Shedd Animal Training Seminar: Training Multiple Animals

While one-on-one training is ideal, it’s not always possible. Maybe you need multiple animals for a trick, maybe you’re working with a mom whose baby is too young to be separated from her, or maybe you’ve got highly flock/herd oriented animals who just don’t do well when apart from its cohorts. Whatever the case, sometimes training multiple animals at once is a necessity.

As with many training questions, the answer to how to best set up a session with more than one animal depends on many factors. The species, the size of the group, and the trainer’s experience level all matter. And, Ken said, one of the most important considerations has to do with social situations. Although dominance is something of a dirty word in the dog world, it does exist, and it’s important to understand who is currently at the top of the social structure and whether or not that’s in flux. Understanding the current social situation will help you be more successful. For example, a lower-ranking animal will be extremely hesitant to perform a behavior that requires it to be in close proximity to a higher-ranking one. It could even provoke a fight, which would definitely wreck your training session for the day.

When training in a group, Ken encouraged us to find a way to most closely replicate an individual session. Physical separation is the easiest way to do this; animals could be brought out of an adjoining enclosure one by one. If this is not possible, spatial separation may be another viable option. To do this, two trainers are required. One occupies the group (by feeding them, usually), while the other works with an animal a short distance away. If this won’t work either, then the next option is to use stationing.

A selection of name targets used by Shedd staff.

Stationing is when an animal goes to and stays at a designated spot. Stationing can take several different forms. In location specific stationing, the animal will go to a specific place in its habitat, such as under a tree or next to a boulder. Position specific stationing is very natural to animals; it requires them to take up a position relative to others in the group. In other words, they always line up in the same order, regardless of which habitat they are in. Name targets are used to direct the animal to a particular place. Shedd uses colorful shapes, and many of their animals know to look for the shape they’ve been assigned and station there. Choice is a more informal type of stationing in which the animal needs to follow certain guidelines but has more control over the details. For example, the group may be required to assemble in front of the trainer, but can choose where to stand in relation to one another. Finally, shuffle stationing is where each animal chooses a spot on their own, and then moves to a location as specified by the trainer.

The type of stationing you use will depend on the group and your goals. For example, location specific stationing is often used for meal times. Position specific stationing is frequently used during training sessions.

A common question people have about group training is how to avoid bridging confusion. How will each animal know if the bridge was meant for it or not? Ken recommended having multiple bridges for each animal, which means that you will need to teach each animal several bridges separately before you bring them together as a group. Although we often think of bridges as audible (a click or a whistle), Ken suggested having tactile bridges (a tap on a particular body part) and visual bridges (pointing distinctly in the animal’s face or a thumbs up) as well.

Another group bridging problem occurs during unison behaviors. If there are three dolphins leaping into the air, and two get it right but the third doesn’t, the trainer needs to decide whether or not to give the bridge. There are two ways to approach this. You can make the bridge group-contingent. This requires all of the animals to do the behavior correctly in order to get the bridge and subsequent reinforcement. This is particularly useful when competition between two animals is causing one to fail. The other option is to not give the bridge, but reinforce the animals that were correct. Of course, this only works if the behavior is “self-terminated” (ie, ends on its own and not continued or repeated until bridged).

The last thing Ken encouraged us to consider when training a group of animals is the concept of fairness. Animals are very aware of whether or not they are receiving your attention or food… and if someone else is receiving it instead! What’s more, he believes that animals will question why they should bother to pay attention to you if you aren’t paying attention to them. Animals need to be taught how to share your attention (and food!), so Ken encouraged us to recognize that during a group training session, all of the animals are doing something. Whether it’s simply staying at their station or waiting their turn, all animals should be reinforced equally. The ultimate goal is to avoid competition, so you’ll need to set up your sessions well. Know your animals and your goals.

Although this is just a very brief look at a pretty complex topic, I hope it gives you a starting point the next time you find yourself faced with the need to train more than one animal at a time. And if you often train multiple animals, join the conversation! What have you done to make your job easier?

Do Methods Matter?

