Asking the Questions, Over and Over and Over Again, or, Children Really Aren't That Bad!

One of the biggest things that I learned from the Suzanne Clothier seminar is to really pay attention to what Maisy is saying. Suzanne has set out what she calls the elemental questions, and has emphasized that we ask them every time we interact with our dog instead of assuming that since we've asked them once, we know the answers forever.

The first time I did this exercise, I was really surprised by what I learned, specifically regarding children. You see, I thought that Maisy didn't like children, because she often "cringed" when they tried to pet her. She would get slinky and low to the ground, and look at me with misery-filled eyes. But then, while I was asking the questions one day, a child approached, and Maisy clearly indicated that she would like to go say hi.

It happened again today. I had dropped my car off for service, and when Maisy and I went to pick it up, there were two small, toddler-aged children in the small waiting area. Maisy really wanted to greet them, and was quite bouncy. I had her sit and wait, since the children were hesitant about interacting with her.

I spoke to the girls (who were, quite frankly, jumping, screeching, and generally making me uncomfortable), and coached them on how to greet a dog: Don't touch the doggy's head, only pet her chest or back, always ask first, etc. Meanwhile, I'm watching Maisy, and her tail is helicoptering in circles fast in furious, and she's begging me with her body language to go say hi. Finally, I instructed Maisy to go do a hand touch, and she was thrilled.

This is clearly not a dog who dislikes children. In fact, it would appear that she rather likes them. She got a bit nervous when they got too animated, but was still clearly interested in them. In fact, the only time she looked like she wasn't enjoying the process is when the younger one pet Maisy on the head, which is totally understandable, and why I coach children on how to interact with her. Still, you can't control two-year-olds, so I think that in the future, I'll tell them to "let the doggy touch you" instead of letting them touch her, especially since Maisy thought the hand touch game was so fun.

As a side note: I'm absolutely thrilled with the amount of self-control Maisy demonstrated by waiting to greet the children until I told her she could. She was sitting like a rock.

99% Positive

Ever since the Suzanne Clothier seminar, where she said that being “all positive” is impossible, I’ve been obsessed with how we ought to use consequences in training.

I suppose that Suzanne could criticize my current obsession; I recognize that I may be overthinking this issue, after all. But let’s face it: this is who I am. I think. A lot. I am fascinated by science and research, and I love dog training, so really, it ought to be no surprise to anyone who knows me that I think about this stuff often. So, given all that, I’m going to continue to think about this stuff.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it is, indeed, impossible to use only R+ methods in training. But that doesn’t mean I can’t try. While there may be times that it’s necessary to use some of the other principles of operant conditioning, my personal goal is to remain firmly in the R+ area 99% of the time.

The other night, I went out with some friends. As it always does, our conversation turned to dog training. We were comparing different methods, specifically the various pros and cons of luring, shaping and capturing behaviors. I shared that for the first year, I lured every behavior with Maisy exclusively, but that she seems to learn faster through shaping.

The next morning, on one of the many dog-related email lists I belong to, the incredibly delightful Crystal Salig responded to a thread about teaching the recall by tugging on the leash. She said:

I used to mildly coerce the first part of recall also- just very light pressure on the neck with the leash and released it when the dog started to move- it wasn't harmful, it just wasn't as good as a completely uncoerced recall. I'm still trying to find a less aversive way to stop when a dog is pulling on leash so that it doesn't hurt or surprise the dog as much. When I switched from lure-reward to clicker training, I started to become even less aversive than I was before- seeing how much faster the dog learned if I didn't even lure him let alone use a physical prompt.

This all got me to thinking about my recent venture with Maisy, specifically her sniffing while on walks. Basically, if she stopped to sniff something without having been cued “go sniff,” I’d been telling her “let’s go” and kept walking. If she didn’t keeping walking, the resultant tug on the leash was a natural consequence of her behavior. And while this approach has been working- Maisy knows that “let’s go” means it’s time to stop sniffing and keep walking- I’ve felt bad about doing it.

Crystal Salig’s post helped me understand why the leash tug didn’t sit right with me. Although my action wasn’t inhumane- it’s not physically painful, nor did it appear to be causing stress on Maisy’s part- it did involve coercion, as minor as it is. I commented to my friends that Maisy learns better when she thinks something is her idea, which is why shaping seems to go faster than luring does. Tugging the leash makes Maisy stop sniffing, but it’s not her idea, so while it’s working, it’s slow and frustrating.

This doesn’t mean I think that what I’m doing is wrong. I wouldn’t have tried it if I did. But I do think there has to be a more positive way to teach this. I’m pretty sure that it includes using Premack.

So, here’s the first draft of my plan: I’m going to be vigilant on our walks. I will heavily reinforce the behavior I want- walking in a loose heel. I will also reinforce eye contact, as paying attention to me is incompatible with sniffing. I will pay close attention to her, and when I see the early signs of sniffing (and I think I can pick them out), I’ll call her back to me, ask for some kind of behavior (heeling, a sit, eye contact- it doesn’t really matter what), and then reinforce the behavior by cuing “go sniff.”

I’m quite sure this will not be the final draft of my plan. These things seem to evolve over time, after all. But from now on, all training has to pass the “feel test”- if it doesn’t feel right, then I won’t do it. And in the process, I hope to become 99% positive.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Wrap Up

Wow, who knew that a two day seminar could inspire over a month’s worth of blogging? I want to thank everyone who commented on these blog posts. The discussions we’ve had over the past month have really helped me think about the things Suzanne said in a far more sophisticated manner than I could have alone.

