studies above show that investigation is selective: other dogs' urine was sniffed longer than the dog's own (Bekoff, 2001; Horowitz, 2017), and males sniffed other males' pedal scent longer than a control (McClanahan & Rosell, 2020).

The olfaction review adds that in neutral situations males spend more time than females sniffing the rear of a partner, near the anal glands (Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021). This is a secondary summary and best taken as a description of a pattern.

6.2 Territory and Neighbors in Free-Ranging Dogs

Free-ranging dogs show marking in a setting with real neighbors. In the Indian field experiment, dogs of both sexes showed more interest in scent marks than in controls and responded territorially, males more so than females, and marks from males of neighboring groups produced the most distinct responses (Biswas et al., 2024). Family dogs on a leash pass the marks of dozens of dogs they may never meet and do not defend a territory in the same sense.

6.3 Context Decides the Reading

A recurring theme in research on dog communication is that single behaviors are hard to interpret out of context. Lip licking, yawning or sniffing the ground can occur in very different situations, and their meaning depends on what happens before and after (why single signals need their context). The same holds for marks. A leg lift on a lamppost on a familiar walk, a mark on a visitor's bag in the hallway and a squat in front of an approaching dog are three different events, even if the motor pattern is similar. The social marking studies show that context changes marking itself; the next section looks at that in more detail.

7. Marking and the Social and Emotional Environment

7.1 Fear and Posture

One of the clearest links between marking and emotional state concerns posture. Adult males that normally use the raised-leg posture have been reported to revert temporarily to the juvenile lean-forward posture in fearful situations, for example in situations involving loud noises (as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020, and McGuire et al., 2023). The lower rate of raised-leg urinations in shelter males compared with males in other settings fits this pattern (Gough & McGuire, 2015, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020). In other words, the available evidence points to fear suppressing or modifying marking, at least in males, rather than increasing it.

7.2 The Walker Effect

Two shelter studies tested whether the people present change marking. In the first, 100 dogs were walked by a single unfamiliar person. Males urinated at higher rates with an unfamiliar woman than with an unfamiliar man, with a large effect size, while females urinated at similar rates with both. Males used the lean-forward posture as the predominant posture in 20.6 percent of walks with men and 13.2 percent with women. Dogs of both sexes were more likely to defecate with a woman (probability 0.74 compared with 0.44), and ground scratching was not predicted by walker sex (McGuire et al., 2020).

The second study extended this to 113 dogs, including juveniles, and followed 81 dogs over repeated walks. Mature males again urinated at higher rates with women, mature dogs were less likely to defecate with men, and juveniles were generally less affected. The effects did not change as dogs became familiar with their walkers (McGuire et al., 2023). The authors interpret the lower urination rate with men as greater uneasiness and suggest a role for experience, which they did not test directly; the cues dogs used to tell men and women apart were not determined (McGuire et al., 2020).

For family dogs, these studies show something general: marking is sensitive to the social situation on a walk, including the person on the leash. They do not show that family dogs mark less with men, because the samples were shelter dogs walked by strangers.

7.3 What Is Not Known: Stress and Indoor Marking

Clinical texts often describe marking that increases when a dog's social environment becomes unsettled, for example after a new dog, a visitor or a move. The sources reviewed here provide no direct experimental demonstration of this in pet dogs. One of the few studies reviewed here that relate marking to stress hormones is small and preliminary (Quaranta et al., 2026), and the shelter studies point toward fear reducing rather than increasing marking on walks. A link between stress and indoor marking may be plausible in an individual case, but these studies cannot establish or quantify it generally.

In practice: We regularly see dogs that start marking indoors after changes at home, such as a new dog, a visiting dog or a new piece of furniture that smells of another household. Such cases call for careful assessment rather than a quick judgment of disobedience. New or substantially changed urination patterns warrant a veterinary assessment first; pain, repeated straining, or blood in the urine call for prompt veterinary attention. This is an observation from training practice, not a study result.

8. Castration: What Changes and What Does Not

8.1 The Classic Owner-Report Data

Castration is the intervention most often recommended for marking, and marking is one of the behaviors for which the classic evidence is most favorable. In 57 male dogs that were older than two years at castration and had at least one targeted problem behavior, owners were contacted by telephone and asked to estimate the change. For urine marking in the house, mounting and roaming, castration was followed by an improvement of at least 50 percent in at least 60 percent of dogs and of at least 90 percent in 25 to 40 percent of dogs. For the other behaviors, including several forms of aggression, an improvement of at least 50 percent occurred in fewer than 35 percent of dogs. Neither the age of the dog nor the duration of the behavior correlated with the degree of improvement (Neilson et al., 1997). A review from the same group described roaming, urine marking and mounting as the classic hormone-responsive behaviors and noted that not all males change (Hart & Eckstein, 1997).