As a dog trainer, I think often about how and why I train the way I do. Lately, I’ve been especially interested in what makes for good training. What skills do I need to have to help a dog learn efficiently? What factors contribute to the end result/behavior I’m looking for? In an effort to figure it out, I’ve been doing a lot of reading, and I have been asking others for their insight, too. In the process, I’ve discovered that good trainers:

• Have excellent timing, which allows them to communicate their expectations to their dogs clearly.
• Are consistent and predictable in their actions.
• Have good observation skills, which allow them to see both the dog’s behavior as well as his emotional state.
• Keep their rate of feedback high, which helps the dog understand what is wanted of him.
• Can adjust the lesson plan, asking for more when the dog is ready, and balancing the current level of learning with appropriate distractions.
• Are patient and calm during training.
• Are capable of being creative in their approach, and are always learning new ways of doing things.
• Definitely have a good sense of humor and a healthy dose of humility; things never seem to go the way we expect in training!

What’s missing in this list, though, is how the training is done. In fact, in my research, I found that people very rarely specify that a good trainer avoids corrections and focuses on positive reinforcement. Which leads me to wonder… do methods matter?

 

This is what I want. How do I get it?

Long-time readers know that I feel quite strongly about using positive methods; I do not use pain or fear when I work with a dog. I’ve even gone so far as to say that it’s perfectly possible to train without physical corrections. But for all that, I don’t think that people who train differently than I do are bad trainers. In fact, it would seem that “traditional trainers” are just as capable of demonstrating the skills needed to be good trainers as “positive trainers” are. Good timing, consistency, and observational skills are important whether you’re using a choke chain or a clicker. High feedback rates? Creativity? Adjusting criteria effectively? Ability to remain calm? Yup, all are possible, no matter how you train.

In short, good training is good training, no matter how you do it. So, again, I must ask: do methods matter?

Well, they do for me. I'm a process-oriented person who is interested in more than just the end result. I enjoy teaching my dog how to think and offer behaviors. I think it is fun to watch her figure out the problems I present her. I want a relationship built on feelings of trust and safety, and I think this is easier to do when the dog doesn't need to worry about being hurt or scared.

In addition, I much prefer the end result that comes from a dog who is a willing, cooperative partner that isn’t afraid to try new things. In my experience, dogs who have been trained with positive methods tend to have happier, more enthusiastic performances than those who have been trained with corrections. Of course, I must point out that I have seen very flashy performances come from dogs owned by traditional trainers, and it would be unfair to say that all dogs trained with corrections are miserable. What's more, I've seen some pretty stressed positively trained dogs.

Again, good training is good training. But here's the thing: it’s hard to be good.

If we're honest, most of us probably fall in the mediocre range of training skills. If we keep working at it, we will improve, but in the meantime, we make mistakes. And this is where I see the biggest difference between methods. For example, poor timing plagues many of us, and it leads to confusion because the dog isn’t sure what’s expected of him. The result will be hesitant responses and sloppy behaviors, no matter how you train. But where an uncertain, clicker trained dog will probably continue to keep working, the uncertain, traditionally trained dog is more likely to display signs of avoidance and stop trying entirely.

Certainly, the dog himself influences this a great deal. The “harder” dog- the one who isn’t terribly sensitive either physically or emotionally- will probably be able to sort through inconsistent and confusing messages. The “softer” dog probably doesn’t have that same stamina and persistence, and as a result, tends to shut down much sooner and more often. Unfortunately, it seems that many people vastly underestimate how sensitive their dogs are. The dog is labeled as “stupid” or “untrainable,” and everyone’s quality of life goes down.

I also think it’s easier to become a good trainer when you use positive methods. Take, for example, the skill of adjusting criteria. Ideally, regardless of our training style, we will work to set our dogs up for success. Whether we're clicking or correcting, we want to balance the dog's current level of learning with distractions. With traditional training, the temptation to wait for the dog to make a mistake so we can correct him is strong. Some folks will even purposely set their dogs up to be wrong. Compare this to positive training, where the entire goal is to break the behavior down into small, attainable pieces, which makes it easier to take distractions into account.

I also think positive methods make it easier for the trainer to control her emotions. I know that when I'm focused on seeing mistakes, agitation and frustration tend to creep in. I struggle to remain calm and patient when all I see is wrong behavior. This could just be a quirk of my personality, but I don't think so. I know enough other people who share it to believe this is just the way we are. We humans tend to see what we focus on, and we react to what we see. Reframing the training experience so that we’re focusing on the positive instead of the negative radically changes our emotional reactions.

Again, good trainers have learned to master these skills regardless of their methods, and they can get spectacular performances from their dogs as a result. But for the rest of us? Well, I think the methods do matter. The average person will find it easier to get the results they want using a positive reinforcement-based approach.