I just want to touch on a few of the highlights from those conversations today. If you haven’t, I encourage you to go back and read the comment threads. There are a lot of smart, dedicated, and talented people in there sharing differing perspectives. Although we dog trainers will probably never agree 100%, it’s nice to consider other ideas, either to refine our own thoughts, or to strengthen our positions.

For me, I have found that the seminar and resulting discussions have strengthened my commitment to positive training, even if the term is a bit of a misnomer. As everyone noted, it is impossible to use solely positive reinforcement. I strive to teach enough foundation skills that I rarely need to stray from that principle of operant conditioning.

Still, there are times when a consequence is needed for a less-than-desirable behavior. The challenge is to find such a consequence which is neither physically painful nor which causes excessive emotional stress. Of course, there is the challenge of defining how much stress is too much, but I’m afraid I have yet to figure that one out. So far, it seems to be a matter of knowing the dog well enough to be able to stop while we’re ahead, but that’s a rather ambiguous answer, and one which is undoubtedly frustrating for the less experienced trainers out there.

I have decided that for my dog, the best way to deal with unwanted behaviors is to use Premack’s Principle. I’ll admit, while I understand the principle intellectually, I don’t quite get why it works so well. At any rate, I’ve had some amazing results with Premack, and so have others.

When it comes to our “silly tricks”- my name for competition behaviors which really only matter because I have a goofy hobby, and not because they’re vital life skills- the consequences for an incorrect response is generally removing the reinforcement or doing a time out. Time outs work well; Maisy loves to train, and she loves to spend time with me. Removing my attention for a short period of time is a far more effective punisher than withholding a food treat.

I do occasionally use mild verbal corrections, but Maisy is so sensitive that I have to be careful with using these. I try to avoid them, as well as no reward markers because they tend to frustrate both of us. Similarly, I use some pressure/release techniques with her, such as body blocks or light physical pressure, but I have to be careful with these, too- she’s incredibly sensitive to physical touch. In fact, I once tried using a body wrap on her, which are widely promoted for reducing anxiety. It did not go over well, and in fact, actually caused more anxiety. Although both verbal corrections and physical prompts can be useful tools which fall on the more positive end of the “consequence spectrum,” they are things which I must use sparingly with my dog.

Which brings me to my favorite part of the seminar: Suzanne’s repeated insistence that we view all dogs as individuals. I love that she says training is humane only when we check in with the dog regularly in order to get his perspective. Can you do this? Is this okay with you? How can I help you? These questions focus on building up the relationship in the name of training, and I’ve always said that training is only about the relationship between me and my dog anyway.

Finally, I think the biggest benefit I got from the seminar was learning to give Maisy the information she needs to be successful. Her statement that dogs look to their people for clues on how they should react really encouraged me to look at what role I play in Maisy’s reactivity. I’ve always known that Maisy is sensitive to my moods and reactions, but being forced to confront that reality at the seminar has really improved my awareness of my own body. Making a conscious effort to remain calm and confident in the face of triggers has gone a long way in soothing Maisy’s fears.

All in all, that weekend was one well spent. I really think I grew a lot as a trainer as a result of the things Suzanne said, and again, I really appreciate each and every one of your comments.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Where Clicker Trainers Go Wrong

It came as no surprise that Suzanne considers herself a humane trainer. I knew that by reading her book, by the fact that she calls her method “relationship centered,” and by the observation that the positive training community has rallied around her. So, I was completely unprepared for what she said next:

“All positive training is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.”

Come again? Aren’t you for training our dogs in positive ways? What do you mean, it’s “stupid”? Needless to say, this statement really set me reeling. But you know what? She had some valid criticisms, and I think it’s important that as clicker trainers, we consider what she says, and find ways to improve our training as a result. Again, my understanding of her criticisms are my own, based on stray comments she made. This entry cannot be considered a complete commentary, and I only hope that it’s accurate. That said, in reviewing my notes, I found four ways we often go wrong:

Clicker Trainers are Too Cerebral
As I mentioned previously, Suzanne believes that consequences are useful in training dogs. Although I disagree with some of the consequences she believes are acceptable, I do concede that they can have a place in a thoughtful training program, and I’ve since found some ways to improve my training with Maisy as the result of using them.

The problem is, clicker trainers sometimes shy away from consequences entirely because we’re thinking too much. I know I fell into this category! When I was considering a consequence, I would think about which of the operant conditioning quadrants it fell in. If it fell in the “wrong” quadrant, I wouldn’t do it. Instead, Suzanne encouraged us to look at our dogs, and to decide if the consequence is humane or not. As long as we aren’t hurting or scaring our dogs, we’re probably okay.Instead of thinking about our actions based on some chart, we’re better off thinking about our dog.

Clicker Dogs Have No Impulse Control
Okay, this is a bit of an over-exaggeration of what she said, so don’t go around quoting this verbatim. What Suzanne actually said is that when she sees a dog throwing behaviors, she knows two things: it was clicker trained, and it has low impulse control. This does not mean that all clicker dogs struggle with impulse control, but it can be a by-product of the training method if we don’t get adequate stimulus control over the behaviors we teach our dog, and if we don’t take the time to teach our dogs how to relax.

I love having a dog who wants to work, but sometimes I think I’ve created a monster because I haven’t worked that much on teaching her how to just be. Sometimes, I don’t use the clicker at all because it is creates too much arousal. She loves it so much that she loses control over herself.

Clicker Trainers Micromanage Their Dogs With Cookies
There are two sub-points here. First, clicker trainers tend to rely too much on management, and don’t spend enough time teaching their dogs to be responsible for themselves. (I wrote about this previously in this entry.)