These data come from selected owners with a problem to report, collected by telephone after the fact, without a control group. They support a statement about proportions: many castrated males marked less, some much less, and a substantial minority did not change markedly (what neutering changes in behavior; what testosterone does and does not explain).

8.2 Observations During Walks

Shelter data add direct observation. In a study at local shelters, urination rates during walks decreased after castration in males, whereas they did not change after spaying in females; in a comparison between dogs, intact males urinated at higher rates than castrated males, while intact and spayed females urinated at similar rates; and gonadectomy did not influence the likelihood of defecation or ground scratching (McGuire, 2019, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020). Countermarking was also related to gonadal status, with overmarking of female urine reported for intact males (Lisberg & Snowdon, 2011, as summarized by Quaranta et al., 2026).

Castration reduced the frequency of urination during walks, which is not the same as abolishing marking: the castrated males in the walker studies still marked and still showed effects of walker sex (McGuire et al., 2020). And the shelter data concern normal marking outdoors, not indoor marking in a family home.

8.3 Hormone Exposure in a Large Survey

A large owner-report dataset of 6,235 male dogs, castrated for reasons other than behavior, related reported behavior to the percentage of the dog's lifetime spent with gonadal hormones. Only two behaviors were significantly more likely with longer hormone exposure: indoor urine marking and howling when left alone. Longer exposure was associated with reduced reporting of 26 mostly unwelcome behaviors, eight of them related to fear and seven to aggression (McGreevy et al., 2018). The authors summarized the trade-off in a single sentence: denying puberty partially or completely may reduce indoor urine marking but have many other undesirable consequences.

The study is cross-sectional, and hormone exposure is entangled with age at castration and with owners' reasons for its timing. Still, indoor marking was one of the few behaviors that went in the expected direction, and the same data suggest that early castration aimed at preventing marking may come at a cost elsewhere.

8.4 A Prospective Study with Controls

The strongest design in this set comes from a prospective study with an intact control group. Owners of 48 dogs scheduled for gonadectomy and of 48 intact controls were interviewed before surgery and nine months later. Gonadectomized dogs were reported to show less mounting, leash pulling and roaming at the second interview, but marking behavior did not change over time in either group (Palestrini et al., 2021). The study has its own limits: it was not randomized, only 15 of the gonadectomized dogs were males, information came from owners, and 96 of 156 owners replied. A null result in a small subgroup does not show that castration has no effect on marking. It suggests that the effect may not be large or uniform enough to show up clearly in a modest controlled sample.

8.5 Reading the Set Together

Taken together, the evidence supports a narrow statement. Castration reduced urination rates during walks in shelter males and was followed, according to owner reports, by an improvement of indoor marking of at least 50 percent in at least 60 percent of dogs, but not in all; age and duration of the habit did not predict which dogs changed (Neilson et al., 1997; McGuire, 2019, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020). A controlled prospective study did not detect a change in marking over nine months (Palestrini et al., 2021), and spaying did not change female urination rates during walks (McGuire, 2019, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2023). "Castration stops marking" is true for many dogs, not for every dog, and not without trade-offs (McGreevy et al., 2018).

9. Marking Indoors and in New Places

9.1 New Environments

New places and recently visited places invite marking. Female terriers used raised postures more away from their home area than on it (Wirant & McGuire, 2004), and the olfaction review describes male canids as marking more in unfamiliar areas (Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021). That fits everyday observation: a dog that hardly marks on the daily round may mark intensively on a new route, at the training ground or in a garden where other dogs have been.

9.2 Other People's Homes

The same logic applies to visits. A home where another dog lives is full of scent, and furniture, door frames and bags carry odors from outside. None of the studies reviewed here tested marking in other people's homes. The practical advice that follows is therefore based on the general pattern (new environment, many odors, marking is sensitive to context) rather than on a specific trial.

In practice: In homes with another dog, a few minutes of supervised exploration on a loose leash, with the dog guided past door frames and furniture corners at first, prevents most incidents we see. A dog that is known to mark in new places is easier to manage with a well-timed trip outside right after arrival than with corrections indoors. Belly bands are sometimes used for short visits; they prevent damage but do not change the behavior.