But don’t take my word for it. Try it for yourself. And no matter how you choose to train, strive to be good at it. Your dog will thank you.

Why You Need a Trainer (Even If You Can't Afford One)

I love the internet for the quick access it gives me to a wide variety of topics, including all things dog. Many training questions are easily answered online, which is great because plenty of people live in areas where they can’t find a trainer they like, or because they can’t afford one. Unfortunately, if your dog has a behavior problem, you need to find the time or money to hire a professional.

You can try to go it alone, of course, and you’ll probably make some progress. But I believe that you’ll get far better results if you hire a professional to help you. I know that might sound odd- after all, I write a blog with lots of “how tos” about reactivity- but my intention has always been that this information would supplement services from a professional trainer, not replace them. Here’s why:

Working with professionals gave me this: a dog who can relax .

1. You need a trainer for her knowledge.
The fact of the matter is, if you knew how to handle your dog’s behavior problem, you would have already fixed it. You need someone who understands the complexity of behavior. A good professional will understand things like psychology, ethology, pharmacology, and epidemiology, and how that applies specifically to your dog.

2. You need a trainer for her experience.
Being book smart is great, but if you can’t implement what you’ve learned, it won’t do you much good. You need someone who has worked with other dogs like yours, and who knows what worked (and what didn’t).

3. You need a trainer for her skills.
Good training requires some very specific skills, such as observation, timing, and ability to adjust criteria. These are things that are crucial to a dog’s success, and while you can (and will!) learn them, you need someone who can help you until you do.

4. You need a trainer for her fresh perspective.
Even if you are well-educated, experienced, and have developed excellent skills, you will still probably benefit from consulting with a professional. Sometimes all you need to break through a particular problem is a new way of looking at things. While you might be able to do this online, it’s much easier to do when you have a second set of eyes on your dog.

5. You need a trainer for her consistency.
Despite what television might lead you to believe, there are rarely quick fixes when it comes to behavior problems. In addition, there are so many competing ideas on the internet that do-it-yourselfers often jump from technique to technique and never give any one of them a chance to work. A trainer will encourage you to stick with a plan long enough for you to see results.

6. You need a trainer for her ability to adjust the plan.
At the same time, sometimes the particular approach you’ve chosen just isn’t a good fit for you or your dog. Stubbornly sticking with a poor training plan is just as bad as being inconsistent, so you need someone who is skilled enough to decide when you need to change the plan of attack… and what to change it to.

7. You need a trainer for her ability to set up effective sessions.
Anyone doing behavior modification knows how hard it can be to set up a good training session. Preventing a reactive dog from going over threshold can be difficult at the best of times; from loose dogs to sudden environmental changes to people who just can’t follow instructions, the real world is rarely ideal. Worse, it can set your training back. A professional trainer can help you manage all these variables so you can focus on your dog.

8. You need a trainer for her feedback.
Most people are incredibly unaware of what they’re doing with their bodies. A skilled trainer will not only notice what you’re doing, but how it’s affecting your dog. Having an external observer who can tell you about both your dog’s behavior and your own will allow you to be far more efficient with your training.

9. You need a trainer for her objectivity.
Whether you’re an eternal optimist or a terrible pessimist, you have an emotional attachment to your dog. I have been guilty of believing my dog is doing better than she is simply because I wanted so desperately for her to improve. I know others who feel so hopeless that they can’t see how much better their dog is doing. A good professional can help you see your dog as he is right now, not colored by your own dreams, expectations, or history.

10. You need a trainer for her encouragement.
This is possibly the most important reason of all. Having a dog with a behavior problem is hard. It can be frustrating and disappointing when things don’t go the way you hope. Having someone to cheer you on when it goes well and to commiserate with when it doesn’t provides you with the support system you need to keep working with your dog.


What do you think? How has working with a professional helped you with your dog? Share your comments below!

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Science-Based Training?

 Training with dad. Note the clicker in his hand.

A lot of people call clicker training (or positive-reinforcement training in general) “science-based.” But is it, really? What do we know, scientifically, about training dogs? In this, my last post on Patricia's seminar, I'll discuss some of the studies she shared with us.

I'm always astounded by the number of people who don't train their dogs. These are the people that, when they learn I do rally and obedience with Maisy, or that I teach training classes, always laugh and say, “My dog could use some obedience!” I'm usually then regaled with increasingly horrifying stories of near-death incidents resulting from a lack of training. But then Patricia shared two studies that made me wonder if most people even want a trained dog.

