What Should a Puppy Learn in His First Year?

Well, what should a puppy learn in his first year? You’ll probably get as many answers as you ask trainers and handlers, and there is no single right answer to this question. With every new puppy I meet, my own philosophy gets further refined, and as science discovers new truths about the development of animals, my ideas change, sometimes subtly, and sometimes radically. Let me share the puppy and young dog training answer I’d give you today.

Nayeli Phoebe Puppy

I believe that every dog is an individual, and the amount of exercise and action needed on the one, and relaxation needed on the other hand varies from dog to dog. I also believe there are general things that are true for most puppies of a certain breed, and there are other things that are true for most puppies of any breed whatsoever – and there are also things that differ from dog to dog, from one individual to the next. The things I’m going to focus on today are the ones that I consider important for every puppy and young dog, no matter whether big or small, working or toy group.

 

The first level – a foundation for behavioral health.

 

  1. A dog should learn to be comfortable just “being in the world”.

1A. Being confident and curious around people (adults, children, quiet ones, running ones, people on bikes, skateboards etc.), and not startled by their touch.

1B. Being confident and curious around other dogs (off-leash and on-leash, big ones and small ones, calm ones and active ones etc.)

1C. Being able to relax at home even when not tired and exhausted.

1D. Being able to relax out in the world even when not tired and exhausted.

 

  1. A dog should learn to be comfortable in his own skin.

 

These are the two single most important skills – everything else, in my opinion, is secondary. Everything else (from basic pet dog manners to dog sports skills) can be taught to adult dogs as well as to puppies. However, being comfortable and confident “just living” is something that should be taught during puppyhood – the longer you wait to socialize your dog, for example, the harder it will get.

 

The second level – greater life quality for the human & greater freedom for the dog.

 

The next important level increases the life quality for the human part of the team by means of making her dog easier to handle and an eager partner in crime, and the amount of freedom her four-legged partner can be allowed in a safe way: the more reliable your dog, the greater his freedom.

 

  1. A dog should learn how to learn, and that learning is fun.
  2. A dog should learn basic everyday skills:

4A. Peeing outside.

4B. Staying home alone.

4C. Walking on a loose leash.

4D. Coming when called.

4E. An appropriate way to greet people.

4F. An appropriate way to ask for attention.

4G. Riding the subway/wearing a muzzle/settling under a restaurant table/relaxing in a box if you’re planning to travel etc.

  1. A dog should learn things related to the kind of husbandry he will have to experience on a regular basis. (Brushing, clipping, trimming, cutting nails, getting a bath etc.)

 

 

The third level – foundations for sports and work.

 

Then there is nothing for a really long time, and then we come to the specific skills you expect of your dog. These can, but don’t have to be started in the first year. If you start them later – no worries. Even adult dogs can learn to excel at them. If you have a scared or anxious puppy, don’t worry about these skills at all, but spend 90% of your training time on points 1 and 2, and 10% on points 3 to 5. However, if you have a confident, happy-go-lucky puppy, now is a good time to lay the foundations for the future:

 

If you want to do any kind of performance work, you’ll want to build numerous reinforcers (food, toys, personal play etc.)

If you want to do any kind of performance work, you’ll work on building value for attention and motivation to work with you in distracting environments.

If you want to do agility, you may want to work on general body awareness and rear-end awareness in particular.

If you want to do pet therapy work, you might place an extra strong focus on enriched environments and introducing your dog to small kids, people on crutches, wheelchairs etc.

If you want to do obedience, you’ll make sure to not only teach a rockback pet dog sit, but a separate clean tuck sit, not only a relaxed hip-bent down, but also a sphinx down with a separate cue etc. from the very start.

 

Things handlers should learn in the first year with their dog.

 

  1. General canine needs – how much sleep, how much exercise, how much mental stimulation do dogs in general and your breed in particular tend to need?
  2. Get to know your dog as an individual: what does he like? What doesn’t he like? What games does he enjoy, what’s his favorite food, what’s his favorite sleeping spot, his favorite spot to be petted?
  3. Read your dog well in specific situations to predict and avoid stressful situations before they escalate. What does it mean if his body stiffens? If he wags slowly/fast? If he pricks his ears? What kinds of noises does he make, and what do they mean? etc.
  4. How to train animals in a scientifically and ethically sound, force-free way.

 

… This is it for the handler, in my mind – and believe me, this is a lot for first-time dog owners – and even for experienced ones!

 

I’m looking forward to reading about your experiences in the comments – what has worked for you in your puppy’s first year, and what hasn’t worked? I also hope to find some time to post videos about Hadley’s first months and the skills he acquired in those days in the next days/weeks. I’ve taken what feels like a gadzillion videos, but haven’t found the time to edit, upload and share them yet!

The Little Rascal Files 5 – More Dogs!

A few days ago, we met Tini and Nayeli for a walk. Hadley recognized Nayeli after briefly alarm-barking at her from the car, and immediately started playing chase with Phoebe and her! Wow – this is the first time he has played as intensely with a dog who isn’t a family member. Nayeli is simply a great role model, and a wonderful auntie to have as a puppy. I’m sure Hadley will have fun with Tini and her when he vacations with them in January.

We encountered two strange off-leash dogs on our walk. The first one was a tiny, shy puppy. Phoebe, Fanta and Nayeli didn’t care about the tiny dog, but Hadley approached him with a friendly wagging tail! WOW! Best. strange. dog. encounter. ever! I was soooo happy; proud of my puppy and of my training success, and happy that my dogs get to have dogs like Nayeli in their lives.

P1090351 P1090350The three musketeers are having fun near Lusthaus.

Today, we had another very successful outing: we went for a walk today – just Phoebe, Fanta, Hadley and I. Off leash, on the fields.

 

After a few minutes, two women with a dog slightly bigger than Hadley, also off-leash, crossed our way. We saw them coming from a distance. Phoebe and Fanta walked over to say hallo, and Hadley … looked, wagged, and went back to playing chase with Phoebe! He had only hesitated a moment, than decided that the strange dog wasn’t a threat. He didn’t keep close to me, and didn’t mind walking or running close to the strange dog. The women and I walked together for about fifteen minutes.

P1090354

Phoebe, Hadley and the first dog we encountered on today’s walk.

A little later, the next challenge: a with an on-leash Spitz about Phoebe’s size came straight at us. I took my dogs on leash, and made way for the Spitz to pass, started feeding treats when Hadley noticed the strange dog and went on feeding until he had passed us. Hadley watched the dog attentively and calmly ate his treats, then quickly switched to offering sits – the strange dog wasn’t important enough to pay attention to! Hah! I am SO happy with how he is developing!

 

Phoebe, Fanta, Hadley and the two women’s small dog were let off leash again. Another few minutes went by, and we met the next dog: an old, off-leash Maltese who was standing quietly near his even older owner. The Maltese told our group in body language that he was neither a threat not interested in interacting with any of them, and they all curved around him. Hadley followed suit! While curving, he had his tail slightly between his legs and glanced sideways at the Maltese, but followed the other three without hesitation. Woohooo! Witnessed how to deal with dogs like this, and did it himself! Wonderful puppy, and I’m happy my training has helped him become more confident around strange dogs!

P1090355

Fanta, Hadley and, in the distance, the dog who walked with us for a while. Everyone’s happy doing their own thing. There’s plenty of space for everyone, and no need to feel threatened.

We parted ways with the two ladies and their dog. I played with my camera while Phoebe and Hadley played near the water and Fanta had one of his rare it’s-my-favorite-season runs.

 

On our way back, we met an off-leash Border Collie; an adult black-and-white female. Phoebe mistook her for Xandro and was quite startled when she realized that Xandro isn’t the only beautiful Border around. I didn’t interfere with Hadley’s behavior because it had been going very well so far. Hadley looked and I could see that this dog was more concerning to him than the others had been. She was more active, and held her busy tail up high. And then she even looked at him directly! Hadley made one tiny bark. I kept walking and called him, he came. She came over, he let her sniff him submissively, and then happily greeted her human. We exchanged a few words while Hadley watched Phoebe and the Border discuss who was going to keep the stick they had found.

 

We walked on, and passed the old man with the Maltese again. They were still standing at the same spot, chatting with an acquaintance. This time, Hadley curved around the Maltese without hesitation and without putting his tail between his legs. Yeah!

 

Almost back at the car, we met a woman with a big, on-leash dog resembling an Akita, but slightly smaller. They were walking straight at us. I put my dogs on their leashes, and noticed that the woman deliberately lead her dog on the side of her body that wasn’t facing us and was feeding treats while approaching us. It always makes me smile to see other dog people working with their dogs in similar ways as I do! Also, I’m always happy to encounter polite dog owners who are as keen to avoid on-leash encounters as I am.

 

We walked a little to the side and let the two of them pass. Hadley requested that I play LAT with him! He looked at the Akita, then back at me. At the Akita again, then back at me! Hah! This is awesome! Thank you, Leslie McDevitt, for coming up with this simple, yet brilliant game. Of course, since he asked me to, I played with Hadley, and he got to earn a few treats for looking, and then for the sits he offered. And on we went, off leash again, back to the car.

 

I have to say, I am relieved and really, really glad Hadley’s attitude towards strange dogs is slowly relaxing. I am also glad that the strategy I chose for dealing with his issues is turning out to be the right one for him!

The Little Rascal Files 4 – Dogs

Wow – time really does fly. So much has happened since the last time I found a moment to sit down and write a blog post. Where do I begin?

The little rascal has been a pretty easy puppy to take care of. He’s been spending lots of time with me when Tom is at work, and I couldn’t help comparing him to Phoebe. In most regards, Hadley has been less of a challenge than Phoebe when she was his age. Phoebe was an extremely high-energy puppy, and she was very mouthy. Hadley has mostly been relaxed and friendly.

There is, however, one thing that concerns me: Hadley is a rather wary puppy, particularly when it comes to strange dogs. From day 1 onwards, he has been alarmed by strange dogs, even the ones that were 1.5 blocks away. I am worried about this because Hadley spent his puppyhood among all kinds of different dogs – his breeder has more than 10 Border Collies, Norwegian Lundehunds, and a Beauceron. To my knowledge, Hadley has only had good experiences with her dogs. In theory, these positive early socialization experiences should have turned him into a dog who approaches new dogs with curiosity and confidence. However, this is not the kind of puppy he turned out to be: initially, he would avoid other dogs whenever possible, froze/stared and eventually barked when avoidance was not possible, and tried to hide/flee if they came too close. He also took a comparatively long time (read: several meetings over the course of several days) to warm up to new dogs. However, once he considered a dog a friend, he’d play with her like any other happy puppy.

After consulting with friends and colleagues and debating how best to handle a dog-sensitive Border puppy, I came up with the following plan, which I’ve been working on since Hadley has moved in:

Part A – socialization

introduce Hadley to my friends’ friendly adult dogs in various short sessions. Always put up a portable crate and/or familiar blanket for him to retreat to, and make sure the other dogs respect his safety zone. Let him watch and decide for himself whether and when he is ready to initiate interaction. Never force contact. Never overwhelm or flood him.

My idea was that I would provide Hadley with a number of distinctly positive experiences that lead to dog-dog friendships, rather than create lots of neutral dog-dog experiences. I hoped that the more dogs he got to know and make friends with, the easier it would be for him to be around new dogs in the future, and that eventually, he would start considering strange dogs to be interesting rather than scary.

Part B – management and alternative behavior

I would also work on Leslie McDevitt’s Look at That game (LAT). That is to say, I would teach Hadley to earn clicks and treats by means of looking at strange dogs from a distance: I wanted him to start seeing strange dogs as cookie-vending machines rather than potential threats. “Dad, mum, there’s a dog, did you see it? Look, it’s over there! Where’s my cookie?”

LAT makes use of both classical and operant conditioning. One the one hand, a potentially scary stimulus is repeatedly paired with a strong reinforcer (tasty treats), which changes the emotional response to the stimulus. On the other hand, the dog is being empowered as he learns that he can use dogs he spots on the street to make a treat happen. All he has to do is point them out to his humans with a movement of his head.

If strange dogs were too close, I would retreat by means of putting a barrier between ourselves and the trigger, changing sides or doing a U turn.

Part A has been going well. Apart from my own two dogs, I’ve strategically introduced Hadley to 12 dogs by now; some male, some female, some neutered, some intact, some small, some large:

1 Border Collie
4 Miniature Pinschers
1 Irish Setter
1 Golden Retriever
1 American Staffordshire Terrier X
1 Akita mix
1 Sheltie X GSD
1 small Terrier X
1 Dalmatian

He has met all of them several times in safe, short sessions, and made friends with all of them. The first few outings, he would just sit in his safe space and observe from a distance until we went home again. I did not try to convince him to come out, but focused on making sure he felt safe. Apart from that, I did not distract him with food, but let him choose what to do – stay in his safe spot and observe, walk away and do his own thing, or initiate contact with the new dogs. Helene, a friend who shares her life with 7 wonderful dogs, has been a huge help with this. (Thank you, Helene, Xandro, Wasti, Arkani, Schoko, Hexi and Guinness!)

Helene lives just around the corner. So we would meet up at a meadow close by. I would get there first and set up Hadley’s safety zone: a pop-up crate and a blanket in front of it. He could choose to hide in the crate, sit on the familiar blanket, or come all the way out on the meadow. I took one of my own dogs with me so Hadley could see that they were not afraid of the new dog we introduced him to. If he wanted, Hadley could take the crate’s side exit and go explore the forest and shrubbery rather than engaging with the other dogs, who did their own thing out in the field.