Second, clicker trainers tend to rely on cookies far too much. Suzanne is not against cookies, she just thinks we need branch out. She said that what we really need to do is harness intrinsic motivation. We need to teach our dog to work for other things. Life rewards such as getting to go for a walk or using play as a reinforcer fits here, but Suzanne is big on using praise and the social relationship as a reinforcer, too. Cookies are great, but they’re the icing on the cake of social relationships.

Clicker Trainers Rely on “Recipes” Too Much
Finally, Suzanne was critical of clicker training because it can result in the handler treating the dog like a computer: we train them based on stimulus and response, or input and output. We would find it insulting to be treated this way, so why wouldn’t our dogs? Instead, we need to see the whole animal, and tailor our plans to their needs and preferences. Even counter conditioning will fail, she said, if we don’t keep the dog safe. Training recipes might be a nice starting point, but we need to go beyond them.


As I mentioned, I know I fall in the “think too much” category. I also recognize that my use of the clicker could have contributed to Maisy’s impulse control problems, because I'm just not that good at getting things under stimulus control. So far as micromanaging with cookies… well, guilty again. I do rely a lot on management, and I’m just learning how to use things other than food as a reinforcer. I think I am safe on the last point; but I think my strength lies in being able to evaluate various “recipes” and tweak them so that they work to both Maisy’s strengths and my own.

So, fellow clicker trainers, do you recognize yourself in any of these descriptions? If so, what are you going to do to improve your training?

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Humane Training

Perhaps the most interesting- and challenging- part of the seminar was hearing about Suzanne’s training philosophy, and the way she implements it. There wasn’t an official session on what she considers “Humane Training,” but I think I have a decently accurate picture based on her general themes and random comments. I hope so, anyway! I’d hate to misrepresent her in any way.

Suzanne seems to define humane training as knowing the difference between asking your dog “will you do this?” and “can you do this?” This really resonated with me since Maisy is the kind of dog who will try her heart out for me. I’ve asked before if Maisy’s willingness to do something is an indication of her actual ability to do it, so I greatly appreciated Suzanne’s statement that the goal of humane training is finding fun things to do with your dog while keeping her physically sound, intellectually sane, and emotionally safe.

So, why did I find this so challenging? Largely because her implementation of this philosophy is different than mine. Throughout the weekend, regardless of the issue or the dog at hand, there were two recurring themes: responsibility and consequences, both of which I struggle with.

Responsibility is a bit easier for me to swallow, although Suzanne’s emphasis that it must go both ways was a new way of thinking to me. Both the handler and the dog have a responsibility to the other, but sometimes, I think I focus more on the handler’s responsibilities. I definitely put more responsibility on myself than I do on Maisy, as I firmly believe that training problems lie in my failure to adequately communicate. I think Suzanne would agree that our dogs are generally doing the best they can- as she said, dogs want to be right.

Where I often fail, however, is in giving Maisy responsibility for what she’s learned. Sometimes, I work so hard at setting her up for success that she can’t really make any choices. This isn’t so bad during the learning stage, but in my effort to be all positive, I sometimes lean a bit permissive.

Which leads to consequences, the more difficult of the two themes. The first time Suzanne said the word, I had a visceral reaction to it- I’m pretty uncomfortable when people begin to discuss consequences because it often implies physical corrections. And I don’t do physical corrections. Still, Suzanne was clear that consequences need to be tailored to the dog, and that you should always use the least amount of force possible, but she did say that for some dogs, a well-timed physical correction can be useful. She’s even okay with shock collars under very specific circumstances. At the same time, you can’t do this with very sensitive dogs. Often a firm word is enough (or too much!) for them. She went so far to say that such dogs need our support, not our criticism, and so the way we approach them will be very different.

I was very glad that she made this distinction, although I do not agree with her regarding physical corrections. Do they work? Certainly, but even so, I don't find them acceptable. I suspect that part of my adamant opposition to physical corrections is due to the fact that I have one of those sensitive dogs. Regardless, it was good for me to consider the idea of consequences. As Suzanne pointed out, sometimes a consequence is simply saying, “No, thank you,” to a particular behavior our dogs exhibit, and as I mentioned earlier, I do tend to trend a bit permissive with Maisy.

So, how do we humanely use consequences? First and foremost, we need to teach the dog how to be right. Suzanne said that in her experience, people don’t build strong enough foundation skills. I know I certainly fell into that trap, and I think training classes in general could do more to help teach people how to build stronger foundations. She also stressed that while building foundation skills, it’s important to give the dog choices, but to set the situation up in such a way that the dog can make the right choice. This gives the dog more responsibility for her behavior, while also helping her learn.

Gradually, we make the choices harder, rewarding heavily for correct decisions while imposing consequences for the wrong one. Again, the consequence depends on the dog. She gave the example of teaching a dog to walk on leash. It is the dog’s responsibility to stay nearby. If the dog fails, we may not use a leash pop, but we might use some collar pressure to make things a bit uncomfortable. It’s not given as a punishment, but it is a consequence of the dog’s behavior.

I’ve struggled with good loose leash walking skills with Maisy. She doesn’t pull, but she likes to stop and sniff interesting rings, and I’m afraid that this is transferring over to the obedience ring. Because I haven’t wanted to use anything aversive, even if it’s only mildly uncomfortable, I’ve stopped and called her name. In essence, I’ve nagged her, which has only taught her that if she ignored me, she could sniff longer.

Suzanne would say that she needed a consequence for ignoring me, so I took her advice and started a new program: Sniffing is only allowed when I explicitly cue it. Furthermore, she must disengage and come with me when I tell her sniffing time is over (I’m using the cue, “let’s go”). The first time I said “let’s go,” she didn’t make an effort to move. It was very hard for me to just start walking, and I did end up pulling her for a few steps. When she caught up with me, I praised her effusively. By the end of the walk, though, she began to choose to disengage and move with me when I said, “let’s go!” We’re still working on not sniffing unless I cue it, but it’s getting better.