The first study looked at 118 dogs. Roughly half had no training, or only one basic-training class. The other half were highly trained agility, schutzhund, or search and rescue dogs. Each dog was tested on his ability to manipulate a box in order to get food out. Twice as many of the dogs in the trained group were able to get the food, suggesting that higher levels of training is associated with better problem solving skills.

The other study tested dogs' ability to discriminate quantities. The dogs were allowed to choose between small and large piles of food; in general, both groups chose the bigger amounts. However, the difference between highly trained dogs and untrained dogs became apparent in the second stage of the experiment, when the dogs watched their owners choose the smaller piles before being allowed to choose for themselves. The untrained dogs typically followed their person's lead, and also chose the smaller amount- this despite the fact that they earlier chose the bigger piles. The trained dogs, however, chose the larger piles, suggesting that training creates independent thinkers.

Independence? Better able to solve problems? Dare I say it: improved ability to think? I really don't think the average pet owner wants to live with a smart dog. Perhaps it's a good thing that pet dogs don't receive high levels of training!

Once we've made the decision to train our dogs, though, the next question becomes: how often should we train them? When Maisy and I were actively attending training classes, we were advised to train in short sessions, several times a day. At the very least, we should try to get in 5 or 6 sessions a week. As it turns out, though, this may not be the most efficient use of time.

Two separate studies found that training once a week results in “better learning performance.” They discovered that dogs acquired the skill in fewer sessions when trained less frequently than when trained daily. (One of the studies also looked at how well the dogs remembered what they'd been taught, and found that the dogs in both groups retained the task equally well.)

I think Patricia put it best: maybe the dogs learned in fewer sessions, but come on: it took eight weeks to teach a simple targetting exercise. Maybe it takes a couple of extra sessions, but by doing several sessions a day, the same task could be learned in just a few days. Still, she said these studies point out the importance of processing time; dogs need rest periods in order to learn most efficiently, especially for more complicated tasks.

Finally, every trainer has to make decisions about how they will train. Patricia shared that there are a number of studies showing that force-based training has negative effects. For example, one study showed that dogs trained with shock collars exhibited more signs of stress, even when compared to dogs trained with “fairly harsh” methods. Another found that punishment was associated with increased behavior problems, like aggression, distractability, and overall lower obedience levels. And the study I found most interesting discovered that punishment was associated with increased anxiety in fear in small dogs, but not in large ones.

There are also studies showing that reward-based training has good effects. These dogs are more likely to interact with strangers, be more playful, and are generally better at novel training tasks than dogs who are trained with punitive methods.

Patricia felt it was only fair to share a study whose results we may not like: it found that search and rescue dogs were more successful in advanced stages of training when there was “an increased use of compulsive methods.” Generally speaking, though, it seems that science favors reward-based training, which leads us to the clicker conundrum: should we use them?

One researcher trained 20 dogs to target a ball with their noses. Half the dogs were trained with a clicker, and half were trained with the verbal marker “good.” The results showed that the clicker trained dogs learned the task faster than those trained with the verbal marker (about 36 minutes as compared to 59 minutes). Patricia believes this is because the clicker makes a short, abrupt sound with a very clear start and stop. It's also a “broad noise band”- it covers more frequencies than the spoken word. All of these things make it more distinct and easier for the dogs to notice.

The last study that Patricia shared with us looked at the use of clickers and food versus food only in training. Thirty-five basenjis were taught to target a traffic cone, and once they learned the task, were variably reinforced for a maintenance period. The researchers found no difference in the amount of time that it took the dogs to learn the task; despite proponents' claims, the clicker was not found to speed up learning.

Then the researchers did extinction trials in which they quit giving food to both groups of dogs, but continued clicking the dogs in the clicker group. The results showed that the clicker-trained dogs were more resistant to extinction, to which I just have to say: DUH. The clicker is a reinforcer- it's a secondary reinforcer, not a primary one, it's true, but it's still a reinforcer. Of course the behavior didn't extinguish as quickly. They were still being reinforced. (To be fair, the study authors state that this suggests the clicker does, indeed, act as a secondary/conditioned reinforcer, and I guess it's nice to have that scientifically verified.)