The first two times, Helene brought Border Collie Xandro and Miniature Pinscher Wasti, and I brought Fanta and Hadley. Helene and I spent twenty minutes sitting on the blanket and chatting. Hadley stayed in the crate or on the blanket with us, but did not approach either of her dogs. This was okay. It was his choice. After twenty minutes, we left and Hadley went back to sleep at home to sleep off his adventures and maybe do some latent learning.

The third time, Hadley approached Wasti with a cautious wag … and started following him around at a distance. Whenever Wasti turned around, Hadley would hurry back to his safety zone, but soon after, his curiosity took over and he followed Wasti again. He did, however, still keep his distance from Xandro.

The fourth time, Hadley was happy to see Wasti and followed him around more, even if it meant moving further away from his safety zone. His overall confidence had clearly grown, and he even sniffed Xandro’s tail a few times – of course, when Xandro turned to face him, he would retreat like he used to do with Wasti. But from behind, the Border Collie had stopped looking all that scary.

We did numerous sessions like that. Once Hadley had grown comfortable with one dog, we’d introduce another one. The last time Helene and I met, we didn’t need a blanket or crate anymore, and were able to take all 9 dogs for a walk together. Hadley had fun from beginning to end. He mostly played with Phoebe, but did not mind running ahead with her, getting close to Helene’s dogs, and quickly bounced back the two times he didn’t respect Schoko’s personal space and got a reprimand by his new auntie. I’d call this a BIG success – thank you very much for your help, Helene, and a big thank you to your patient, friendly dogs who have already been a big help in raising Hadley!

Photo 15-10-15 1 26 46 pm
Hadley is having a good time during a 9-dog outing with Phoebe, Fanta, Xandro, Guinness, Wasti, Arkani, Hexi and Schoko.

Another dog who has been immensely helpful is Olivia, the dog who’s mum runs our local pharmacy. Olivia is a friendly and very patient Dalmatian. We’ve been visiting her several times in the course of the last weeks. At first, we kept Olivia in a back room behind a baby gate, while Hadley could look at her from the far end of the adjoining room. He could choose to walk closer or leave, to just observe Olivia who slowly wagged her tail and looked sideways, or to engage with the pharmacy personnel who were happy to greet him and let him lick their faces. (Meeting people is something that has always made Hadley happy.) The second time we went, Hadley chose to approach the gate and cautiously greet Olivia and lick her lips. The third time, he was able to meet her without a gate, and was happy to dance around her and explore her space. Olivia, the patient girl, gave him all the freedom in the world and happily took my thank-you treats.

Photo 08-10-15 2 36 49 pm
Hadley and Olivia – first time without being separated by a baby gate.

Phoebe’s best girlfriend, the Golden Nayeli, has had a very easy time when it came to making friends with Hadley. She and her mum visited us at home and spent an afternoon with us. In his own home, where he feels most confident, and able to watch Phoebe and Nayeli play, Hadley quickly decided that he wanted to join in the fun – and that’s what he did. Thank you, Tini, for helping Hadley make a new friend! Nayeli has already been a great aunt for Phoebe when she was little, and now she’s doing the same thing for Hadley. It takes a village, doesn’t it?

Various other helpers later, Hadley has made great progress! By now, he will cautiously approach new dogs with a wag after only 1 or 2 minutes of observing from a save distance.

However, his initial response is still fear, and unless I carefully set up these situations and manage the initial distance, he will default to freeze/stare or hide/flee.

It was interesting to visit his breeder two weeks ago. His mom, dad and brother were there. Tom let Hadley out of the car. Hadley saw his father and immediately hid under the car. His father lowered his head to look at Hadley, and there was a lightbulb moment of recognition – as soon as he recognized the Border Collie in front of him, Hadley was ready to approach and happily greet his dad. Or at least, that’s what it looked like to me. It’s not that Hadley is afraid of his father – but until he recognized him, he wanted to hide.

Screen Shot 2015-10-19 at 18.43.16
Hadley, his parents and his brother Horace got to have a little family reunion when we visited the breeder.

What does this mean? Does he have a genetic predisposition to being on the fearful side? His breeder remarked a while ago, when I commented on Hadley being cautious, that he had always been “the most sensitive of the litter”. Is sensitive a euphemism for something else? I don’t know. And in the end, it does not matter. No matter where a certain behavior stems from, the laws of behavior always apply. And these laws are the foundation of all training. Also, no matter who Hadley was yesterday, is today, or will be tomorrow, the one thing that will always be true is that he’s the world’s most wonderful puppy, and the most perfect dog Tom could have adopted 🙂

But back to Hadley’s dog issues:

Part B has also been going well. I’m always armed with clicker and treats anyway, so I’ve been playing LAT with all the random dogs we met on walks. I like how having an objective (teach Hadley that the LAT game is fun!) changes my attitude towards dog encounters: it makes me happy whenever I see a dog in the distance rather than annoyed that I have to change sides or do a U turn. This always happens when I play LAT with a new dog – Pirate and I also had a lot of fun whenever we went out trigger hunting and LAT adventuring. It became one of our favorite bonding games.

As for Hadley, he is becoming an LAT expert. I’ve started naming the behavior, and the distance we can play at has shrunk. We can now play with (calm) dogs on the other side of the street rather than 1.5 blocks away, and after only a few Look-s, Hadley will now switch to offering a different behavior (usually prolonged eye contact or sit). Definitely a success worth celebrating!

Tom and Hadley also participated in my recall workshop the other day. Hadley had to keep a bit of a distance at first, but soon was able to comfortably work near the other dogs, and was happy to play with them after class. He’s a very brave little puppy!

Photo 18-10-15 3 19 57 pm
Tom and Hadley testing the quality of treats. Even though the other participating dogs are nearby, Hadley can relax and concentrate on his task.

The nice thing about writing these things down is that it makes me see the progress. When I don’t keep notes, it’s easy to miss out on the tiny little steps of progress I’ve been making every day or every session. It’s like watching a kid (or a puppy) grow up: you see them every day, and you don’t notice how they get bigger – unless every once in a while, you ask them to stand with their back to a door frame and draw a line where their head is. Taking training notes is like drawing lines on a door frame. It helps me see change.

I’ve made another observation that makes it clearer what often happens to clients who have reactive dogs: when I’m out with Hadley in our neighborhood, we hardly ever have an incident. I’m always ready to change sides, make a U-turn, play LAT … Tom and Hadley, on the other hand, still have those encounters where Hadley starts barking or freezes for a moment or two. That means Hadley still practices reactivity.

I’ve been thinking about why this happens to Hadley and Tom rather than Hadley and me, and come up with the following list of reasons. I think being aware of these might help me better coach clients with reactive dogs:

– Until we’ve trained our eyes and brain to selectively focus on dogs in our environment, we tend to see them too late (aka after our dog has already seen them).
– Until we’ve fine-tuned our observation skills to read the fine print in a dog’s body language, we tend to notice fear only when it is obvious – i.e. when our dog is about to react or has already started reacting.
– Unless we have experienced fear ourselves, or really taken an interest in how it works, it is not obvious to us that a puppy’s dog reactivity is a reason to worry in the first place. We tend to assume it’s just a phase he’ll grow out of, or that it will go away with random exposure to dogs, or that a dog is still capable of learning when in fight-or-flight mode.
– Unless we have experienced fear ourselves, or really taken an interest in how it works, it is not obvious to us that aversives are not a constructive solution for reactivity.
– We tend to forget that dogs learn all the time, not only in the training sessions we specify: we’re likely to forget clicker and treats when we take our dogs out to potty rather than setting up for a training session.
– Putting our dog’s safety and comfort level first, even if it means ignoring/stopping/avoiding/standing up to friendly strangers (and their dogs) is an attitude we have to consciously adopt, and to practice.

I wonder how I can make these pieces of the puzzle more accessible to my clients to get them to this point sooner rather than later. I want to minimize their frustration and maximize the quality of their and their dog’s walk. The more “mistakes” happen, the longer it will take for a reactive dog to get over his fears. The longer it takes for our reactive dog, the longer we will have to actively work on his issues, and the longer it will be until being out and about with our canine companion will be the walk in the park will be the uncomplicated, fun activity we’ve been looking forward to.

Of course, this is not to say that Hadley and I don’t run into problems on our walks, too. Walking a reactive dog is hard. It requires both background knowledge, concentration, the desire to be our dog’s advocates, and a number of skills we need to practice: observation skills, timing of the click, and speed (as little time as possible should pass between click and reward). We need to prepare before we go out (clicker, treats, mindset), and keep in mind that like children, our dogs learn every minute – not just when we want to train. Walking a reactive dog is not a walk in the park, it requires your full attention. At least for me, it still requires my full attention. When I don’t pay attention, I often run in a situation I become aware of too late. While walking around my neighborhood has been categorized by playing LAT and hardly any reactive incidents for me, going new places is harder because I don’t know when and where to expect the next strange dog. The other day, Hadley and I were hanging out at a park. He was on leash, and since it was a sunny Sunday and a number of people were out walking their dogs, I ceased the opportunity to play LAT from a safe distance near my car, always ready to retreat behind it, should it be necessary to get another barrier between us and a strange dog. After a while, a woman with her French Bulldog on a flexi lead passed us. Hadley was off the road at a little distance, and on a short leash. It should have been pretty obvious that I was interacting with/training my dog rather than seeking social encounters. The Bulldog came closer, and the woman let it run on the flexi … I politely asked her to stop her dog from coming closer, since my dog was afraid. But what did she do? Let the Bulldog keep running towards us rather than stopping her flexi, telling me, “Well, he has to get used to other dogs at some point, doesn’t he?”

Hadley barked before I had a chance to retreat behind the car. Encounters like this really annoy me. It’s NOT up to you, stranger, to decide when, how and what dogs my dogs are meeting up close. And it is never okay to let your dog run up to a dog on leash without asking. Dogs are on leash for a reason: maybe my dog is scared, or maybe he’s on a leash in order to keep your dog safe from his teeth, or maybe he has flees that I don’t want him to pass on to yours! ALWAYS ask before letting your dog great a strange dog on leash.

Anyways – time to post this update, which is, in fact, already a few weeks old – I just haven’t found the time to finish it yet.

Simone Fasel workshops

Phoebe and I spent the weekend with Simone Fasel, who taught two workshop days on “Keep Calm!” (Saturday) and “Advanced Clicker Training” (Sunday) at Nicole’s training facility in beautiful Puchberg.

It was two nice and inspiring, relaxed days.  I was looking forward to working Phoebe in a supportive group environment.

P1080400

Keep Calm

Keep Calm was about teaching high-strung dogs to relax. Phoebe can get quite over-aroused when there are toys, high-value treats and clickers present. She would happily work for cardboard, sometimes gets so excited that she can’t think straight and you have to count your fingers after feeding a treat, and she has a hard time taking breaks once she’s in the training zone.

The ideas Simone presented were not new (look at that, conditioning a relaxation mat and combining it with a certain scent, teaching dogs to wait at barriers, clicking relaxed body cues, Karen Overall’s protocol for relaxation). However, she mentioned some interesting studies I hadn’t heard about that backed up these approaches, and it was helpful to get her feedback as we were working through the exercises. I also appreciated her perspective on “fake” relaxation: if I click Phoebe’s tail for wagging more and more slowly, and her hip for moving to the side, she’s doing a trick rather than actually relaxing. However, the body still responds accordingly – and this will eventually have the effect of calming her down.

It was also reassuring to hear that Simone agreed with what I generally do when Phoebe needs to relax in an exciting environment: I keep my rate of reinforcement high, and only gradually lower it, setting her up for success. I have been criticised for this approach, and this is also the reason we stopped agility shortly after starting it: I clicked her for being calm whenever it wasn’t her turn, and was told to not do that but just tether her to the fence and ignore her. However, teaching Phoebe to jump into the leash and bark at the fence until it’s her turn again is the last thing I want – and this is, unfortunately, only too common in the agility community.

Photo 29-08-15 5 43 13 pm

Calm (and tired) doggies in the end of day 1.

Advanced Clicker Training

The advanced clicker training day was particularly inspiring. There are numerous clicker trainers I admire for their trick training skills and their approaches to shaping – and everyone is slightly different, which is the most interesting part of all. I’ve done my last shaping workshops with Sue Ailsby, Donna Hill and Deb Jones via the FDSA. I’m particularly a fan of the Sue Ailsby way, which emphasizes splitting a lot and really teaches a dog to problem-solve independently. Compared to Simone Fasel, Sue is a free shaping purist.

Photo 30-08-15 3 57 09 pm

Verena teaches walking figure 8-s around two cones.

Simone’s shaping sessions are even shorter than the ones of most other trainers – she recommends 5 treats per session, or 30 seconds. Also, Simone does not increase criteria within one session. If you took pictures of every iteration within one session, Simone’s pictures would ideally look exactly the same.

Sue and many others (me included) train slightly longer (up to 1 or 2 minutes, or up to 30 treats), and may increase criteria within one session – first click for 1 step, then 2 steps etc. Our pictures, put together, would ideally look like the pictures in a thumb-flip book.