So, was that positive punishment? Yes, and that makes me feel bad. I feel slightly dirty just writing about it. But… did it hurt her? Was she confused about what I was asking from her? Did it cause her to feel unsafe? No, I don’t think it did, which means it was an appropriate and humane consequence.

There’s more, of course. Suzanne said a whole host of interesting things about clicker trainers… but I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for my next post to hear about those! In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts on consequences. Do you use them, or do they make you feel a bit weird like they do to me? How do you use them in your training, and if so, how does Suzanne’s criteria for humane consequences sit with you? Let me know!

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: The Trial Environment and Reactivity

In my last entry, I discussed how reactivity is often compounded by the personality of the typical performance dog. I also mentioned that we as handlers often fail to give our dogs the information they need in order to be successful in our environments, especially the trial environment. During the weekend, I picked up two main ideas from Suzanne relating to dogs who are reactive in trial environments, and both are absolutely true for Maisy and I.

First, Suzanne said that a huge mistake handlers make is in using management far too often. Although management is often useful and necessary, excessive reliance on it can create problems. For one thing, it’s often exhausting for the handler to micromanage the dog’s every action. I know that I find trials tiring for that exact reason: I spend so much time taking care of Maisy, there’s no time to take care of me. Beyond that, management will always fail at some point. It’s impossible to control everything all the time. Somewhere along the line, we will fail.

At this point, an audience member asked what she should do with her dog. If she doesn’t manage him closely, he’s snarky with the other dogs there, which is clearly not acceptable at a trial. Suzanne’s response really struck me: “Have you taught him how to deal with crowds? He might be missing a skill he needs.”

Maisy certainly has impulse control issues. She finds it hard not to try to go visit other dogs. The problem with a trial is that there are so many other dogs, it seems like she gets over-stimulated, tired, and then reactive. Perhaps gradually exposing her to longer and longer periods of time in chaotic environments would help her learn how to deal with the stress of a trial site. Beyond that? I’m not sure what other skills to teach her. How to walk by (and ignore) other dogs, I suppose, and maybe a relax or settle cue. I’ll need to think more about this (suggestions welcome).

The other big idea I picked up about reactivity in trials had to do with handler nerves. Performance dogs are often very sensitive to their handlers- it’s part of what makes them so good in the ring. The problem with that is that when we get stressed out because we’re nervous about being judged, the dog can’t understand that. We may know that it’s all in fun, and that the outcome ultimately doesn’t matter, but our dogs have no way of understanding that. We must, Suzanne stressed, learn to deal with our issues away from our dogs. After all, if you are at the center of your dog’s world and you fall apart, the dog has nothing to lean on.

This, too, really struck me. When Maisy and I went to our first trial just over a year ago, I had no idea what to expect. I certainly didn’t know enough to be nervous! I thought we’d go for the experience, and hoped that by the end of the year, we’d have just one qualifying run. Instead, we titled that weekend. Maisy did great. The next week, when we started our first reactive dog class, the instructor told me she’d seen us at the trial, and couldn’t understand what a happy dog like Maisy was doing in that class.

We went to a total of five trials last year, and at each one, Maisy became progressively more reactive. At the same time, I became progressively more nervous during each trial. I am quite sure that we were both feeding off the other’s negative emotions, and I'm worried that we’re at the point where I’ve conditioned negative feelings about the environment in general, even if I weren’t nervous. Of course, I am nervous, and not entirely sure how to conquer my ring nerves. Again… suggestions welcome!

A few weeks ago, my trainer asked me if I thought I was going to enter Maisy in the next rally trial. I answered that it depended on whether or not Maisy was ready. Then I stopped, and amended my statement: “It depends on whether I’m ready.”

Although I believe Maisy has some limitations due to her reactivity, I do have to wonder how much I’ve contributed to it. She is an incredibly sensitive dog, and while I’m often glad she trusts me as much as she does, I feel awful that I can’t be a better partner for her… which is probably why Suzanne’s words hit me as hard as they do. I don’t think there is any point in regretting the past- you can’t change it, after all- but it does challenge me to think of ways to improve in the future. And knowing is half the battle.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Performance Dogs, Their Personalities, and Reactivity

Although the “this is how to work with a reactive dog” information was interesting, Suzanne’s take on the causes of reactivity took things to a whole new level for me. She said that one of the major reasons dogs become reactive is because we as handlers fail to give our dogs the tools and information they need to be successful in the environments we’ve created for them. This is especially the case for performance dogs, both because the environments are more demanding, and because the dogs themselves are generally different, personality-wise, than the typical pet dog. Today, I’m going to talk largely about the way the performance dog’s personality affects reactivity.

Performance dogs are usually chosen because they are smart, confident and highly responsive to humans. These factors make the dog very good at their jobs, but they also come along with certain drawbacks. For one thing, Suzanne pointed out that responsive dogs typically have more trouble modulating their emotions and actions. Plus, as a result of being smart and confident, they tend to assume that they know what you want, and then react based on faulty assumptions. And of course, there is the ever-present problem of mistaking overly aroused, out of control dogs for ones with “drive.”

The problem is often compounded because it’s so much more fun to teach skills, especially fast-moving, highly-active ones. As a result, we often shape our dogs into frantic beings who don’t know how to relax. What we really ought to be doing with them is laying a groundwork of self-control, such as through off-switch games, also called jazz up and settle down.

We can also get more impulse control from our dogs if we teach them to wait for explicit directions, especially when it comes to exciting things like greeting people and other dogs. We can help them out by teaching them that just because they want to go say hi, it doesn’t mean they get to. If saying hi is dependent on receiving permission from the handler, the dog doesn’t make the assumption that he’s allowed to say hi to everyone.