9.3 Marking in the Dog's Own Home

Indoor marking at home belongs with the house-soiling literature (how indoor marking differs from other house soiling). From the marking research, two points carry over. Dogs respond to their own and others' urine selectively (Bekoff, 2001; Horowitz, 2017), which makes thorough cleaning of marked spots a reasonable part of management. And in males, indoor marking is associated with longer exposure to gonadal hormones (McGreevy et al., 2018), while the response to castration varies (Neilson et al., 1997). Homes with several dogs bring their own dynamics (what changes when several dogs share a home).

10. What Follows for Everyday Life

10.1 Letting the Dog Sniff on Walks

If marking and investigation form a communication system, a walk on which a dog is never allowed to stop cuts off a large part of it. No study has tested what preventing sniffing on walks does to dogs. The closest evidence comes from a study in which two weeks of nosework shifted pet dogs toward a more optimistic response in a cognitive bias test compared with dogs that practiced heelwork (Duranton & Horowitz, 2019). That study did not examine walks or marking, but it supports the idea that self-directed nose work can matter to dogs.

In practice: A compromise that works well for many of the owners we advise is to separate parts of a walk: stretches where the dog walks with the owner, and stretches where the dog may investigate and mark freely. Owners in busy areas often worry about hygiene and about other people's property. Garden fences, house walls, cars, playgrounds and shop fronts are reasonable places to keep the dog moving; posts, verges and tree bases are usually the places where marking is expected. This is practical experience, not a tested recommendation.

10.2 Managing Marking

Where marking needs to be limited, management fits the evidence better than suppression: guiding the dog past unwanted places, offering suitable ones, supervising at home or on visits, controlling access to marked spots and cleaning them thoroughly. Medical causes should be ruled out by a veterinarian when a dog starts to urinate indoors.

10.3 Why Punishment Does Not Address the Cause

Punishing a dog for marking can work in the moment. A dog that is startled or reprimanded while lifting its leg in the living room may stop. The question is what the dog learns from it and at what cost. The marking research shows that marking is sensitive to fear: males reverted to juvenile postures in fearful situations and urinated less in situations the authors interpreted as uncomfortable (as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020, 2023). A dog that learns that urinating near its owner is dangerous may mark when unobserved, become reluctant to urinate on a leash, or become wary of the person who punished it. None of this addresses why the dog marked (what punishment changes beyond the behavior).

In practice: In our training practice, indoor marking can often be addressed more effectively when possible triggers are identified and the environment is adapted: the bag that comes in from the stable stays in a closed cupboard, the visiting dog meets the resident dog outside first, the new sofa is not accessible for the first weeks. If the dog is about to mark, a calm, non-threatening interruption followed by an opportunity to urinate outside may help. Its effectiveness has to be assessed case by case; this is not a claim based on a controlled treatment trial.

10.4 What Not to Infer

Some common interpretations go beyond what the studies support. A high mark does not show that a dog is large or confident (McGuire et al., 2018). Frequent marking in a male does not show that he is "dominant": the study that relates marking to dominance describes relationships within one group and does not show that marking creates rank (Cafazzo et al., 2012). A female that lifts her leg is not behaving abnormally (Wirant & McGuire, 2004). And a marking dog is not necessarily a stressed dog, nor a relaxed one: the same motor pattern can occur in very different states, which is why it has to be read together with the rest of the dog's behavior and the situation, as with play signals and other communicative behaviors (how dogs signal and read social intent).

11. Summary at a Glance

Scent marking is a communication behavior distinct from elimination: small, repeated deposits, often on conspicuous objects, sometimes followed by ground scratching, and closely tied to investigation of existing marks (Sprague & Anisko, 1973; Cafazzo et al., 2012). Adult males usually lift a leg, juveniles lean forward, and most females squat, but females also mark and use raised postures, especially away from home (Wirant & McGuire, 2004). Smaller dogs marked more often (McGuire & Bemis, 2017, as summarized by Kokocińska-Kusiak et al., 2021), and smaller males lifted the leg at larger angles, a possible dishonest signal that overmarking may also explain (McGuire et al., 2018).

Overmarking is mainly a male behavior related to social and gonadal status (Biswas et al., 2024; Lisberg & Snowdon, 2011, as summarized by Quaranta et al., 2026). Dogs discriminate their own urine from others' (Horowitz, 2017), and female urine chemistry changes with the cycle (Dzięcioł et al., 2018); emotional information in marks remains an open question (Quaranta et al., 2026). Male shelter dogs urinated more with unfamiliar women than with unfamiliar men (McGuire et al., 2020, 2023). Castration reduced marking in many but not all males (Neilson et al., 1997), and a prospective controlled study found no change over nine months (Palestrini et al., 2021).