I don’t know if one of these methods is actually superior to the other, or if the best method to choose depends on your and your animal’s particular teaching/learning style. In either case, I enjoyed learning about Simone’s methods and her reasons for preferring it. Her explanations always made sense or were backed up by studies.

Another intriguing difference between Simone’s method and other methods is that Simone recommends not shaping more than one behavior with one single prop until the first behavior is really strong and on cue. For example, she would not shape going around a chair, and in the next session (or even on the next day) shape crawling under the same chair. This, she argues, will lead to confusion and frustration in the animal.

Photo 30-08-15 3 57 06 pm

Can we please keep working? 

Sue’s approach to shaping, on the other hand, is all about watching out for changing criteria. When working with Sue, the animal learns to answer the question, “What gets reinforced right now?” – The animal even learns that the goal behavior might change within one session. Watching Sue’s dogs work this way, and other dogs (including the easily frustrated Phoebe) follow in her footsteps, I don’t agree with Simone that this is necessarily frustrating. As long as your timing is good and you keep the RoR high, it seems to be okay to change the target behavior even within one single session. However, I also see Simone’s point, and I agree that if you lump during the change of criteria, there is a big chance the animal will end up frustrated. Maybe it really is a question of personal philosophy which approach you prefer? Well, that is, until someone does an experimental study on which method is (A) more efficient in teaching an animal a particular behavior and (B) more effective in teaching an animal general creativity and problem-solving skills.

Another interesting thing Simone introduced was to have a different marker for food and toy rewards. So far, I’ve used the same marker and surprised the animal with the reward that was coming. Since toys are of higher value to Phoebe, I assumed that this would work in my favor – she never knew when there would be the fun toy surprise. I used to hypothesize that by means of intermittently reinforcing with a toy, I’d get the strongest possible  marker, just like intermittent schedules of reinforcement (think: slot machine) build the strongest behaviors (think: gambling addiction).

Simone, on the other hand, says the same marker should consistently lead to the same reinforcer: when an animal is expecting reinforcer A upon hearing the click, but receives reinforcer B (which is also coveted), the reinforcer becomes weaker. Disappointing expectations, according to Simone, will always weaken your reinforcer, even if the reinforcer the animal receives is similar in value to the reinforcer she expected. This is interesting, and I’ll have to research it some more to see if I want to start differentiating between a marker announcing a treat and a marker announcing a toy.

Simone also suggested using distinct markers for active and calm behaviors. The excitement of the activity gets built into the reinforcer, and when you work on relaxation, it makes sense to use a different marker than when you work on jumps.

P1080398

Explaining details about the target cup exercise.

Carina asked another interesting question about different markers. She wanted to know whether it made sense to use different markers for all of her dogs. A little while ago, I had asked the same question on the Clicker Solutions list, and was surprised to find that many people did not tend to use different markers or different clickers for different dogs. Simone definitely thinks that different markers are a good idea, because even if dog A is not paying attention to dog B being clicked – even if dog A knows it’s not her turn! -, the neural connections in dog A’s brain will still get weakened by “her” marker sounding in the background without being followed by a reinforcer.

This is particularly interesting now, since Tom gets his puppy next weekend, and I get to help train him! Yey! So I need a marker for Hadley. Since Phoebe and I usually work with the iClick, Hadley will get a box clicker. Phoebe’s marker word is Yes!, and Hadley will get his own word; maybe Top!, which used to be Pirate’s marker word.

While Simone is a big fan of shaping, she is not a fan of (pure) luring which, in her opinion, mainly teaches dogs to be passive and don’t switch off their brains. It was nice to hear this; I also love shaping best – even if sometimes, luring a simple behavior would be faster than shaping it. Still, I don’t think we can generalize that luring always leads to passive dogs. Emily Larlham is a good example of someone who uses lots of luring and has very creative dogs at the same time.

Another topic that was mentioned was the importance of reducing the latency between marker and reinforcer as much as possible. It is till commonly assumed that the click bridges the time between behavior and primary reinforcer, eliminating the need to feed really fast. However, Simone pointed out that this is not the case – you will still need to reinforce really fast. Just as you should ideally mark at the exact moment the dog performs the behavior, you should ideally deliver the treat no more than 0.5 seconds later – and you definitely shouldn’t take more than 1 second. This makes sense to me, but I’d still like to further look into it – especially since the Alexandra Kurland translation I’m currently working on makes an equally convincing case for something different: according to Alex, you have to promptly initiate the delivery of the reinforcer after the click; however, the way you deliver the treat itself can be slow. That is to say, Alex would take a treat out of her treat pouch within those 0.5 seconds, but then take her time giving it to her horse – according to her, the knowledge that the reinforcer is actually coming (hand into treat pouch) is essential for keeping up the strength of the neural connections, while the time between starting and finishing the treat delivery is not.

We also spent some time working on stimulus control and cue discrimination. It was pretty impressive to see a dog hear the difference between “Pfötli” (Swiss German for raise your paw) and “Bötli” (Swiss German for a small boat) – the two words sound almost the same. However, the dog only performed the behavior upon the correct cue (“Pfötli”). Simone pointed out that stimulus control leads to a dog who works more calmly and is less excited. Dogs who have good stimulus control show very similar working styles, no matter whether they tend to be calm or lively in general. Cue discrimination, on the other hand, leads to a dog who is extremely attentive and a concentrated worker. Phoebe and I will have to work on that some more! It’s good to be reminded of these things sometimes.

Photo 30-08-15 5 17 47 pm

Finley pays attention during the cue discrimination exercise.

P1080359

Phoebe makes new friends during lunch break.

Thank you, Simone, for an inspiring training weekend!

Phoebe’s retrieve journey and the backchaining of complex behaviors

Some dogs are “instinctually” good at certain behaviors, and other dogs are not. For example, water dogs tend to be untiring and talented swimmers, herding breeds tend to have the proverbial herding instinct, and retrievers are, well, usually “natural” retrievers. Phoebe has many talents, but she is not a natural retriever.

I have been working on teaching Phoebe to retrieve to hand for a while now, and I was thrilled when, after almost six weeks of working on this behavior, I got her to put a piece of garden hose in my hand when I was sitting on the balcony steps in my living room. However, that Phoebe was able to put this specific object into my hand in this specific location while I was sitting did not mean that she had learned to put any object into my hand in any location, no matter what body position I assumed. Her learning experience only applied to this one behavior. She had acquired the behavior, but not generalized it yet.

Pamela Reid distinguishes four stages of learning: acquisition, fluency, generalization, and maintenance. At the point when Phoebe was able to put the hose into my hand after four weeks of training, she had mastered the first stage: acquisition. She wasn’t fluent in it yet – i.e. she still had to deliberately think about what she was doing -, and she hadn’t generalized it to all objects, all locations, and all body positions yet. For a dog who isn’t a natural retriever, retrieving to hand is a fairly complex behavior chain that can take quite some time to perfect. Even if I we split lit into very broad junks, the retrieve chain still consists of at least 4 links: walk towards object, pick up object, carry object towards handler, deliver object to handler’s hand.

However, the more times we explain a certain behavior in a new location, or in a new body position, or involving a new object, the faster our explanations will go, and at some point, the animal will generalize the behavior to all objects, all body positions, and all locations. However, depending on the dog and the task, this may take either only a few repetitions and little time or lots of repetitions and lots of time.

Since my goal is to have Phoebe retrieve anything in any location and no matter what body position I assume, I keep working on her retrieve to hand. I use shaping and backchaining in order to teach a retrieve, a time-tested approach to this behavior used by positive reinforcement trainers all over the world. Shaping is the reinforcement (in our case, click and treat) of successive approximations to the target behavior. We start small and gradually increase criteria, always surfing the extinction burst: we need to raise criteria slowly enough to set the animal up for success, but also fast enough to keep her from getting bored. Shaping is my favorite game, because it requires creativity, strategy, and patience on the trainer’s part, and thinking and creativity on the animal’s part, and it is a training approach that feels most like having a conversation with the animal: the animal asks a question, and we answer – either by means of a click (Yes!) or by not reacting (Try something else!). Sue Ailsby, one of my favorite trainers, says that shaping makes you recognize the unicorn in your dog: no two dogs are exactly alike; every dog you shape will have a different conversation with you … and this is the beauty of it. Another more pragmatic reason I love shaping is that 5 minutes of shaping tire Phoebe out as much as an hour-long walk.

If you have never shaped an animal, think of the children’s game of “hot or cold”: one person hides an object, and the other person moves through the room looking for it. The person who hid the object informs the seeker with “cold”, “warmer”, “warm”, “hot” etc. that he gets closer to or further away from the object in question. In shaping, the dog’s task is to figure out what we want her to do. An experienced shaper will offer all kinds of behaviors and make it easy for us to find something clickworthy. If our target behavior is something the animal is not likely to do by itself, we start with successive approximations – that is to say, we click for anything remotely resembling the target behavior, and then gradually narrow down our criteria. For example, in Phoebe’s retrieve, I started with the last behavior in the chain – the shared hold of an object – and shaped this behavior first. I presented a novel object in my outstretched hand. As Phoebe moved closer to sniff it, I’d click and reinforce her. Then, I’d wait for her to offer a nose-touch of the object. Next, I waited for ever-so-slightly touching the object with her teeth. Next, for putting her mouth around the object. Then, I built duration on the shared hold – in 0.5 second increments, I increased the time she had to keep her mouth locked around the object I was holding with her, playing 300-peck-pigeons (or, as known in Sue Ailsby circles, chutes and ladders). This way, I shaped a shared hold.

Next, I moved on to the last-but-one link in the retrieve chain. But before I go into details about this, let me explain to you why we are backchaining to begin with. Let’s start at the beginning. A behavior chain – such as the retrieve – is a number of behaviors that are performed in a certain sequence. Each behavior cues the respective next behavior, and is reinforced by it. Only in the very end, upon completing the chain, does the animal receive a primary reinforcer. In dog training, the primary reinforcer in the end of the chain is usually a treat.

I said that the retrieve is not one single behavior, but rather a behavior chain consisting of at least 4 links: walk towards object, pick up object, carry object to handler, deliver object to handler’s hand. I have explained the retrieve behavior to a number of dogs. Some of them needed only those 4 links to understand what I meant, others didn’t need an explanation at all, and yet others – among them, Phoebe has been the most challenging – need many, many more links. You always start the same way – at the last link in the chain – and then feel my way towards the beginning. Depending on the dog’s reactions I’ll arrive there within only a few sessions, or within lots of sessions.

When teaching a behavior chain, the commonsense approach is to start with the first link in the behavior (e.g. throwing the dumbbell) and work towards the last (e.g. shared hold of the dumbbell). However it turns out that the commonsense approach is not the smartest one. Behaviors are performed more reliably and are more stress-resistant if they are taught beginning with the last link in the chain. Let’s see: when we train with positive reinforcement, a behavior chain ends with a primary reinforcer. This is the goal; it is what the animal is working towards. The more often a behavior gets reinforced, the stronger it becomes. The stronger the reinforcement history of a behavior, the more likely the animal is to perform this very behavior. In fact, a behavior that has been taught by means of positive reinforcement will itself turn into a reinforcer. You have, so to speak, charged it with lots of positive reinforcement, and now it can in turn reinforce other behaviors. (This, of course, only applies if you train with positive reinforcement! A behavior taught by means of positive punishment will not acquire reinforcing qualities.) If we start with the last link in a behavior chain, this will eventually be the part of the chain the animal knows best – it will be the part that has been reinforced most often. Think of the dumbbell retrieve again: 1 walk towards object, 2 pick up object, 3 carry object to handler, 4 put object in handler’s hand.

If we start with the last link, our reinforcement history looks like this:

4 – primary reinforcer (PR)

3 – 4 – PR

2 – 3 – 4- PR

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – PR

In this simplified backckchaining example, the fourth behavior (put object in handler’s hand) has been reinforced 4 times, while walking towards the object has only been reinforced once. The last link in the behavior (put object in handler’s hand) is the strongest link in the chain, because it has the strongest reinforcement history. It reinforces the link that comes before it. When it comes to behavior chains, we perform best when we are working towards something we know well – in this case, towards a shared hold. If we start with what we know well, but work towards something we are less sure about, we perform not es good – especially under stress. Susan M. Schneider uses an example most of us will have experienced ourselves in primary school: learning poems by heart, the nightmare of many schoolchildren. Even though the laws of backchaining have been well-known among behaviorists for a long time, they still have not made it into our schools – at least, they hadn’t made it to the classroom when I was in primary school: parents and teachers usually applied the commonsensical approach, telling children to start learning a poem from beginning to end. In the case of the retrieve, the reinforcement history of forward chaining would look like this:

1 – PR

1 – 2 PR

1 – 2 – 3 – PR

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – PR

In this example, the first link in the chain (walk towards object) has been reinforced 4 times and is the strongest link in the chain with the most reinforcing qualities of all the links. However, since there is no behavior to precede it, its reinforcement power is wasted. The last link in the chain (deliver object to hand) has only been reinforced once, and has the least reinforcing qualities, because it is least well known.

In the case of the schoolchild learning a poem, the common approach is to start with the first line, rinse and repeat until you know it by heart, then first and second line, rinse and repeat until you know it by heart, then first, second and third line and so on. Let’s assume you want to learn Robert Frost’s The Road not Taken by heart and present it in front of your school class. You are nervous about speaking in public, and you don’t like to stand in front of the class with everyone staring at you. You could either start learning in the commonsense way – with the first line:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.