Further, by keeping these greetings short, we can ensure the dog is successful in his social encounters. Some dogs become reactive because, while they desire interaction, they don’t have the social skills to maintain an ongoing interaction with strangers. We can help them build these skills by following the three second rule: we cue our dog to go say hi, count to three, and then call the dog away. Suzanne said that most dogs won’t disengage, even when they’re uncomfortable, because to do so would be rude. We can relieve that discomfort by calling them away, assessing their feelings, and allowing them the option to return-or not- dependent on their comfort level.

These responsive dogs are often quite human-centered, as well, which means that when they’re faced with a novel situation, they will look to us, their humans, for information on how they ought to react. When we fail to give them the information they’re seeking, they sometimes decide that they’d best do something, because it’s clear we’re not going to. We can help them by acknowledging them every time they check in with us, even if it’s as simple as a smile and nod. “Yes, I noticed that bicycle. Interesting, isn’t it?” This way, the dog knows if they ought to worry or not, instead of making an assumption.

Unfortunately, we handlers sometimes do something even worse than fail to give information: we end up giving the wrong information. I think it’s fairly common knowledge that tension runs down the leash. Suzanne stressed that it’s important to allow slack in the leash whenever possible. We don’t want to let the dog pull us, of course, but especially during greetings, we should move closer and allow slack in the leash. This can go a long way towards reducing the tension in a social encounter.

But tension isn’t just communicated via the leash. Performance dogs are often quite sensitive to human moods, so we need to make sure that we keep our bodies as relaxed as possible, too. When faced with a trigger, instead of stiffening and holding our breath, we can be deliberately relaxed by keeping our bodies relaxed and moving loosely. A soft face, tilted head, and even breathing will go a long way towards telling our dogs there is nothing to worry about.

I got to experience the profound difference this can make the very same day I learned about it. I took Maisy for a walk, and while we were out, saw one of her triggers: someone riding a bicycle. Reflexively, I stopped dead in my tracks so that we could let it pass us without getting any closer. Of course, Maisy lunged and barked. I immediately realized that her response was the direct result of my behavior. I had, in essence, “frozen,” which in dog body language means that I was worried about something. Since I obviously wasn’t going to do anything about that scary bike, Maisy took it upon herself to protect us.

I decided to take Suzanne’s advice, so the next time we saw a bike, I kept walking, moving in a large arc away from the bike instead of freezing, and made a conscious effort to remain loose and unconcerned. It was hard, but you know what? Maisy looked at the bike, looked at me, and decided that there was nothing for her to worry about. Amazing!

Since then, I’ve been working hard at controlling my body language so that I’m sending Maisy the right signals. I’ve also been doing my best to pay attention to her requests for information, and to respond to them appropriately. It’s paying off, too. In the last two weeks, she’s done really well in a variety of challenging situations, including everything from walks by bike paths to small, crowded pet stores. I am so proud of her.

So, what do you think? How does your body language affect your dog? Do you know? Or, are you like I was, and inadvertently sending the wrong signals? I’d love to hear what your experiences have been.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Working with Reactive Dogs

We spent some time on both days talking about reactive dogs, and naturally, I found this to be perhaps the most useful part of the weekend. So useful, in fact, that I have to split this entry into parts! This one is about the official “how-to” of working with a reactive dog.

Suzanne’s work with reactive dogs really isn’t that much different than a lot of what is out there, but it is the subtle spin that she puts on the already familiar territory that’s fascinating. Instead of teaching a dog “watch me” or “look at that,” she teaches an auto check-in. The auto check-in has two primary goals: First, for handlers to reward their dogs when they choose to be attentive to the handler, and second, for the dog to choose to voluntarily be attentive to their human when faced with a decision.

The check-in is exactly like it sounds: Every 5-7 seconds, the dog ought to look at handler without being prompted to do so. The auto check-in depends on the dog volunteering the behavior instead of the handler requesting it because Suzanne strongly feels that a requested behavior is only as strong as the handler’s willingness to ask for it at the right time.

There are some pretty strong benefits to teaching the dog to willingly offer this behavior. Suzanne said that, in her experience, an unprompted behavior is more persistent and more durable than one which is prompted by the handler. Since the dog is choosing to check-in with the handler instead of acting reactively, it means that the handler doesn’t have to scan the environment for the dog. This allows the handler to be more relaxed, because she can trust that the dog will make the right choice. It’s also easier because sometimes it’s impossible to identify a trigger before the dog does.

In fact, Suzanne said that the handler shouldn’t scan the environment looking for triggers, though she acknowledged this is difficult. Instead, we should watch the dog, and let the dog tell us when there is something to be worried about. She told us about a neat study (I wish I had the citation) where the researchers set up a dogs and their handlers with barriers situated in such a manner that the handler couldn’t see when a trigger approached, but the dog could. When the handlers could see the trigger, the dogs reacted when it was approximately 15 feet away. However, when the handlers couldn’t see the trigger, the dogs wouldn’t react until the trigger was an average of 3 feet away.

Anyway, Suzanne said the auto check-in is truly a gift. She wrote in the hand out, “The dog himself has chosen to seek the social interaction with the handler instead of tuning them out in favor of an outwards draw by whatever is upsetting, attracting or distracting him.” This is pretty awesome, especially since prompting a check-in does very little to shift the dog’s motivation or emotions.

Teaching the auto check-in is pretty easy, as it is simply captured. Suzanne didn’t use clickers, she instead responded to voluntary eye contact by having the handler become incredibly excited, animated, and generous, with about 10 seconds of continuous reinforcement using both high value treats and praise. Dogs picked up the auto check-in pretty quickly during the demos.