So, with all of this in mind, will it train the way we train? Personally, the answer is no. I train because I enjoy it. Yes, I have a smarter dog as a result, and yes, that can make her more difficult to live with sometimes (I often wonder who is training who). But I train for the experience moreso than the end result... which is probably why I play endless shaping games but have pretty much nothing on cue. (Sigh.) And my methods? Well, those are unlikely to change, too. My choices have been made on my personal moral and philosophical beliefs, not science.

What about you? Will you change anything about your training based on these studies?

If You Want to Know More

• Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs' performance (Canis familiaris) in a problem solving task, by Marshall-Pescini, et al
• Is your choice my choice? The owners' effect on pet dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task, by Prato-Previde, et al
• The relationship between number of training sessions per week and learning in dogs, by Meyer and Ladewig
• Patricia's blog post on the Meyer and Laedwig study
• The effect of frequency and duration of training sessions on acquisition and long-term memory in dogs, by Demant et al
• Training dogs with the help of the shock collar – short and long-term behavioural effects, by Schilder and van der Borg
• Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability, by Rooney and Cowan
• Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors, by Herron et al
• Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog, by Arhant et al
• Obedience training effects on search dog performance, by Alexander et al
• Clicker Bridging Stimulus Efficacy, by Lindsay Wood
• Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), by Smith and Davis

This post has been edited for clarity (see comments). It originally said: "Independence? Better able to solve problems? Dare I say it: improved ability to think? I really don't think the average pet owner wants to live with a smart dog. Maybe instead of training the dogs, we should focus on teaching the people how to manage situations better." I think the new version is a better reflection of the study.

You Can Take the Geek Away from the Dogs...

She's down there... somewhere...

On Tuesday night, I went to the Lady Gaga concert. Wait, wait! I promise this will relate to dog training. After all, you can take the geek away from dogs, but you can’t… stop her… from thinking about dogs? I don’t know- I can’t make the metaphor work, but you know what I mean.

Anyway, I know that The Lady is not for everyone, and that’s fine. I’m not here to convince you that she’s the best thing to hit the airwaves in the last 10 years (although, in my opinion, she is. Before that, the best thing was Bree Sharp). But no matter if you love her or hate her, I think we can learn from her. As a result, I present to you…

The Top Four Things I Learned About Dog Training from Lady Gaga

1. Success takes hard work.
When Lady Gaga puts on a show, she goes all out. I was amazed by the fact that she could dance that well for that long. I mean, over 2 hours of all-out cardio would probably cause me to die of a heart attack. Not her, though. It’s clear that she’s put a lot of effort into her stage show, plus, she writes all of her own lyrics and plays the piano. She’s worked hard to get where she is.

Don’t get me wrong- success also takes talent, and a little bit of luck. But far and away, the most important ingredient for success is working hard. This means taking the time to build strong foundations for our dogs, proofing the exercises through increasing distractions, and educating ourselves on the best ways to train.

2. It’s not all about you.
Lady Gaga’s stage show was one-part charity fundraiser (for Re*Generation, a charity tackling youth homelessness), one-part social cause (gay rights, to which she devoted several songs), and one-part fan appreciation. The Lady really loves her fans, and she even delivered a lovely message that at the end of the night, we shouldn’t love her more, but rather, love ourselves more.

I suspect that the people who read my blog will agree with me: Dog sports are not all about us, the handlers. Part of why I enjoy training and trialing is the bond that I form with my dog in the process. I love the way it deepens our relationship. And I constantly remind myself that I will never sacrifice my dog’s well-being for the sake of a title. My dog doesn’t “owe” me anything, and her purpose is not to make me look good or to stroke my ego about what a good trainer I am. We’re a team. If she’s not having fun, if she doesn’t want to do it, that’s it. We’re done.

3. You have to follow your dreams.
Lady Gaga is really all about embracing your “inner freak.” She acknowledged that sometimes the media sends awful messages about how we ought look and think and act, but that we shouldn’t let society’s judgments stop us from being who we are, or who we want to become.

I think it’s easy to become discouraged sometimes, especially when you have a non-traditional breed, or a Dog with Issues. And yes, it will be more difficult for my friend and her greyhound to do obedience, or for Maisy to become a champion. We might never get there- see point 2 above- but that doesn’t mean we should give up before we even start.

4. Live in the moment.
I know this might sound odd, given Lady Gaga’s over-the-top costumes, crazy antics, and general theatrics, but the overall vibe I got from her was that of humility and thankfulness. She seems to know that popularity can be fleeting, and she doesn’t take that for granted. I think she’s loving every minute of what she’s got, knowing that it might be gone next year.