And sorry I could not travel both

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood.

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth […].

By the time you get to the end of the first stanza, you have repeated the first line 5 times, the second line 4 times, the third line 3 times, the fourth line 2 times and the 5th line once. Which line do you know best? The first one, of course. When, during your classroom performance, will you have the most energy? In the beginning. So what should you start with – the part you know best, or the part you know least? The part you know least. You are most likely to make it to the end of the poem without stumbling over Frost’s iambic tetrameters if you work towards what you know best, not what you know least. As you spend your energy, you get to well-known terrain.

Ideally, then, you wouldn’t start learning at the beginning, but with the very last line of the last stanza:

And that has made all the difference.

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Try it yourself: pick two poems of equal length. Learn one from beginning to end, and one from end to beginning. Which way do you need less repetitions until you are able to fluently recite it?

This is Sam, a Weimaraner with no previous retrieve training. He learned to retrieve a beer can to hand in less than 10 2-minute sessions.

Phoebe, on the other hand, learned to retrieve her first object to hand in the course of six weeks, and in order for her to be successful, her individual sessions, spread out over the course of the day, needed to be 6 treats short rather than 2 minutes long. She needed to take a day off retrieve training every once in a while, and I needed to mix in other behaviors with the retrieve session in order to keep setting her up for success. In terms of shaping complex behaviors, Phoebe has been one of the most challenging dogs I have worked with. This also makes her one of the best teachers I’ve ever had: she has me to be a micro-splitter. Time and again, she lets me know that the slices of criteria I’ve come up with in my training plans are too big for her. Or that the training sessions are too long for her. Or that my mood is not calm and happy enough for her to be able to focus rather than worry. She has taught me to write training plans rather than wing it, and the importance of filming myself so I can then analyze the video and recognize the split second when things started going wrong, or what initiated her lightbulb moments. Phoebe also taught me how to work with dogs who aer extremly sensitive to my own body language, and how to adapt my own body language to help her become just a tiny little bit pushier rather than always being polite and keeping her distance. Anyways, back to the retrieve. After six weeks, Phoebe could do this and made me a very proud Poodle mama:

Here’s the 17 individual behaviors I had to split the hose retrieve chain into in the acquisition stage. Lumpier shaping approaches did not work for Phoebe:

  1. Sniff hose.
  2. Mouth hose.
  3. Mouth hose slightly longer.
  4. Introduce cue “Take it!”
  5. Get duration on the shared hold. – Fail. Even increasing duration in split seconds and playing the Chutes & Ladders game did not work. Get creative:

5.1 Teach chin target to open hand:

5.2 Get duration on the chin target.

5.3. Introduce cue “Chin!”

5.4. Combine Take it and Chin.

5.5 Get duration on the shared hold that resulted from this combination. – Success!

  1. Introduce cue “Halt fest!” (“Hold on to it!”)
  2. Lower the hose closer to the ground in 2-cm-increments and have Phoebe lift it together with me.
  3. Lower the hose closer to the ground in 2-cm-increments, let her lift it on her own and click after I grabbed it again.
  4. Lower the hose closer to the ground in 2-cm-increments, let her lift it on her own and then chin-target my hand while holding on to it.
  5. Gradually build duration on the shared hold after the lift.
  6. Eventually put the hose to the floor and have her lift it – fail: Phoebe would give up because getting her lower jar around it was too hard when the hose was on the ground. Be creative:

11.1: Put cardboard circles on both ends of the hose so it gets dumbbell-shaped and easier to lift off the floor. (Easier to put mouth around.) – Success!

  1. Tape 9 strips of duct tape on the floor, play chutes & ladders with it: put down on first strip, let her lift it and do a chin target. If successful, put down on second strip, have her lift it and do a chin target. If successful, put down on third strip, have her lift it and do a chin target. If not successful, return to strip one and start from scratch. (We returned to strip one lots of times.)

We run into problems here, since Phoebe did not know that it was possible to walk while holding the object. She’d lift it off the floor alright, but then stand there and look at me without bringing it. – Be creative, do some blending!

12.1 Take turns having her lift the object and put it into my hand from right in front of me, throwing the treat away from me and having her run towards me to do a chin target. Put object on strip no. 2, have her lift and put it in my hand. Throw treat away from me and have her run towards me in order to do a chin target. That way, I eventually got the first steps without dropping the object, followed by a chin target while holding the object. Success!

  1. Reduce distance. Place the object on the floor in different angles from me so she had to turn in order to bring it back to me.
  2. Start rolling the object a short distance with the help of the cardboard circles.
  3. Stop rolling; reduce the size of the cardboard circles so picking the object up got gradually harder, until she could lift it up without the circles that would help her get her lower jar under it.
  4. Introduce rolling again, this time without the circles.
  5. Introduce the first little object throws.
  6. Gradually build distance while throwing, have her run after it and bring it back to me.

Since achieving our first decent retrieve to hand with the help, inspiration and encouragement of the wonderful Donna Hill, I have worked on fluency and generalization, the next two stages of learning according to Pam Reid. The nice thing is that once she had the hose retrieve down in one position, I started my explanations from scratch in new locations and new body positions, but she got there much faster. By now, Phoebe can pick up and hand me the hose in the corridor and carry it up stairs (!) to hand to me, sitting on the top stair. She can also pick up the hose and hand it to me on two different outside locations while I’m sitting – both on pavement. And she can pick up the hose and hand it to me while I am standing on grass. However, we haven’t built distance in these new locations yet.

We have also started working on the next object – a rolled-up magazine. I chose this object next because I needed a novel object for a train-off with Tom. He wondered whether he could come up with a faster and more generalizable approach to teach the retrieve of a novel object. So we decided to test it. We would each use our own approaches to teach the retrieve of at least one novel object. Our rules excluded physical manipulation (such as holding the dog’s mouth shut or shoving an object into her mouth), harsh words and other types of positive punishment. Everything else was allowed, and how long, how often and with the help of what objects we trained was up to us. The person who first got Phoebe to retrieve a novel object to hand 4 out of 5 times from 1.5 meters distance would win.

This is not perfect yet (I still need to work on grabbing the magazine at different angles without dropping it), but I think it qualifies – it was all about getting there first, after all.

And some pretty awesome background reading:

Ailsby, Sue. Training Levels

Chance, Paul: Learning & Behavior

Hill, Donna: The Elusive Hand-Delivered Retrieve. (FDSA class & lecture notes)

Reid, Pamela J.: Excel-Erated Learning

Schneider, Susan M.: The Science of Consequences

Control

… is a great movie about Ian Curtis, which you should definitely watch. While I hate to disappoint you, this blog post isn’t about Joy Division, but about dog training and closeted alpha theorists.

I went location scouting for a BAT set up today. So I was driving and thinking about training dogs, and ended up pondering closeted alpha theorists. A closeted alpha theorist is someone who believes in clicking and treating, but also in “setting boundaries” and “leading the dog” and “taking the responsibility of controlling the situation/the chance to control the situation away from the dog,” in “letting the dog know that the human is controlling the environment, and he doesn’t have to.”

To my ears, this sounds like a euphemism for the alpha theory. A straightforward, non-euphemistic alpha theorist would say something like, “All dogs want to control all humans! Therefore, we (qua humans) need to control all dogs. We need to let them know we’re in charge, and they aren’t.”

The closeted alpha theorist, on the other hand, uses a euphemistic, more subtle approach to convey the same message: Maybe not all dogs want to control all humans, but this particular dog sure is a bit obsessed with control. Maybe we don’t need to show all dogs who is in control, but we certainly need to show this dog.”

The openly alpha-theorizing trainer argues that “this dog wants to be higher-ranked than we are – he wants to control everything.”

The closeted alpha trainer, on the other hand, says, “that dog is insecure, and therefore, he thinks he needs to control everything. He doesn’t know that you will take care of the situation.”

While the underlying factions are slightly different (“dogs are power-driven hierarchy-climbers” vs. “dogs need a confident leader in order to be happy”), the implications are the same: “You (the person) need to control the dog.” The only difference is that the openly alpha-theorizing trainer wants to control the dog for her own, i.e. the trainer’s, sake, and the closeted alpha-trainer wants to control the dog for the dog’s sake. The open alpha trainer assumes an egocentric stance, while the closeted alpha trainer sees herself as altruistic. Still, whether they are aware of it or not, both follow an alpha approach to training.

Both myths make me cringe, but actually, the altruistic alpha myth makes me cringe even more because it’s harder to counter. It’s a sneaky myth, a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing myth; the kind of myth that invades people’s minds easily. The closeted alpha approach is like a center right party. It’s a “respectable” conviction in society at large, the ÖVP of dog training. People who will indignantly distance themselves from the extreme right (or the open alpha theory) may still say that some ideas of that right-wing extremist do make sense. They themselves are no alpha-theorists, for sure. But they can certainly understand the people who are. And really, the alternative – the far left, the cotton ball throwers -, that kind of training certainly has its perks for soft dogs, but it wouldn’t work for their dog. Their dog, after all, likes to control his world.

The problem I see with both open and closeted alpha approaches is that they want to resolve problematic behaviors by means of taking control away from the dog. By means of “clear rules” (closeted alphas) or “strong leadership” (open alphas).

Unfortunately, this solution may actually look like it “works.” One example is what Rütter said in his cabaret at Stadthalle the other day. He suggested that dogs who are afraid of the vacuum be trained a really strong down/stay, first without the vacuum, then with the vacuum present.

A dog who is afraid of the vacuum, but has an incredibly strong down/stay, may actually hold his down/stay while the vacuum snuffles and grunts and wreaks havoc around him. He may stay on his spot, panting ferociously, but stay. As a result, he will get flooded. Flooding is one method of habituation. The other one is desensitization. The problem with flooding is that while it works for some dogs, it doesn’t work for others: “Stimuli that elicit really strong emotional reactions, such as fear, often don’t habituate. Instead they continue to affect the general arousal of the animal and make the response even stronger.” (Reid 36) If your dog is truly very afraid of the vacuum, he may get even more scared of it in the future if you force him to hold his down/stay. And not only that: he may even sensitize to additional sounds as well, such as the sound of the blender or the sound of the blowdryer. Very light fears are more likely to habituate, while full-blown fears are likely to sensitize even further – and while habituation is specific (e.g. habituation to only the sound of this specific vacuum), sensitization tends to generalize (i.e. sensitization to all kinds of noises).

In the down/stay situation with the vacuum, you controlled the dog. Both open and closeted alpha theorists may applaud you.

I (just like everyone else who truly opposes the alpha myth) would take a different approach to that problem. Instead of controlling the dog, we would control the vacuum. Start with counterconditioning in combination with desensitization. Have the dog move freely, and present the stimulus at an intensity he is comfortable with. It may take a while until you reach a point where he doesn’t care about the vacuum any more – but it’s worth the effort: no matter who uses the vacuum in the future, he’ll stay relaxed, and there is no need to “control” him in order to keep him from killing that expensive Dyson.

Phoebe isn’t in a down stay – she has learned that there’s no reason to get up. All she has to do when the vacuum goes on is continue whatever she was doing before, and every once in a while, treats will materialize in front of her nose.

The same holds true for dogs who are scared or over-excited by visitors. If you want to help the dog feel better rather than just suppress his reaction, careful counterconditioning and desensitization are the way to go, not flooding in combination with controlling the dog’s position. This is something I practiced with my last foster dog, and I was impressed by how fast he improved: when I couldn’t train, I managed him (had him hang out in a different room, behind a baby gate or in his box with a frozen Kong, for example). When I could concentrate on training, I had visitors come and go, come and go, come and go … in and out of my door. They would not approach him, but as soon as the door opened, I would feed him yummy treats at the other end of the room distance. When they disappeared, the treats stopped again. It took lots of repetitions, but with every new visitor I played this game with, he was able to stay more relaxed. He started learning that he could choose to not approach rather than having to be kept from approaching by force. He learned to control himself rather than being subject to his human’s control.

Let’s look at another example. Some dogs seem fine once they have gotten used to the fact that you, a stranger, are in their house: you are sitting down with their person, not looking at them, and you haven’t moved for half an hour. Slowly, their excitement level goes down. They start to relax. You don’t seem quite as scary after all.

A client has a dog like that. She gets excited and alarmed by visitors, but starts calming down after a while and approaches the new people.

However, as I kept observing her interactions, it turned out that her approach didn’t mean that she was okay at all. She was still past her magnet point, so approaching was not a choice for her – it was something she had to do. The trigger kept drawing her closer like a magnet. The living room was very small, so she would usually approach soon and even try to climb on visitors’ laps. When the visitors moved, she would stiffen and growl. I’ve observed a similar reaction in my last foster dog as well. What happened in these situations?

As the alpha fraction has it, “She was being dominant!” (Wrong answer.)

The closeted alpha might say, “She’s a dog who wants to control everything – she doesn’t allow you to move.” (Tricky answer!)

Let’s look at the closeted alpha answer in detail: control is indeed a primary reinforcer, making it something that animals (human and non-human) covet. It is not just any old reinforcer either, but a really potent one, since it is connected to safety (thank you, Christian Holeček, for this observation). Being able to control your own outcomes ensures your personal safety. This shows us that control has nothing to do with “dominance,” but with using your own behavior effectively. Control means that your behavior is having an effect on your environment. That makes it the opposite of helplessness (not being able to use your behavior effectively, and eventually giving up). So, indeed, the closeted alpha’s response contains a grain of truth. The dog tries to practice behavior in order to have an effect on his environment. Why? Because he wants to get some safety distance between himself and the scary monster (aka visitor)!