The next step was to present the dog with a distraction. Naturally, she talked about thresholds, but I liked that she broke it down into distance, duration and intensity. Usually when people talk about working with thresholds, they talk about distance only. Suzanne said it’s important to control all three elements of a trigger. I understood this instinctively, but it was really nice to have it verbalized. Interestingly, when I thought about the different situations in which Maisy has gone over-threshold, I realized that most of the time it is due to duration. Yes, there are some stimuli that are too close or too intense, but if they come and go quickly, she is far less likely to react. For example, recently, a bike (one of Maisy’s triggers) came whizzing by us very fast (high intensity), and very close (about 2 feet away, so very little distance), but because it was there and gone so quickly (low duration), she was fine. (And yes, she got jackpotted like crazy! I’m so proud!)

When she presents distractions, she wants it to grab the dog’s attention. The goal is not to have a dog focused on the handler only, while ignoring the environment. Rather, she wants the dog to split his attention back and forth between both the environment and the handler without becoming overly aroused. She calls this the “think and learn” zone, and said that just as it is impossible for a dog to think when over-threshold, “sub-threshold” learning is also useless.

If the dog fails to check in regularly, Suzanne recommended using passive prompts. Instead of calling the dog’s name or using a cue, she recommended stepping into (or out of) the dog’s peripheral vision. If this doesn’t work, a light touch would be okay. As a last resort, it is okay to verbally prompt the check-in, but this would be a sign that perhaps the distraction is too great.

I liked the auto check-ins, and was very impressed by the responses of the dogs. Also, I do hope you’ll excuse a bit of self-congratulations here: I’ve always felt that playing Look at That made more sense unprompted. While Maisy does know the word “look,” I usually let her initiate the game instead of prompting it. It was nice to have some confirmation that that decision was sensible. However, I do tend to prompt Maisy with her name fairly often. It’s very useful, but as Suzanne points out, it hasn’t really taught Maisy what I’d like her to do.

I’m pretty excited to work on teaching her more auto check-ins, and to rely less on active prompts. I’m also excited about some of the other stuff I learned about reactive dogs, which I’ll tell you about soon.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Structure and Function

In the morning of the second day, we spent some time discussing structure and function. She defines structure as how the dog is physically put together, while function refers to how it works together. Good structure doesn’t necessarily mean that the dog will physically function well, just as a dog’s ability to run and jump and such doesn’t mean it is well-structured.

Suzanne starts evaluating a dog’s structure and function by looking at how the dog stands naturally. She wants to see a balanced looking dog. Although she didn’t define what this means, she did say that it’s fairly obvious when you’re looking at an unbalanced dog. It’s true, too. We looked at several dogs throughout the weekend, and it was pretty easy to see where certain dogs just looked off.

She also looked at the topline and the bottomline. The topline should be fairly flat and level. Any concavity to the back probably indicates a structural issue that will affect function. The bottomline, or the belly, also ought to be quite taut, especially in a performance dog. This bottomline tells you about the dog’s core muscle strength, which in turn tells you something about how the back and hips will work.

Suzanne also looks at a sitting dog. A dog who is sitting with a “tight tuck,” that is, with the hip, knee and toe lined up, has better structure than one whose toe comes farther forward. I was sad to hear this; Maisy often has her feet well under her in a loose sit. She also looks to see how long it takes the dog to shift positions. The sooner they shift, the more uncomfortable they are. She also said that if a dog never offers a sit, that is a sign that the dog has physical discomfort as well.

Next, Suzanne has the dog walk (walking is easier to evaluate than trotting) away from her and back towards her, as well as perpendicularly. She’s looking for fluid, flowing movements, and is checking to see that all joints bend. If a knee joint doesn’t bend, this will change the rotation of the hip, and eventually affect the back. She’ll also look at the range of motion a dog has. In the front legs, a normal ROM shows forward extension perpendicular to the ground.

She also sometimes checks the hocks to see if they hyper-extend. To test this, she puts gets the dog to put her back foot underneath him, and to have her put weight on it. Then, she’ll lightly push on the back of the hock (towards the front). Ideally, the hock shouldn’t move much- it should “lock” into place. This locking hock, in addition to strong core muscles, gives dogs the power they need to jump. Interestingly, in order to jump, a dog needs to be able to bring their center of gravity up to half the height of the jump before they ever leave the ground. (I did try this test out with Maisy later; she failed.)

I asked specifically about short-legged, long-backed dogs, seeing as how I have a particular interest in such dogs. Suzanne first made the point that there are no “long-backed” dogs. If their legs were of a normal length, their backs would appear proportionate. Not only that, but back issues on the short-leggers tend to be a result not of the length of the back, but rather of the structure of the leg. To make the legs short, the bones need to change. If you ever look at the front of a short-legged dog, you’ll notice that the bones curve in an hourglass shape, and that the feet or toes turn out. This specifically affects the “landing gear” of a dog who is jumping. They need to get their feet underneath them perfectly. I found this bit absolutely fascinating. Although Maisy is always quite willing to jump up on to surface, like the bed, she is occasionally resistant to jumping down off a surface. That resistance makes so much more sense now.

This doesn’t mean that all short-leggers should be prohibited from jumping, but it does mean you should be very cautious, as they are more likely to develop shoulder problems in the future. When I asked if I could mitigate the effects of being short in the leg through passive stretching, Suzanne told me that I needed to ask myself if I ought to be having Maisy jump at all. She later amended this to say that a single jump, such as in obedience, is probably not a big deal, but that I should think long and hard about activities like flyball or agility.