12. Research Gaps and Critical Appraisal

12.1 Populations

The most systematic data on domestic dog marking come from shelter dogs in one research program in the United States (McGuire, 2016; McGuire & Bemis, 2017; McGuire et al., 2018, 2020, 2023). Most of these dogs had been neutered, lived in an unfamiliar environment and were walked by strangers. The authors themselves documented lower rates of raised-leg urination than under other conditions (Gough & McGuire, 2015, as summarized by McGuire et al., 2020). The free-ranging data come from one pack in Italy and from groups in India (Cafazzo et al., 2012; Biswas et al., 2024), the classic posture data from a laboratory colony (Sprague & Anisko, 1973). Systematic observations of family dogs on their usual walks are largely missing.

12.2 Sample Sizes and Designs

Several central studies are small. The snow study involved one dog (Bekoff, 2001), the hormone study eleven (Quaranta et al., 2026), the mark-height validation fifteen (McGuire et al., 2018), and the pedal-scent analysis 34 (McClanahan & Rosell, 2020). Most designs are observational or correlational. Experimental designs exist for odor discrimination (Horowitz, 2017; Hamilton & Vonk, 2015) and for presenting marks in the field (Biswas et al., 2024), but not for the questions owners ask most often, such as what reduces indoor marking.

12.3 Measures

Studies measure different things under the same word: urinations per walk, postures, mark height, or sniffing duration. Countermarking and overmarking are defined differently across papers, and indoor marking in surveys is an owner-reported category (McGreevy et al., 2018; Palestrini et al., 2021). For several papers, only secondary summaries could be checked for this article, which limits the detail that can be reported.

12.4 Chemistry and Behavior

Chemical analyses identify compounds that change with the female cycle (Dzięcioł et al., 2018), but the behavioral tests that would show which compounds dogs actually respond to are still missing, as the authors note. The early single-compound finding concerned vaginal secretion (Goodwin et al., 1979). Statements in popular texts that urine tells another dog about health, age, mood and social standing combine solid, partial and speculative findings and are rarely separated.

12.5 Castration Data

The most favorable castration data come from a 1997 owner-recall study without a control group (Neilson et al., 1997). The large survey is cross-sectional and cannot separate the effect of hormones from the reasons for choosing a certain age at castration (McGreevy et al., 2018). The prospective controlled study reviewed here had only 15 castrated males and found no change in marking (Palestrini et al., 2021). A randomized trial of castration for indoor marking does not exist, and the effect of non-surgical options on marking has not been tested in the sources reviewed.

13. Conclusion

Scent marking is one of the most visible forms of canine communication, and the research on it is more specific than the everyday explanations. Marks are small, targeted deposits, placed with postures that depend on sex, age, size and the situation, and investigated selectively by other dogs. They can carry information about reproductive state and identity, and in free-ranging dogs they are part of how neighboring groups handle space and competition. The idea that a raised leg is a straightforward size signal has been questioned by the finding that small males lift higher, but the receiver side of that story is untested.

For everyday life, the research supports a calm approach. Marking on walks is normal behavior worth making room for. Marking indoors is best handled by identifying triggers, managing access and cleaning thoroughly, with medical causes ruled out first. Castration reduces marking in many males, not reliably in every dog, and its trade-offs belong in the decision. Punishment can interrupt a mark but does not touch its reasons.

Key Insights (Takeaways)

• Scent marking is distinct from elimination: small, repeated deposits, often on vertical objects, sometimes followed by ground scratching (Sprague & Anisko, 1973).

• Females mark too and use raised postures, especially away from home; adult males usually lift a leg, but posture changes with context (Wirant & McGuire, 2004; McGuire et al., 2020).

• Small males lifted the leg at larger angles, a possible dishonest signal; the authors note that overmarking could explain the result (McGuire et al., 2018).

• Dogs distinguish their own urine from that of other dogs and notice when it is modified (Bekoff, 2001; Horowitz, 2017).

• Female urine chemistry changes with the cycle; which compounds dogs respond to is still unknown (Dzięcioł et al., 2018).

• Marking is sensitive to the social situation: male shelter dogs urinated more with unfamiliar women than with unfamiliar men (McGuire et al., 2020, 2023).

• Castration reduced marking in many but not all males, and a prospective controlled study found no change in marking over nine months (Neilson et al., 1997; Palestrini et al., 2021).

• Punishment can stop a mark in the moment but does not address its cause; triggers, access and cleaning do more.