Why does the dog growl at visitors he had been fine with first? Because changing body positions are scary! Suddenly, the scary monster looks at him or touches him or moves. That’s way more scary than when the monster held completely still. The dog who growls at the moving visitor exercises the only behavior he knows will keep him safe. If he growled in the past and didn’t get eaten by the scary monster as a direct result, he will growl again in the future. Growling keeps scary monsters from eating dogs, and dogs do what works.

Imagine you are moderately scared of spiders. You wouldn’t choose to approach one, but when you happen to visit your friend’s place and realize he has a pet tarantula in a terrarium, you might be fascinated by the creature. It’s sitting completely still, and there’s glass between you, so you might be so intrigued that you go closer, maybe even tap the glass. You are thrilled, you heart rate fastens, but you feel fine – after all, the spider doesn’t move. After watching the motionless thing for a while, you’ll sit down for a coffee with your friend and almost forget it is there … until you see it moving from the corner of your eyes. All of a sudden, it jumps. It moved, you didn’t expect it, and you are likely to jump yourself. The same happens to the dog when the visitor makes an unexpected movement.

Why, then, did the dog approach the visitor in the first place? Because the visitor was too close for him to not approach, just like the spider in the terrarium drew you closer and made you run through your script for commenting on friends’ pets (“Big, beautiful, hairy!”) even though you don’t trust spiders.

Let’s get back to the training question. How is my approach different from a closeted or open alpha? Both closeted and open alpha theorists will try to solve the problem by means of minimizing the level of control a dog has over the situation.

They might punish the dog when he growls, thus contacting a strong reinforcer themselves: control. Controlling your dog is very reinforcing if you are the one doing the controlling. Even if we don’t punish the dog but “only” force him to stay next to the visitors and be quiet, for example in a down stay like Rütter suggested for the vacuum, again, this might look as if it worked: your dog has stopped growling; he might even have stopped behaving altogether (helplessness). If this is all that happens – lucky you.

However, it may get worse. Remember what we said about sensitization versus habituation? If the dog is forced to stay near the scary monsters (aka visitors) and is kept from behaving effectively, he is being flooded. Of course, there is a chance that he will habituate to the visitors and be fine in the future. However, the bigger his fear was initially, the bigger the chance that he might sensitize instead. In the future, he might not only growl at, say, male visitors or visitors in wheelchairs, but at all visitors. If you combined your “control” of the dog with punishment upon his initial growling, you might end up with an even bigger problem: you might end up with a dog who doesn’t growl, but bites right away.

Open as well as closeted alpha theorists will try to minimize the dog’s level of control in one way or another. If you truly distance yourself from the alpha myth, on the other hand, you will take an opposite approach and try to maximize the dog’s level of control. You will set up a safe environment for the dog to learn how to behave effectively in a way that doesn’t put him or yourself or your visitors in danger. The good thing is that this approach works, and there is no fallout. If it doesn’t work, it is not because the method is faulty but because you overwhelmed the dog with the situation and asked for more than he could handle. In order to set him up for success, you want to present the problematic stimulus at an intensity he is comfortable with: people at a far-enough distance for the dog to stay calm and relaxed, yet notice the trigger and gather information. A distance that allows the dog, as Grisha Stewart would have it, to stay in the green and blue zone:
Screen Shot 2015-03-18 at 21.02.18
I did a BAT set up with a client the other day, and I loved how obvious it was that the distance to the trigger needed to be really, really big at first – way bigger than it would ever be on a walk through a busy neighborhood. This way, the pet parents could actually observe their dog making wonderful choices: gathering a little information about the trigger, than continuing to sniff and explore the area. Wandering to the left, to the right, behind a car … This is very different to the behavior the dog shows on their busy home street: she will try and approach everyone and tend to be hypervigilant. She may not bark at the first dog she encounters, but certainly at the third one. Giving her enough space in the set up gave her human mum and dad the chance to be proud of their dog’s good choices and to realize that, in fact, direct contact with the trigger was not the dog’s first choice, as they had thought it was. Most importantly, it showed them that they didn’t have to “control” her every movement all the time, either.

On a walk through a busy neighborhood, you are automatically in survival mode with your reactive dog. It’s hard for him to learn because his arousal is always high. Depending on the dog and the strength of his reactivity, he may be able to learn even in a highly stressful environment to cope better – or, like my client’s dog, he may not be able to do so; he may experience constant trigger stacking and not be able to “think clearly enough” to develop a set of alternative behaviors for difficult situations. As in the examples above, without helping him develop an alternative set of behaviors, he may sensitize rather than habituate.

The first dog (the one who is able to learn even though he is in a stressful environment) will do well even with a closeted alpha trainer. The second dog won’t: you can’t build confidence by means of minimizing your dog’s control over her outcomes. She may give up responding (which is probably your best case scenario), but won’t learn to relax in the vicinity of her triggers. In order to do that, she must have a chance to learn that her behavior is effective, and that curving around or walking away from a the trigger is a behavioral choice she can make. As you continue practicing, that distance will shrink, and eventually, the dog will be able to even make “good decisions” in a highly stressful environment. What’s more, he may even start to enjoy the company of his triggers. The path there is long, but it’s there, just waiting for you and your dog to walk it. It is paved with patience and understanding, not with control.

yelllow brich road

_________________________

For some wicked scientific background info on why it’s all about setting your dog up for success and letting him experience the effectiveness of his behavior, check out:

Reid, Pamela J. Excel-Erated Learning. James & Kenneth, 1996.

Stewart, Grisha. BAT 2.0 Series. (DVD) Tawzer, 2014.

Yin, Sophia. Solving Fear and Aggression. (DVD) Tawzer, 2013.

Fränkies Trainingstagebuch, Teil 4

Trennungsangst

 

Wieder war Fränkie 3 Tage bei uns, vom 9. bis zum 11.12. Wir haben uns weiterhin aufs Alleinebleiben konzentriert. Ab Minute 19 habe ich in 5-Minuten-Schritten gesteigert, und ab Minute 29 in 10-Minuten-Schritten. Am Tag 3 haben wir 50 Minuten erreicht! WOW, Fränkie rocks!

 

Eigentlich wollte ich Besuch zum Gegenkonditionieren des Ressourcenverteidigungsverhaltens einladen, aber die Arbeit ist mir dazwischengekommen. Darum gab’s stattdessen:

 

Trigger-Hunting und heimliches LAT spielen!

 

Trigger-Hunting ist unser neues Lieblingsspiel. Wir (also Fränkie, Phoebe und ich) haben uns ins Auto gesetzt und das Viertel nach Fränkies Triggern abgesucht. Nr. 1: Ein großer, alter, schwarzer Hund mit grauem Kopf und Herrchen. Fränkie und ich haben ihn zweimal aus ca. 30m Entfernung bespielt, beide Male von hinten, sodass er sich als zusätzliche funktionelle Belohnung von uns entfernt hat. Nr. 2: ein Doggenwelpe, der mit Mann und Kind an einer Straßenecke stand. Wir haben uns nach einige C/Ts aus ca. 30m Entfernung, als Fränkie begonnen hat, Sitz anzubieten, als zusätzliche funktionale Verstärkung entfernt. Nr. 3: Ein blonder Schäfer/Labimix mit Frau. Wir haben ihn von der gegenüberliegenden Straßenseite aus bespielt, während er erst näher gekommen ist und sich dann wieder entfernt hat. Nr. 4.: Ein Chihuahua, der uns mit Mann auf unsrer Gehsteigseite entgegengekommen ist. Wir sind auf die Straße ausgewichen und haben von dort aus LAT gespielt.

 

 

Fazit: Ein perfektes Spiel für Fränkie; ich bin stolz auf ihn und mich. Er hat die Regeln sehr schnell begriffen und arbeitet gern für Goudawürfel. Wenn er weiß, was er zu tun hat, ist bereits jetzt eine geringe Entfernung (eine Straßenbreite) möglich. Es ist wirklich klar: Fränkies Leinenaggression liegt daran, dass er an der Leine gehen noch nicht lange kennt und ganz einfach nicht wusste, wie hund sich an der Leine gegenüber anderen Hunden verhält. Da wird zwar noch einiges an Arbeit reinfließen, aber ich bin zuversichtlich, dass Fränkies Leinenaggression mit Zeit, Geduld und LAT “heilbar” ist.

 

Fränkie & Fanta

 

Fränkie und Fanta kommen mittlerweile bereits gut miteinander aus. Sie liegen regelmäßig nebeneinander auf der Bank, und Fanta lässt sich von Fränkie manchmal zum Laufen motivieren. Alle drei schlafen problemlos bei mir im Schlafzimmer (das ging bei Fränkies vorherigen Besuchen noch nicht), und Fränkie zeigt, solange nur ich da bin, kein Ressourcenverteidigungs- (bzw. “Eifersuchts-“)verhalten gegenüber Fanta. Das bewusste Gegenkonditionieren bisher zeigt seine Wirkung – nun entsteht sogar Sympathie zwischen den beiden.

 

Hausaufgaben

 

Fränkies Mensch wird weiter mit ihm am Alleinebleiben arbeiten. Bis zu unserem nächsten Treffen will sie 30 Minuten außer Sicht in der Wohnung schaffen. (Derzeit ist sie bei 10.) Dazu wird sie auch verstärkt am Öffnen und Schließen der Eingangstür in Jacke und Schuhen arbeiten. Ich habe ihr den Tipp gegeben, daran zu arbeiten, nachdem sie spazieren war und wenn Fränkie müde ist. Sollte er dabei ganz ruhig bleiben, wird sie auch mal einen Schritt raus- und wieder reinmachen.

 

Auch Tipps für den Besuch bei der Familie und dem Hund der Mutter hat sie mit auf den Weg bekommen. Wir drücken Fränkie die Daumen, dass er das Familien-Wochenende gut meistert!

Fränkies Trainingstagebuch, Teil 3

Hui, schon wieder so viel Zeit vergangen! Fränkie hat mittlerweile wieder 2x 3 Tage bei mir verbracht. Ich habe zwar akribisch Buch geführt über seine Fortschritte, hatte aber keine Gelegenheit, das hier online niederzuschreiben. Das will ich mal nachholen, bevor wir übermorgen den nächsten Durchgang starten!

 

Alleinebleiben

 

Fränkie hat wieder 3 Tage am Stück bei uns verbracht. Ich konnte mit dem Alleinebleiben nahtlos dort weiterüben, wo ich in der Woche zuvor aufgehört hatte – der Ortswechsel hat uns keine Rückschritte beschert. Super!

 

Bis zu 17 Minuten sind wir am Tag 3 gekommen. Wie gehabt habe ich die Zeit in 2-Minuten-Schritten erhöht und zwischendurch immer wieder kürzere Abwesenheiten eingebaut, um die Zeit nicht linear zu steigern. Erstmals war es möglich, einkaufen zu gehen, während Fränkie zu Hause war. Fränki – gemeinsam mit meinen beiden Hunden – hat sich allein völlig problemlos verhalten und bereits begonnen, sich auf die Seite zu legen und richtig zu entspannt zu schlafen, obwohl ich nicht da war.

 

Ressourcenverteidigungsverhalten II

 

An einem Abend hatte ich Besuch. Auf nachfragen bei Fränkies Menschen meinte dieser, er wäre bei besuch immer sehr fröhlich-aufgeregt, beruhige sich dann aber wieder. Also grundsätlich unproblematisch.

 

Da ich bereits wusste, dass er gegenüber Phoebe und Fanta Ressourcenverteidigungsverhalten zeigt, wenn sein Mensch ihn abholen kommt, blieben Phoebe und Fanta vorerst hinterm Babygitter, als meine beiden Freund*innen eintrafen. Fränkie durfte sie begrüßen. Etwas später ließ ich die beiden anderen dazu – keine gute Idee. Sie durften sich keinen Schritt auf die Besucher zubewegen; Fränkie fuhr meine Hunde dann sofort an, sodass ich dazwischen gehen musste. Ganz ähnlich wie in der Situation mit der Besitzerin. Ich trennte sofort wieder und versuchte es eine Stunde später nochmal, allerdings war Fränkie auch jetzt noch nicht in der Lage, die anderen Hunde im selben Raum zu dulden wie die Besucher. Da werde ich bewusst gegenkonditionieren.

 

Mediamarkt

 

IMG_3791

 

Aufgrund eines technischen Problems musste ich sogar zweimal an einem Tag zum Mediamarkt. Da Fränkie nicht so lang zu Hause bleiben kann, kam er mit – und er meisterte es mit Bravour! Er ging im doch recht gut besuchten Mediamarkt entspannt an der lockeren Leine und konnte sich auch hinsetzen und Kekse nehmen, während ich mich beraten ließ. Seine Besitzerin zeigte sich nach meinem Bericht erstaunt – sie kennt ihn in solchen Situationen als sehr aufgeregt. Ich vermute, der Clicker hilft ihm sehr, zu erkennen, wann sein Verhalten verstärkt wird – und genau das zeigt er dann öfter.