Suzanne also stated that the longer legged dogs aren’t immune to problems. As legs get longer, the muscles do, as well. There is the same amount of muscle mass, but since the muscle is stretched, which practically means that there isn’t as much support for the joints and ligaments.

Although you can do a lot to help support your performance dog, Suzanne did say that there is a limit to what conditioning can do. You can never turn a basketball player into a gymnast, after all. Her basic rule of thumb is that if you can see or feel a bone, there are fewer muscles available to help support that joint.

The fascinating part of all of this was that Suzanne reviewed several dogs who were having performance issues- refusing to lie down on the table, getting tired quickly, etc. Each one had a physical issue contributing to their performance problem. As a result, she told us to remember that if we have a willing, compliant dog who knows what the job is and fails anyway, it is highly unlikely they are “blowing us off” or “being dominant.” Instead, it is likely there is a structural or functional problem at work. We should always trust that our dog is giving us her best effort.

I really enjoyed this section of the weekend as I knew pretty much nothing about dog conformation. I can name some of the parts, but have no idea how they ought to look, nor the implications of how they’re put together. Obviously, Suzanne had to gloss over a lot of it, but I still really enjoyed the little taste of it that I got. I will definitely be reading more on structure and function soon.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Answering the Questions for Maisy

In my last entry, I detailed what the questions are, but I really didn't personalize them. (Seriously, folks, I'm already pretty long-winded for a blog anyway, can you imagine how much worse it would be if I didn't break these things down?) Anyway, today I want to post a bit about how answering these questions have changed my perspective on Maisy.

Question 1: Hello?
Due to our long association with one another, this one is easy. If I say Maisy's name, or any one of her nicknames (and there are many; I have no idea how she understands they all refer to her), she wags her tail. Immediately. Every time. She'll often do this when someone else says her name, too. It is safe to say that Maisy is quite willing to interact with me.

Question 2: Who are you?
and
Question 3: How is this for you?
I've combined these two questions because I think they're pretty bound up in one another, and I think my post would be far more disjointed if I didn't combine them.

For a long time, when I described Maisy, I described her as "fearful" and "reactive." Those are the two adjectives that came out of my mouth most often, though I often followed it up with "extremely soft." The problem with these descriptors are two-fold. First, they're primarily negative, and second, I'm not sure they're really all that accurate.

I've been watching Maisy's responses lately, and she's surprised me. A lot. For example, I've always thought she's fearful because she's a bit jumpy and startles easily. An unusual noise or unexpected event will make her jump backwards and perhaps tuck her tail and slink a little bit. But her resiliency is amazing; she'll often come back to that scary thing quite quickly. I've written before about Maisy's response to a wobble board. It initially startled her, but she came right back to it, and continued to interact with it. Is this what a fearful dog would do?

And in the past week, I've seen countless examples of her jumping in surprise, and then immediately calming down or returning to work. I'm beginning to think that a better descriptor for her is sensitive. The way I react to something will predict the way she reacts. Lately, I've been paying attention to Maisy's triggers, and making a huge effort not to stiffen up (this was the direct result of Suzanne's seminar, and I'll write about it in more detail soon). When I remain loose, Maisy might look at the trigger, and even take a few steps towards it, but when she sees I'm fine, she relaxes. When the trigger also startles me and I gasp or start breathing differently, or if I tighten the leash or tense my body, then she's far more likely to lunge, growl or bark. Interesting.

She is very sensitive to her environment, and to me.

I've also talked about Maisy as "not liking children," but I'm not sure that's true, either. Yesterday, she actually asked to go say hi to a strange child. We were out in the front yard, and I had Maisy off leash to work on heeling (the reward was throwing her ball), when I saw a mother pushing her toddler in a stroller. I called Maisy to me, put her back on leash, and as they came close, the mother asked if her toddler could say hi. I started to say no, reflexively, but then I looked at Maisy: She was loose, wriggling, and had a "helicopter tail." She wanted to say hi.

The important question of asking "How is this for you?" is about asking it every time the situation comes up. Will she always want to greet a child? No, but sometimes she will.

Some other descriptions of Maisy: she's funny, and loves to play. She's incredibly snuggly, and it's a rare morning that I don't wake up with a dog in my arms. She follows me everywhere, but is quite content to stay with other people she knows. In fact, although she can be a bit shy with people she doesn't know, once she meets someone, she's incredibly friendly. She's very visual, and I sometimes wonder if her sight isn't a stronger sense than smell. She's biddable, smart (too smart, sometimes!), and very willing.

And she's mine.

Question 4: May I...?
Generally, yes, I may. Although Maisy is pretty clear that she hates being groomed. Nails, brushing, baths, all of it. I try to make those times worth her while with lots of treats, but even so, she'd rather not, thank you.

Question 5: Can you...?
Most of the time, yes, she can. Intellectually, she's very smart. She learns quickly, which is both a blessing and a curse. If she's not understanding something I'm trying to teach her, it's pretty much always my fault. We used to really struggle with left pivots, until I began to hold my shoulder slightly differently. Then she nailed them every time.

Emotionally, she's getting better. She still does have some of that reactivity, but it's improving all the time. I'll have to do a separate post on this soon, but I'd say we're down from having a reactive outburst every time we're in public to about 20% of the time.

Physically... well, some days are better than others. She does have some back issues, and she sees a chiropractor and canine massage therapist who does massage, acupressure and reiki every month. These things help a lot, but even so, there are days where she's reluctant to jump. I'm learning to assess her before I ask her to jump, because if I ask, she'll do it, even if it hurts.

Question 6: Can we...?
Yes. We can. Maisy will always try for me. I am, however, aware that my reactions will affect her, and so when she fails to do something properly, I try to always look at myself first. I think our biggest obstacle to trials is my nerves, not the environment, and so I'm starting to work through those issues as best I can so that my half of "we" actually can do it.