References

Bekoff, M. (2001). Observations of scent-marking and discriminating self from others by a domestic dog (Canis familiaris): Tales of displaced yellow snow. Behavioural Processes, 55(2), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(01)00142-5

Biswas, S., Ghosh, K., Ghosh, S., Biswas, A., & Bhadra, A. (2024). What is in a scent? Understanding the role of scent marking in social dynamics and territoriality of free-ranging dogs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 79(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-024-03547-3

Cafazzo, S., Natoli, E., & Valsecchi, P. (2012). Scent-marking behaviour in a pack of free-ranging domestic dogs. Ethology, 118(10), 955–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02088.x

Duranton, C., & Horowitz, A. (2019). Let me sniff! Nosework induces positive judgment bias in pet dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 211, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.009

Dzięcioł, M., Woszczyło, M., Szumny, A., Jezierski, T., Kupczyński, R., Godzińska, E. J., Pieczewska, B., & Niżański, W. (2018). Identification of putative volatile sex pheromones in female domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Reproduction Science, 197, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2018.08.016

Goodwin, M., Gooding, K. M., & Regnier, F. (1979). Sex pheromone in the dog. Science, 203(4380), 559–561. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.569903

Gough, W., & McGuire, B. (2015). Urinary posture and motor laterality in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) at two shelters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 168, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.006

Hamilton, J., & Vonk, J. (2015). Do dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer family? Behavioural Processes, 119, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.08.004

Hart, B. L., & Eckstein, R. A. (1997). The role of gonadal hormones in the occurrence of objectionable behaviours in dogs and cats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 52(3–4), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01133-1

Horowitz, A. (2017). Smelling themselves: Dogs investigate their own odours longer when modified in an “olfactory mirror” test. Behavioural Processes, 143, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.001

Kokocińska-Kusiak, A., Woszczyło, M., Zybala, M., Maciocha, J., Barłowska, K., & Dzięcioł, M. (2021). Canine olfaction: Physiology, behavior, and possibilities for practical applications. Animals, 11(8), 2463. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082463

Lisberg, A. E., & Snowdon, C. T. (2011). Effects of sex, social status and gonadectomy on countermarking by domestic dogs, Canis familiaris. Animal Behaviour, 81(4), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.01.006

McClanahan, K., & Rosell, F. (2020). Conspecific recognition of pedal scent in domestic dogs. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 17837. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74784-5

McGreevy, P. D., Wilson, B., Starling, M. J., & Serpell, J. A. (2018). Behavioural risks in male dogs with minimal lifetime exposure to gonadal hormones may complicate population-control benefits of desexing. PLOS ONE, 13(5), e0196284. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196284

McGuire, B. (2016). Scent marking in shelter dogs: Effects of sex and age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 182, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.06.001

McGuire, B. (2019). Effects of gonadectomy on scent-marking behavior of shelter dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 30, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.11.002

McGuire, B., & Bemis, K. E. (2017). Scent marking in shelter dogs: Effects of body size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 186, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.11.001

McGuire, B., Fry, K., Orantes, D., Underkofler, L., & Parry, S. (2020). Sex of walker influences scent-marking behavior of shelter dogs. Animals, 10(4), 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040632

McGuire, B., Kok, P., Garland, M., Guy, B., Jackson, A., & Haber, S. (2023). Influence of walker sex and familiarity on scent-marking behavior of juvenile and mature shelter dogs. Animals, 13(23), 3649. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13233649

McGuire, B., Olsen, B., Bemis, K. E., & Orantes, D. (2018). Urine marking in male domestic dogs: Honest or dishonest? Journal of Zoology, 306(3), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12603

Neilson, J. C., Eckstein, R. A., & Hart, B. L. (1997). Effects of castration on problem behaviors in male dogs with reference to age and duration of behavior. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 211(2), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.1997.211.02.180

Palestrini, C., Mazzola, S. M., Caione, B., Groppetti, D., Pecile, A. M., Minero, M., & Cannas, S. (2021). Influence of gonadectomy on canine behavior. Animals, 11(2), 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020553

Quaranta, A., d’Ingeo, S., Minunno, M., Straziota, V., Nolè, M., Ventriglia, G., Ceci, E., & Siniscalchi, M. (2026). Decoding dog communication through the physiology and behavior of urine marking. Scientific Reports, 16(1), 1711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31373-8

Sprague, R. H., & Anisko, J. J. (1973). Elimination patterns in the laboratory beagle. Behaviour, 47(3–4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853973X00102

Wirant, S. C., Halvorsen, K. T., & McGuire, B. (2007). Preliminary observations on the urinary behaviour of female Jack Russell Terriers in relation to stage of the oestrous cycle, location, and age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 106(1–3), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.07.005

Wirant, S. C., & McGuire, B. (2004). Urinary behavior of female domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Influence of reproductive status, location, and age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3–4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.09.012