 

Hausaufgaben

 

Ich habe Fränkies Menschen ein kleines Trennungsangst-Protokoll zusammengestellt. Bis zum nächsten Treffen will sie üben. Sie wird es ähnlich aufbauen wie ich und ist sich dessen bewusst, dass es bei ihr ein bisschen länger dauern könnte, da er in der Wohnung bereits eine Panik-Vorgeschichte hat. Ich habe auch erklärt, dass es für Fränkie leichter ist, ihr Gehen und Kommen als unbedeutend wahrzunehmen, wenn sie ihn nicht überschwänglich begrüßt.

 

Sie hat auch beobachtet, dass er entspannter ist, wenn er müde ist. Die zweite Hausaufgabe ist, ruhige Gegenden für längere Spaziergänge aufzusuchen – derzeit bekommt er meist nur täglich 30 Minuten an der Leine. Bei Hundebegegnungen wird sie, sofort nachdem Fränkie den Trigger gesehen hat, Leberpastete füttern. Wenn möglich, wird sie sonst Hundebegegnungen vermeiden und weiter ausweichen.

The Phoebe Experiment

“Regard no practice as immutable. Change and be ready to change again. Accept no eternal verity. Experiment.”

(B.F. Skinner)


 

The theory

 

Before I got my poodle puppy, I did my research. By the time she moved in, I knew she was exactly the breed I wanted, I had gotten to know a puppy from the breeder’s previous litter and observed her behavior in various situations, and I knew exactly how I was going to raise this puppy: with the greatest possible freedom.

 

I defined freedom the following way: I hardly ever instructed my puppy to do anything (or taught her behaviors I could then have instructed). I mainly reinforced her offering stuff I liked, and ignored all the rest. So, yes, I clicked a lot – the first months she spent with me, I fed her most of her meals not out of a food bowl, but in the course of reinforcing random stuff I liked in the course of the day. I especially reinforced calm behaviors (after all, raising a laid-back dog was one of my main goals). But I taught her hardly any “manners” that she didn’t offer herself.

 

I did, however, teacher her a couple fun tricks (she was a Poodle, after all, and loved tricks!). I captured fun things and put them on cue, like clapping her teeth. I shaped a couple things, like turning on and off a light switch. I lured the usual simple tricks: twists and leg weaves and standing on her hind legs.

 

But I only taught her only two things that I thought were important in real life: walking on a loose leash, and a super reliable recall.

 

Of course, I also did all the stuff good pet parents do with their puppies – after all, I wanted her to feel as comfortable in the world as possible. Therefore, I socialized, socialized, socialized! her at an early age: I taught adult German classes at the time, and Phoebe got to come to work with me, meet and interact with all my students. And as I was explaining verb conjugations with one hand, I reinforced her for relaxing on her green blanket with the other. I made sure she had lots of positive experiences with other dogs: I took her to puppy playgroup, and I made sure she regularly got to meet up with adult dog friends. I desensitized her to a muzzle so I could take her on subway rides quite early in life. I was fond of the Control Unleashed Puppy program and played parallel games with cyclists and horseback riders and joggers in order to safely get her through her “chase-everything-that-moves phase” without ever being aversive or even letting her hit the end of the leash – I made a point of either staying under threshold at all times, or letting her run off leash and do whatever she wanted. So if it was safe for her, she was off leash, no matter whether we were in the city or anywhere else. If it wasn’t safe for her to run off leash and if she would have gone over threshold on leash, I simply avoided the situation. I even avoided situations in which she might have pulled.

 

I believed that if I gave her all the freedom in the world and reinforced what I liked, I’d get lots of what I like, and nothing else. My blanket plan is a good example.


 

 

The blanket example vs. jumping on people

 

I had this green blanket, and I reinforced Phoebe whenever she lay down on it. When she moved off, reinforcement stopped. As a small puppy, of course she would stay on the blanket, probably because the blanket was familiar and the world was big and scary. This fact reinforced me for the approach I had taken. As she grew a little bigger and more confident, she would wander off to investigate her surroundings. When she got more and more interested in playing with the people in my class, for example, and would get excited and try and jump up on them, I would not prevent her from jumping, but I would instruct the people to ignore her. I would tell them: please don’t pet the puppy. She’ll get excited and jump on you, and I don’t want that.

 

So when they did not interact with her, she mostly didn’t jump on them, and I felt like I had sidestepped a potential “problem” before it arised. However! Of course, sometimes someone would reinforce her with attention for jumping up. It’s hard for people to follow your instructions if your instructions are Don’t-s rather than Do-s, just like for dogs. I might have faired better if I had given them a clicker and let them c/t her for four feed on the floor or nice sits, as I tend to instruct clients when their excited puppy or adult dog meets human friends.

 

Tugging through busy places

 

If we had to walk across busy streets or subway stations such as Praterstern and Phoebe might have pulled on her leash, I avoided that problem by means of having a tug session all the way. I was leading her on her tug toy – as a puppy, my key chain did the trick – rather than on her leash. Well, this way, I also got to practice “drop” and reinforce it with her getting to tug again right away. This also meant she didn’t have to interact with her environment in any way that might have caused her to do something I would have needed to stop: she didn’t get to try and jump on strangers, for example, or steal a homeless person’s sandwich because she was busy tugging, and she didn’t even hit the end of her leash.

 

Meeting everyone and everything at anytime

 

When she did meet strangers off leash, or on-leash when I wasn’t tugging her past them, I let her go up and sniff them. I am aware that this was not particularly considerate of me, since not everyone likes being sniffed by a puppy, but at the time, this was exactly what I wanted her to be able to do: I wanted her to investigate whatever she wanted, even if it meant scaring strangers from behind with the touch of a cold muzzle. Basically, I let her meet everyone and everything she tried to meet. (Everyone despite unfamiliar dogs, of course. I wasn’t that irresponsible – I would tug her past them or distract her in order to avoid frustrating her desire to meet them.)

 

She had a lot of dog friends, and when her dog friends were over or we went on walks together, I never asked her to stop playing unless she got tired and “chose” to stop by herself. I felt like this was “her time,” and it should be entirely her “choice” what to do with it. Yes, I would practice her recalls and immediately send her back to play to cash in on the Premack principle, because recalls are very important to me. I wanted a dog I could take pretty much anywhere off leash, and that’s only possible with a perfect recall. And her recall really is great. But otherwise, no: I never asked her to brace herself and settle down for a minute before resuming play. She got to play as long as she “chose” to.

 

Visitors

 

When I walked in after leaving her alone at home for a while (which I also, of course, taught gently and from the beginning, starting with leaving her alone for a few seconds and gradully increasing the time), she would happily meet me at the door. I quickly reinforced “all four on the floor”, and this worked very well: she usually doesn’t jump up on me unless I’ve been gone for a really long time. However, when friends walked in – friends who are her friends, too -, I never prevented her from jumping up. I asked people to not reinforce her for jumping, but did not actively teach her an alternative behavior – I assumed that eventually, she would outgrow her jump-phase and “choose” to keep all four on the floor, because this I reinforced whenever it happened. However, jumping was probably satisfying in itself. And it had no negative consequences; with some people who loved her, it even earned her laughter and attention despite the fact that I had asked people to not reinforce her. As a result, she still likes to jump on people.

 

If we had dog guests, she got to play with them, too, for as long as she wanted. I’d get anything that might break out of the way and let them have the run of the house, never requiring them to settle down. Of course, I would provide the guest dogs with safe spots to retire to if they wanted to have their peace from the crazy little puppy, but I never stopped her as long as they were game, too.

 

Fanta, my Greyhound, is a different story. He doesn’t usually play, but he’s also not the kind of dog who would tell Phoebe off but rather quietly suffer through it. So in order to protect him from her play attacks without ever telling her off or restraining her, I chose a different approach: toys are stronger reinforcers for her than other dogs are. For this reason, she’d always get a tennis ball before she got bored enough to tease Fanta. She got to just carry it around, or I would play fetch with her while he remained undisturbed. Rather than frustrating her by means of asking her to not bother Fanta, I manipulated the situation so that she would rather play with her ball anyways. This, by the way, has payed off: she won’t bother Fanta these days, even if there are no toys around.

 

The run of the house

 

When Phoebe moved in, I had a housemate. He wasn’t much of a dog person, but he resigned himself to the fate of living with a dog nerd and let me puppy-proof our apartment. I just put everything Phoebe wasn’t allowed to eat, play with or chew on (all of my roommate’s belongings) out of reach, decorated the place with chewtoys and covered my roomate’s furniture with blankets so he would be okay with her scrambling about on it.

 

If she wanted to put her front paws up on the kitchen sink, well, so be it. I reinforced her for keeping all four on the floor while I was cooking, but if she “chose” to look up and sniff what was boiling on the stove instead, so be it – I didn’t prevent this. Phoebe has done very well in that respect. She never destroyed anything, and she “chose” to only chew on her chewtoys and teddy bears. I used the back hotplate to cook stuff, so even if she put her paws on the worktop, she wouldn’t reach the the pots. Her curiosity was satisfied, but there was no edible reinforcer she could reach. In my place, she doesn’t put her paws up there anymore, she already knows what’s up there. However, at friends’ places, part of her investigation of the kitchen will usually be a look at what’s on the worktop. I have never given her a reason to not check out what’s up there.

 

Anyways, naturally, as a puppy, Phoebe soon got to like my housemate. She wanted to play with him when he got home from work. She wanted to tug on his pants! She wanted to jump up on him! His approach would have been to reprimand her. I watched him (not her!) like a hawk and instructed him to not reprimand or even stop her. If she pulled on his sleeve, he had to wait it out. (I myself had stopped wearing long sleeves and long pants for the time she was in her sleeve-pulling-phase. Luckily, it was summer.) Now have you ever had a puppy dangling from your sleeve? Waiting it out can take quite some time. She’ll not get bored easily, since just pulling and mock-growling and chewing on clothes seems like quite a fun game. So while I told myself that I wasn’t reinforcing but just ignoring, in fact she probably found the action itself extremely reinforcing. It didn’t matter whether the poor guy just stood there motionless – it was still a game of tug.

 

Anyways, when my roommate started to complain as Phoebe got stronger, I would distract her as he walked into the room by means of playing with her myself, or instruct him to use an actual tug-toy to interact with her. He usually wasn’t interested in playing with her, so for the most part, it was me who distracted her. Again: I avoided frustrating her, but didn’t actively teach her a concrete alternative acceptable way to interact with my roommate.

 

Puppy mouthing

 

When it came to myself, I didn’t even use negative punishment for her mouthing moments. I would make a high-pitched noise when she bit me too hard, but I wouldn’t use time-outs. (Mind you: I instruct other puppy parents to use time-outs when teaching bite inhibition all the time, unless the yelping sound itself does the trick. I tell them to step over baby gates or briefly walk out the door or tether her somewhere and walk out of their puppy’s leash radius if she bites too hard. But when it came to my own puppy, I wanted to completely avoid negative punishment.) Phoebe has learned to be rather gentle with her teeth (maybe because of playing with other dogs more than because of playing with me), but she will still use her teeth today when she gets excited.

 

In any situation, I managed the environment and instructed the people around my puppy, but I didn’t instruct or manage my puppy. I merely distracted her if environmental management wasn’t possible.


 

 

“Choose,” don’t tell

 

I didn’t want to “tell” her to lie down, I wanted her to choose to lie down. I offered her her blanket and gave her the “choice” to lie down on it – or not. As a small puppy, she would, but as she grew a little older, she would wander off and collect her reinforcers elsewhere. And as long as it was safe for my puppy to do so, I was perfectly fine with this. If we were at a restaurant or a friend’s place, I wouldn’t tell her to lie down under the table but leave it up to her what she wanted to do. If she chose to lie down, she would get a Kong or a steady rain of treats. If she didn’t, she would miss out on that food reinforcer.

 

According to my theory, she should have chosen to lie down anytime as soon as I sat down myself/put her blanket on the floor. In reality, she didn’t. Well, she did in certain places: at home, and in the German classroom. She knew these places well and they were probably rather boring environments for her. But new places? Nope. One of the reasons for this is probably that Phoebe is not highly food-motivated. She likes a tasty treat, and she enjoys a good Kong, but for the most part, she finds toys, the company of other dogs, or just exploring the world more reinforcing than food – even if the treats are her favorites and even if she hasn’t eaten that day.

 

So I soon had a dog who would wander around, sniff stuff, bark at stuff, and jump on people rather than relax when I settled down somewhere. She would always keep a certain radius around me and check in regularly (and get reinforced for it), but then take off again to do her own thing.

 

http://images.nintendolife.com/news/2012/06/new_super_mario_bros_2_trailer_is_informative/attachment/0/large.jpg

 

I guess it’s a little like Super Mario and his coins: her world was filled with reinforcers, and she’d spend her time running around collecting all of them. The blanket was on a continuous schedule of reinforcement. The rest of the environment was on intermittend schedules. Intermittent schedules make behaviors strong and resistant to extinction.

 

 

The bigger she got, the fewer places I could just let her wander around. You’d think people don’t mind a curly white dog, but believe me, they do. I still was reluctant to “telling” Phoebe what to do. For this reason, while I had, of course, taught her sits and downs and stuff, I did not have a “stay” cue. “Staying somewhere” was something I didn’t want to “force” my dog to do! It’s not that I didn’t want her to stay somewhere. I very much wanted that. But I wanted her to stay only if she “chose” to do so. And I expected her to eventually always choose to down/stay & relax as a default behavior by her own “free will.”