I've learned a lot by stepping back and asking the questions on a regular basis, especially "How is this for you?" I've made assumptions that weren't true, like with the child yesterday. Have any of you guys tried asking your dog any of the questions? If so, what did you learn? Was it surprising, or just as you expected?

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: The Elemental Questions

The first session of the seminar was spent discussing what Suzanne calls “The Elemental Questions.” These questions were designed to help people get to the core of who their dog is, and to deepen their relationship with their dog. While the questions are simple, they require you to be open to the answers, and to make detailed observations.

Question 1: Hello?
Perhaps the easiest of the questions, this is the one that most people fail to ask. Literally, we are asking the dog if they’d like to interact with us, rather than assuming that they do. People tend to overwhelm dogs, thinking that we have the right to invade their space, and this question makes us step back, and respect the dog’s desires, too.

Question 2: Who are you?
In asking who the dog is, we need to let go of all of our preconceived notions of who the dog is. We tend to carry baggage around on behalf of our dogs, and these labels or frames of reference may be incomplete or inaccurate. By asking the question “Who are you?” we take a detailed look at the dog, gauging her physical, emotional and intellectual abilities. Suzanne suggests that we create lists or protocols, and check everything systematically, and to be aware that as people, we have a tendency to skip over the items that we aren’t sure about, or aren’t as good at seeing.

When we ask a dog who she is, we need to be present in the moment. Stand where the dog stands, and see what she sees. Really try to get into the dog’s mind. How is the dog attending to the environment? Visually? By listening? By touching things or chewing on them? By sniffing? Identify your own sensory preference, too, and ask yourself, how does my preferred way of attending to the environment (typically visual) affect the way I interpret my dog’s reactions based on her preferred sense (typically olfactory)? Suzanne recommended practicing using our other senses one at a time so that we can become better at attending to cues in the environment that we might miss otherwise.

Over and over again, she stressed that the answers are already there. We just have to find the questions.

Question 3: How is this for you?
In the previous question, we asked the dog how she perceives the world. In this question, we ask how those perceptions affect her. The most important, and perhaps the only, aspect to this question is, “Do you feel safe?” If not, why not? And what can you do to help the dog feel safe?

If they don’t feel safe, then no matter what you’re doing, it’s not humane. As a positive trainer, I certainly agree that if the prong collar makes a dog feel unsafe, it isn’t humane… but it’s a bit harder to face the idea that if a clicker feels unsafe, it, too, is inhumane.

Question 4: May I…?
This question is similar to the first one. We are again asking the dog permission to step into her world. The difference is that the first question is a hands off question, while this question asks if we may step into her space, touch her, or ask her to do stuff.

Question 5: Can you…?
By asking this question, we are asking the dog if she has the ability to do something. The question has three components. Can the dog literally meet the physical demand of the task? Sometimes, the answer is no. We also must ask if the dog has the intellectual understanding of the task. Does she understand what we want? And, we must ask if the dog has the emotional ability to do something. Do they feel safe enough to perform the given task right now, or are they too over-aroused or shut down instead?

Question 6: Can we…?
This question is more about the handler than the dog, and it ought to be asked last. Unfortunately, people often ask it far too soon, and we often fail to consider our own impact on the dog’s abilities. Specifically, we need to carefully look at ourselves, and consider if we are detracting from our dog’s abilities, understanding or enjoyment.


These are not easy questions to ask, and more importantly, they are not a one-time assessment. Each time we interact with our dog, we need to ask them all over again. Just like us, dogs grow and change. If we are willing to ask our dogs the questions every day, or every hour, or even every moment, it is much easier to develop the deep, respectful relationship that we are striving for.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar

This weekend I had the good fortune to attend a seminar given by Suzanne Clothier. I was very excited about this seminar because I wanted to learn more about her Relationship Centered Training. I have said over and over again that training and trialing is about relationship, and so I was eager to learn how Suzanne conceptualizes and uses this concept in training.

Overall, I really enjoyed the seminar. I learned a lot, although at times, I felt overwhelmed. Some of what she said was extremely challenging to my current worldview, and while I initially disagreed with some of it, I am excited to think over what I disagreed with, and more importantly why I disagreed. In the end, I’m not sure if I will come to agree with her or not, but in the process, I know that I will have a more well-rounded education and a better thought-out philosophy on dog training.

All of which is to say: You may expect a lot of blogging from me about this seminar. I am first going to spend a few posts summarizing what I learned from the seminar. These posts will not offer much personal insight, and I’ll attempt to represent what she said as accurately as possible. I do hope that I render it fairly, as I’m sure I missed some details that clarifies something she said, and there is certainly a high probability that I misunderstood a few things.

After those summaries, I will begin a series of posts discussing my personal reactions to her work, and the way I hope to apply what I’ve learned. I definitely took away a lot great ideas, and things that I really want to try with Maisy. Although I don’t really feel like these ideas are new in and of themselves, I do think Suzanne’s perspective was unique. A slightly different way of looking at things or doing things can make a huge difference.

In the meantime, I strongly encourage you to attend a seminar by Suzanne if you ever get the opportunity. She’s fabulously engaging, quite funny, and very real and honest. She is also very direct, and strikes me as someone who absolutely believes in what she’s saying, and frankly, she doesn’t care if you disagree with her. But the amazing thing is, she’s not rude about it. In that sense, she’s very dog-like: “This is how it is for me. Would you like me to explain it for you?”

And, I absolutely recommend that you read Bones Would Rain from the Sky. Although the seminar really helped flesh out a lot of what she said in the book, all of the basics are there.

Okay, I’m off to work on my first post on the seminar…