 

 

This idea contains two fallacies:

 

  1. Dogs don’t generalize easily, and a dog who knows what “sit” means in the living room doesn’t necessarily mean what “sit” means in the yard. I was very aware of that fact, but for some reason, I still expected Phoebe to generalize an immediate assumption of a relaxed body position anywhere we went, from restaurants to subway stations to seminar environments to hotel rooms to friends’ houses to park benches to book stores.

 

  1. I assumed Phoebe had a “free will” that would eventually always lead her to make the “choice” I wanted her to make. However, after giving it some thought, I actually do agree with James O’Heare that there is no such thing as “free will,” at least not in the traditional sense of the word.

 

“There is no free-willed inner agent considering the stimulation and then deciding on behavior. Behavior is simply the body’s reaction to that stimulation. No other behavior is possible. With the organism as it is structured at that time, the behavior that was evoked or elicited was the only thing that could have happened.” (5647; footnote 4) (1)


 

 

However, back when Phoebe was a puppy, I believed that it would be easy for me to design her environment in such a way that she would always make the choice I wanted her to make. I believed that I could set her up for success exclusively by means of the greatest possible freedom and R+ing what I liked alone. What I failed to account for:

 

Real-life puppies don’t grow up in a laboratory! (An observation I owe to Nicole Maria Pfaller.) This is especially true for puppies (and other young animals) who have the amount of freedom that I let Phoebe grow up with. Freedom, in my philosophy, meant: the greatest possible absence of instructions.

 

In a laboratory, it’s easy to get pretty much any behavior by means of reinforcing what you like: in a laboratory, you simply strip the environment of competing reinforcers, and the “choice” you want the animal to make is in fact the only possible bodily reaction to the stimulation you present.

 

Now in real life – especially in real life with the greatest possible freedom – there is an abundance of comepting reinforcers for all kinds of potential behaviors. In fact, the more you increase the freedom, the more competing reinforcers and the more potential behaviors you get.

 

James O’Heare neatly points this out in the context of distance-increasing and distance-decreasing behaviors in dogs. He argues that real life situations hardly ever hold only one single A-B-C contingency.

 

“In the real world, there are multiple concurrent and often competing contingencies operating on individuals vying for control over behavior. They might include reinforcers available for different behaviors and even punishers competing with reinforcers.” (2015) (1)


 

 

When O’Heare says contingencies, what he means are Behavior-Consequence realtionships – what we often probrematically refer to as “choices”.

 

The mistake I made in the Phoebe experiment was to only focus on one contingency: the contingency between the behavior I wanted to see, and the consequence (R+) I provided for it. However, since I always maximized her freedom at the same time, in fact there always were lots of contingencies operating at the same time.

 

Let’s look at the green blanket example again:

 

I had originally shaped Phoebe to lie down on the green blanket (along the lines of Leslie McDevitt’s mat games) as soon as I put it on the floor in my apartment. Then I started taking the blanket to places and reinforced her with high-value treats if she lied down on it, and continued reinforcing her for staying on it.

 

In my living room, one strong contingency stood out: A (blanket on floor) – B (lie down on blanket) – C (treats).

 

In the German classroom, we had at least two contingencies: A1 (blanket on floor) – B1 (lie down on blanket) – C1 (treats).

A2 (students walk in) – B2 (greet students) – C2 (attention from students).

 

I allowed Phoebe to freely fluctuate between these two, so that’s what she did: When a new person walked in, she would get up and greet them, since their attention was a stronger reinforcer than my treats for staying on the blanket. Once she had greeted that person, she would return to the blanket to collect treats again. By means of instructing the students to not pet her in order to lower the possibility for jumping up on them, the blanket regained strength as a reinforcer.

 

The reason there were no more than two contingencies is that the German classroom I taught in was a rather bland environment – apart from tables, chairs and whiteboards, there was little in it.

 

However, in my parents’ kitchen, the situation was different. Here, we had more competing contingencies:

 

A1 (blanket) – B1 (lie down) – C1 (treats)

A2 (countertop with food boiling on it) – B2 (put front paws on countertop) – C2 (see/smell more than from the floor + attention from my mother!)

A3 (wastepaper basket) – B3 (empty wastepaper basket) – C3 (play with paper balls)

A4 (open dishwater door) – B4 (stick nose in dishwasher) – C4 (get to lick dishes + attention from my father!)

 

My parents’ kitchen is a comparatively small room with no more than 3 familiar people – and I’ve already identified three contingencies competing with the blanket contingency I had in mind. Just think how many contingencies there would be at public places like restaurants, parks etc.!

 

Which one would be the strongest contingency in my parents’ kitchen? It depends on the dog and what she finds most reinforcing. For Phoebe, who has (1) a reinforcement history for investigating everything she wants, and for whom toys (such as paper balls) are a stronger reinforcer than food, the most likely behavior is to empty out the wastepaper basket. She’d engage in this until she got bored, and only then would she settle down on her blanket (or next to it, since sometimes she preferred lying on the floor, and perhaps she wasn’t that hungry anyways). And when the dishwasher opened after lunch, she’d get up to investigate that.

 

I observed her behavioral “choices,” but I held on to my belief that she would eventually get to a point in her development where she would always immediately make the “choice” I wanted her to make. Her exploratory behavor didn’t worry me at all. She was a puppy, and I wanted her to explore. I assumed she would eventually outgrow her curiosity and choose the blanket contingency without engaging in other behaviors. I assumed because she was allowed to do anything, she’d eventually become very laid-back because she already knew everything and didn’t need to get excited about it anymore.

 

Of course, she didn’t outgrow her curiosity (also, now that I think of it, it would be horrible if she had outgrown her curiosity! Curiosity is fantastic!). In any new environment I took her, there were and continue to be lots of new coningencies competing with the blanket and competing for her attention. She’s still a young dog, but I think (and hope) she’ll stay creative and curious for many more years to come.

 

Clear communication

 

Phoebe is a dog who enjoys working with me. She likes to do stuff, she is active, and she likes to interact with people. I believe that clear communication is reinforcing in itself, and I might have actually cashed in on this very fact big time by means of teaching and using more “manners” cues with a dog like her. However, I very much disliked “manners” cues, so I didn’t teach them, she didn’t learn them, and consequently, she didn’t show them. The same holds true for most other things in her life: I didn’t make it clear to her that, for example, staying at a certain spot, patiently waiting for something, was worth the effort and would get her a desired consequence.

 

When Phoebe didn’t “choose” to lie down anywhere “of her own free will,” I still didn’t abandon the belief that she eventually would. And I was still so reluctant to cuing what I wanted to be a “chosen” behavior that I decided to manage rather than teach things like “stay”: I either wouldn’t take her to certain places, or I would take her and constantly interact with her so she didn’t get the idea to “misbehave” (by the standards of humans other than me) instead.

No opportunity to fail

 

I didn’t ever want her to make mistakes, because I didn’t want to tell her “no”. So I defined “mistakes” accordingly: I never considered anything she did a “problem”. By definiton, in my eyes, everything she did was always right. And I avoided conflicts. For example, when she got excited as a puppy and wanted to play – we would play. I did not want communication to be a one-way street. I didn’t want to be the only one who could start a game. I took this idea so far that any time she asked me to play, we would play. Since I didn’t want her to jump up on me, I usually observed her very well. If she woke up and got that “let’s do something fun” look on her face, I’d initiate the game myself, or take her out for a game of fetch before she had to ask. I assumed that this way, I had nicely sidestepped the problem: I didn’t want to always answer to her “I want to play!” demands, because I was afraid that eventually, I would have to frustrate her because I didn’t have time! So she didn’t even have to ask; I started the game before she got to nag me about it.

 

This made me an astute observer of Phoebe’s body language, but it didn’t teach her to cope with frustration (not getting what she wanted right away) at all.

 

Contrasts in my appraches to clients’ dogs

 

I’ve never suggested my clients follow my “no rules” philosophy. I would never have asked to other people to raise their dogs in a “laissez faire” manner; in fact, I’d probably have been alarmed if they had told me that was what they were doing. As for clients, I’d teach them to use R+, and to be consistent and clear. I’d let them work on impulse control stuff. I’d encourage them to let their dogs try and fail sometimes – for example, if they pulled, they didn’t get to move forward. So they learned by trial and error that pulling doesn’t work.

 

I even told them that if their dog didn’t figure out how to behave in a difficult situation and was about to get frustrated, it was their job to help the dog – i.e. to let her know what to do, e.g. promt or cue a behavior. In order to be able to cue a behavior, I told them, they’d have to teach it first. And I let them practice their sit/stays and down/stays and all the other basic manners in all kinds of situations for exactly that reason. I explained to them that this takes quite some responsibility off of the dog – responsibility that dogs are not prepared to bear, such as guessing the socially acceptable behavior in a room full of strangers.


 

 

I had a bit of a Doublethink there: On the one hand, I wholeheartedly believed that the explanation I gave to my clients was valid and important, and that for this reason, many dogs find cues empowering: with their actions, they can make you click, and your cue, the Antecedent, made perfectly clear what they had to do in order to earn that click. That’s even the position I will fiercly argue in a discussion with Anne Lill Kvam and her followers.

 

On the other hand, I was convinced my laissez faire approach would work: I thought it was an advanced approach, “advanced” in the sense that Ken Ramirez means when he refers to punishment as an “advanced method”: you have to know what you are doing and be a bit of a geek when you want to apply it well. I had thought my approach through. What I didn’t factor in, however, were all the competing reinforcers that you automatically get in the real world when you maximize freedom.

 

The results of my experiment

 

Now that Phoebe is 1.5 years old and I’m analyzing my experiment, I have to admit that it didn’t work the way I expected. Phoebe doesn’t think the way I expected her to think. No matter how long I keep not telling her what to do, she won’t necessarily choose to do what I want, either – she’ll just be a happy dog who does whatever is most reinforcing to her at that moment.

 

I wonder if this approach would have worked for a dog breed with a slightly “lazier” reputation. Maybe I’ll try it out sometime. It certainly didn’t work the way I expected it to work for this particular Standard Poodle.

 

In any case, there are five main results from my freedom approach. Other dogs might have reacted differently, but for Phoebe, I assume that these facts are at least partly due to the way I raised her:

 

  1. We have very good relationship.

 

  1. She is a very creative dog. She’ll try anything – she’s not afraid that I’ll ever tell her “no”. This makes her a clown, and a fast learner.

 

  1. Her impulse control and tolerance for frustration are pretty non-existent. This means she can’t cope very well if, for example, she doesn’t get a clicker trick right right away, or if I ask her to be patient (something I only recently started asking of her).

 

  1. At 1.5 years, she doesn’t know many basic cues my Dachshund learned in his first month with me – simply because I chose not to teach them to her. As for her, I’m only starting to teach these behaviors now, since I realize they might come in handy after all.

 

  1. She does not have calm default behaviors, but “explosive” default behaviors. (Which is interesting, since calm default behaviors are precisely what I expected to get out of my approach.)

 

I still want my dogs to have the greatest possible freedom. However, for the next puppy I raise, I will go about it differently. I will take an approach that doesn’t have the greatest possible freedom as its starting point, but as its end point. Actually, I’ll pretty much do what I already tell other people to do when they ask me a puppy question.

 

Parallels to reactivity

 

I’m interested in reacitivity, and I like approaching the issue with the help of Leslie McDevitt’s LAT game. During Anne Lill Kvam’s dog trainer course, I did a project where I taught a number of reactive dogs (and their people) the LAT game and then observed if and how their behavior changed. It was a successful project; all dogs showed more confidency in the vicinity of their triggers and were able to shift their focus away from the triggers and to their pet parents.

 

I taught it in several steps:

 

  1. Introduction to the LAT game (below threshold).
  2. We gently work closer and closer to the trigger – since it gets counterconditiond in the course of LAT, we can play closer and closer and still stay under threshold. Eventually, we’ll walk off or have the trigger disappear – so here’s your functional reward, too. (And yes, I am aware that this belongs to one of the quadrants some people are appalled by.)
  3. We put LAT on cue.
  4. As the dog has gotten empowered by the OC component of LAT and counterconditioned by its CC component, eventually, the trigger ceases to be a trigger. Now the dog does not need to keep “Looking At” it, but is ready to do something else and keep her focus on her mum or dad. Mum or dad can now cue alternative behaviors, thereby keeping the dog in her “thinking state of mind”.
  5. Once the dog is able to focus on his human even in difficult environments without worrying about turing her back on a former trigger, we slowly start to decrease the structure and increase the freedom. The goal is to eventually not need a big amount of human guidance anymore and still be able to pass former triggers in a relaxed manner.

 

Phoebe is not a “reactive” dog in the sense this word is commonly used, but she certainly is highly excitable by many situations. I am pretty sure this is not due to a lack of socialization during puppyhood; I did my homework there. This is mere specualtion, but I’d venture that in some situations, Phoebe is overwhelmed by all the contingencies competing for her behavior: greet the person walking towards us (C: social attention). Greet the dog over there (C: social attention). Sniff that tree to her left (C: sniffing is intrinsically reinforcing [?]; information). Ask mum to finally get that tennis ball out of her pocket (C: play). When one of her human friends joins us for a walk, her excitement rises even more: jump up (C: attention!). Take her glove (C: play) etc. For a long time, I always immediately got her her tennis ball or another toy before someone else joined us. This was usually most reinforcing, so she would not bother the other person – but again, it didn’t teach her to calmly greet them in the absence of toys, either. In fact, it may even have built the excitement of the toy into the social situation of meeting friends.

 

I now believe that structured interaction is helpful for “ordinary” dogs as well, not just for reactive ones. I’ve tried it out ever since I started teaching heel and stay behaviors: giving her a clear job such as a down stay keeps her calmer and more focused than the overwhelming opportunity to do whatever she wants. My tentative theory: rather than not knowing what to focus on, she can shift her attention to one thing (me) or one behavior.

 

A sociologist friend of mine sent me an article on decision fatigue a while ago. The idea is that having to make lots of choices (even though the choices might be tiny ones) is quite exhausting. If we spend an entire day making decsions, in the end of our day, our capability to make the decision that is most useful for us diminishes. In the end of the day, we tend to go for immediate reinforcements rather than plan ahead – we have considerably less impulse control, and it is easier for a sleeky salesperson to talk us into buying things we don’t need.

 

I wonder if having too many competing contingencies can be hard for dogs, too: what if constantly being able to do anything and cash in on any of the countless available reinforcers makes a dog prone to choose the most immediate reinforcer, too? What if it lowers their impuls control just like ours? (I have no idea if this is actually the case, but I’d love it if someone did a study on it.)

 

In any case, while I used to think: the more choices, the more empowerment, I now wonder if this is true in all cases. Maybe it depends on the situation whether more or less choices are most empowering. When I say more choices, I mean less human guidance in the sense of cues, and when I say less choices, I mean more human guidence in the sense of cues.

 

Change, and be ready to change again!

 

Maybe one reason my freedom puppy experiment did not work the way I wanted is that puppies have to learn to deal with an abundance of “choices” (an abundance of competing contingencies), just as reactive dogs need to learn to deal with their triggers. Maybe immediately exposing a puppy to a mount of competing contingencies without any guidance will put her over threshold, just like a trigger might do for a reactive dog.

 

So if I were to raise a puppy right now (and my approach might change again, of course), I would start out with more guidance, and slowly lower the degree of guidance, rather than just starting out with no guidance at all.

 

I’m glad that I was so convinced of my freedom philosophy that I stuck with it and really tested it out though. However, my next puppy will grow up with a little more guidance, and she will also be allowed to do more learning by means of trial and error.

The Phoebe experiment has particularly sensitized me to the topic of frustration tolerance. I suspect that for a big part, Phoebe’s low frustration tolerance (If she wants something, she wants it NOW, or she’ll explode, i.e. jump and clap her teeth and run around and throw behaviors at me) is due to the fact that I tried to keep her puppyhood frustration-free. She could freely access her reinforcers (other than c/t) anytime – and she’d usually get what she wanted. Writing this down and writing that I had to admit it didn’t work that way still makes me sad: I wish, I really wish the perfect dogs (and people) were the ones who grew up without structure, without guidance, in complete “freedom”. I used to think that if I’d ever raise a child, I’d like to raise her that very same way. And like Phoebe, I’d expect it (the fact that I call my hypothetical child “it” rather than “her” or “him” tells me it’s a good thing I don’t have one!) to always make the perfect choices. I’d define perfect choices by means of her actions, and she wouldn’t be able to ever fail, either. And as with Phoebe, I’d hold on to the idea that I was successful in raising “the perfect person” for as long as I could. (But what if my “perfect person” turned out to become relentless and selfish rather than gentle and self-reflective? My therapist says we have to have suffered in order to become reflective people. Not necessarily in big ways, no. But we need to have experienced some kind of deprivation.) I have to admit that Phoebe, after all, is not a calm, relaxed dog (my “perfect dog”). She is a four-legged stick of dynamite, and she has A LOT to learn now that I didn’t teach her as a puppy.

 

The saving grace, philosophy-of-life-wise

 

I still like the idea of the greatest possible freedom. I’m a romanticist this way. I like stuff like Libertatia, and if I could do anything I wanted, at 29 years, I’d still rather be a pirate than anything else. My approach to teaching mirrors my philosophy of life, and I assume that to be true for anyone who works with animals (human and non-human). No matter whether I teach students or my own dogs: I want to give them the greatest possible freedom.

 

Another reason this didn’t work this way for Phoebe is that she is a dog in a world designed by and for humans. It’s not realistic to expect her to make the “choices” that I wish for without helping her to do so. There is only so much sense that a human world can possibly make to a dog.

 

When it comes to teaching advanced German or English liteature to adult learners, my approach has been similar, and more successful: I treat my students the same way I treat my dogs. They don’t “have to” pay attention or do homeworks or be on time. In fact, they don’t “have to” do anything. Each group gets to make their own rules (they get to choose if they want to have a test, and what kind of test they want. They get to choose if they want grades, written feedback, both, or none). They get to choose what we focus on and what we talk about. I’m always ready to offer suggestions, but I make sure they know it is their course, not mine, and I want to give them the exact course they would like to participate in. For some groups, this means teaching in bars rather than classrooms. For others, it means playing games rather than focusing on grammar. For others yet, it means focusing mainly on grammar. And then there are the ones who want to discuss gay rights, euthanasia, the death penalty or the ethics of keeping animals in zoos. There are the ones who want to make their own Kaiserschmarren, and I’ll have them buy eggs and meal and invite them over to my place, and we’ll cook. And I love all of them.

 

The longer teach German and English literature, the more freedom have I given my adult learners. And I have observed something interesting: the more freedom I give them, the more homeworks I tend to get, the more motivation and self-initiative there is. I’ve gotten lots of positive feedback, and there was only one student who ever told me that he felt overwhelmed by the chance to choose his own projects all the time – that this was the first time any teacher had ever asked him to make so many “choices”, and he would have preferred more structure. (This was at a metafiction proseminar I taught at the English department a few years ago.)

 

So in this respect, I was successful with my “freedom” approach. But with all these groups, of course, my students already had “chosen” the B (study) – C (knowledge) contingency over other contingencies: the groups of people I was working with consisted of people who found studying English metafictions or German grammar more reinforcing than going to the cinema or walking their dogs instead. AND they were humans in a world designed for and by their fellow humans.

 

If you look at a pirate utopia like Libertatia, there is a similar contingency: Libertatia only consists of pirates who find living in Libertatia more reinforcing than any other contingency. AND: they had Articles. That is to say, while they resented capitalism and slavery and upheld liberty instead, they lived by their Articles – their own ethical code, or, if you want, their own “rules”. So there was some guidance.

 

And I guess if Captain Mission can have Articles, Phoebe can have sit/stays. If I look at it this way, I can make my peace with it. And I can be okay with raising my next puppy a little differently – a little more like what I tell my clients. With a focus on impulse control and building the skills to wait for a reinforcer – and, yes, with the occasional P- such as a time-out, if necessary.

 


(1) O’Heare, James: Aggressive Behavior in Dogs: a Comprehensive Technical Manual for Professional. 2nd edition. Ottowa: BehaveTech Publishing 2014.

Also, if you like pirates, you should definitely check out:
Johnson, Captain Charles: A General History of the Pyrates. 1724, and now online here.

Burroughs, William S.: Cities of the Red Night. London: Penguin 2001.

Fränkies Trainingstagebuch, Teil 1

Rinderkopfhaut zum Runterkommen

Fränkie

Kauen entspannt. Alle drei Hunde kauen friedlich ihre Stangerl, jeder auf seinem Platz. Kein Ressourcenverteidigen. Auch Kauding gegen Würstel (higher value!) tauschen ist kein Problem.

Auf die Decke shapen

Erster Clickerkontakt. Von sich aus würde Fränki nur Sitz anbieten. Ich helfe durch Handbewegungen und kann so zuerst Bewegung zur Decke und dann mindestens zwei Pfoten auf der Decke bestärken, indem ich ein Leckerli in die andre Richtung werfe, sodass er runtergehen muss, um es sich zu holen, und dann wieder von vorn beginnen kann. Herinnen arbeiten wir mit Trockenfutter. Alles andre findet er hier zu aufregend und will an mir hochspringen.

Boxunterteil mit Decke 

Ebenfalls kein Problem! Zwar kein Hinlegen, aber Hingehen, um sich seinen Click abzuholen, macht Fränkie Spaß.

Box mit Decke

Ebenfalls kein Problem. Den Eiskong beginnt er drinnen (im Stehen) zu fressen. Probehalber Tür zu. Sobald Fränkie merkt, dass sie zu ist, will er raus. Erst bellt er kurz, dann beißt er ins Gitter, dann bleibt er stehen und hechelt stark. Frankfurter nimmt er nach wie vor durchs Gitter, Trockenfutter nicht. Er ist alles andere als entspannt, und nach ein, zwei ruhigen Minuten mache ich die Tür wieder auf.

Die geschlossene Tür hatte keine Auswirkungen auf das Spiel an sich – immer noch geht er gern rein und sucht drinnen auch unter der Decke versteckte Leckerlis, solang die Tür offen ist.

Als Fränkie wieder abgeholt wird, erfahre ich, dass er sogar in einer offenen Box schlafen kann, aber Panik vor geschlossenen Türen hat. Also verwerfe ich den Plan, das Alleinbleib-Protokoll in der Box durchzuziehen. Ich werde stattdessen das Schlafzimmer verwenden und mit einem Babygitter absperren.

An der Leine gehen

Kette runter, Geschirr rauf, Clicker und Würstel eingesteckt. Nach 100 Metern kann Fränkie an der lockeren Leine gehen. Ruhiges Gehen führt dazu, dass er gehen und schnüffeln darf, wo er will. Position neben mir und Augenkontakt mit Click/Treat bestärken. Unterbrechungssignal, wenn er dem Ende der Leine zu nahe kommt oder zu schnell wird. Stillstand, wenn er anzieht. Eine leichte Übung für Fränkie! Wir begegnen keinen Hunden, aber 3 Menschen, eins davon ist ein Kind. Alles kein Problem für den klugen Kerl. Draußen sind Frankfurter genau die richtige Belohnung für ihn.

Freilauf

Fränkie darf an der Schleppleine mit Phoebe und Fanta auf den Feldern gegenüber unsres Hauses rumflitzen. Wenn er sich entscheidet, zu mir zu kommen, wird bestätigt, dann schicke ich ihn gleich wieder weg, um seine eigene Sache zu machen. Wenn er sich eine Zeitlang nicht für mich interessiert, ändere ich die Gehrichtung. Die drei vertragen sich ausgezeichnet; Phoebe ist sooo happy über ihren Spielgefährten, und auch Fanta flitzt mehrere Runden mit.

Barrieren

Wenn ich in Bad oder WC gehe, mache ich die Tür hinter mir zu und rede durch die geschlossene Tür mit Fränkie. Es fällt ihm auf, dass ich den Raum verlasse. Er ist aufmerksam, aber noch relativ entspannt. Ansonsten folgt er mir immer, wenn ich von Raum  zu Raum (Arbeits-/Schlafzimmer und Wohnküche) gehe.

LAT

Bei der Abendrunde zwei ungeplante Hundebegegnungen. Nach dem ersten Wuff beginne ich, LAT zu spielen. Fränkie kennt nach diesem Tag den Clicker bereits und spielt sofort und problemlos mit!

Fazit

Ein erfolgreicher erster Tag! Ich bin stolz auf alle drei Hunde. Fränkie ist ein Hit. Die größte Herausforderung ist, mit ihm und Phoebe gemeinsam an der Leine spazieren zu gehen. Phoebe geht entweder Fuß oder kann nicht anders, als ihn ständig zum Spielen aufzufordern. Auf das tolle Fuß trotz Fränkies Anwesenheit bin ich stolz, aber einen für uns alle drei entspannenden Spaziergang kriegen wir auf diese Art noch nicht hin.

Fanta ist ein wenig genervt, wenn Phoebe und Fränkie ganze Zeit spielen wollen. Es ist gut, dass Fränkie heute Abend wieder abgeholt wurde. Nächstes Mal kennt Fanta Fränkie bereits besser und sie werden besser miteinander klarkommen.

Plan fürs nächste Mal

Nächstes Mal werden wir in erster Linie am Alleinbleib-Protokoll hinterm Babygitter arbeiten. Ich hätte Fränkie gern bald so weit, dass er 30 Minuten allein bleiben kann. Dann ist es kein Problem mehr, mit ihm und Phoebe getrennt rauszugehen.

Auch eine gemeinsame Autofahrt mit Phoebe und Fanta plane ich fürs nächste Mal. Ich habe erfahren, dass er Autofahren noch sehr aufregend findet. Wenn wir das hinkriegen würden, könnte ich aber gut zu Hundezonen oder an Orte fahren, wo ich alle drei gleich frei laufen lassen kann, was den Spaziergang entspannter macht. Wenn ich ihn für kurze Zeit allein im Auto lassen könnte, wär das auch sehr praktisch. Wenn ich wüsste, dass das funktioniert, dürfte er öfter bei mir sein und wir hätten mehr Zeit zum Trainieren.

Und falls es sich ausgeht, möchte ich Crate Games (1) mit Fränkie spielen. So könnte ich bald die Box auch bei offener Tür verwenden und zu einem heißgeliebten Ort machen. (Und abgesehen davon sind Crate Games einfach toll.)

(1) Garrett, Susan: Crate Games for Self-Control and Motivation. DVD. Say Yes Dog Training 2007.