And isn’t that an important message for us all? It’s easy to dream big, or to get so focused on what we want that we forget to appreciate what we have right now. No matter where we are, whether it’s winning first place in the ring, or napping in the back yard with our dogs, we should appreciate that moment for everything that it is.

Who's training who?

There’s a saying that during every moment spent with a dog, one of you is training the other. Now, I probably spend more time than the average person training my dog, both in formal training sessions and by simply requesting a behavior before doing something she wants, like throwing her ball, which is why it always comes as such a surprise when I discover that she’s trained me to do something.

Recently, Maisy trained me to give her a cookie in the mornings. If I do, she will reinforce my cookie-giving behavior by going outside. If I don’t, she will decline to go outside, and instead remain in bed.

Here’s what happened: The Husband and I both work full-time during the day. I leave first, and for awhile, left the dog-letting-out duty to him so that she’d get “last call” as late as possible. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to be pressed for time in the mornings, which meant that sometimes he’d skip letting her out. To Maisy’s credit, she really didn’t have any accidents. Even so, I felt it was unhealthy to go from 10pm the night before until 4:30pm without peeing, so I decided that I’d be the one to let her out in the mornings.

The problem was, she wasn’t interested in going! Instead, she would much rather remain in bed with The Husband, and when I’d ask her if she’d like to go out, she’d barely open her eyes. When I told her that going out wasn’t really optional, she’d lift her head and look at me sleepily, clearly not interested in moving. She’s obviously not a morning person- er, dog- and there was no amount of begging or demanding that would get her out of bed.

So I resorted to bribery. One morning, after Maisy ignored my calls, I rattled her treat jar. Being essentially a stomach with fur and legs, she came running, and once out of bed, happily went outside. I was pleased that she had responded so well, and was hopeful that she would come a bit more promptly in the future. But the next morning, I was back to where I began, desperately rattling her treat jar.

Although she’s coming a bit more readily now, she won’t actually go out without the treat. If I try to shove her out the door, she’ll immediately bark to come back in. If, on the other hand, I give her the treat before sending her outside, she’ll happily putter around the back yard for 5-10 minutes before coming back in.

I guess I can’t really blame her, though. Given the choice between staying in bed to snuggle with The Husband, and getting up to go to work, I know where I’d rather be. It’s only the promise of a paycheck that gets me out of bed, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that she feels the same way.

Matters of Heeling: Watch Me vs. Look At That

Since Maisy and I have been working on heeling for the Five Times Challenge, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about criteria. I’ve mentioned before that I don’t require constant eye contact, but I’m finding that difficult to enforce. Maisy seems to either look around or to look me in the face; I may have chosen a middle ground, but she clearly hasn’t. In fact, she obviously didn’t read the dog books that say dogs don’t like to make direct eye contact. In fact, eye contact seems to be her preferred method of communication. When she needs to go out, she makes eye contact. When she wants food, she makes eye contact. When she wants me to throw her ball? Okay, then she usually stares at the ball, but if that fails? Eye contact.

I suppose I could teach her to use a focal point like my knee, but that just seems excessively difficult to teach, and let’s face it: I’m kind of a lazy trainer. As a result, it appears that we’ve agreed to do eye contact heeling. In ways, I like this. I love the way it makes us feel like we’re working as a team. But, as I’ve discussed, I have reservations about it. My two concessions to this are that she is allowed to break eye contact if she sees something that worries her, and we’re teaching a right-side heel to help mitigate the physical effects.

Normally, I wouldn’t even post about this. It’s a fairly minor point, and not even terribly interesting… except the part where I allow her to break eye contact if she sees something that concerns her. I suspect that this sounds odd to others, but I firmly believe it is essential to Maisy’s ability to manage her stress. Let me explain why.

There seems to be two main ways for a handler to deal with visual stimuli and their reactive dogs: they either cue their dogs to look at them (ie, “Watch Me”), or they cue the dog to look at the trigger (ie, “Look at That”). “Watch Me” is considered an incompatible behavior; the dog cannot demonstrate reactive behavior while engaged in another task. “Look at That” is a cue that is given to direct the dog to look at a visual trigger, which both allows the dog to see what’s going on, and rewards the dog for an appropriate response. This doesn’t mean that people only do one or the other. On the contrary, both cues can be very useful. Personally, though, I favor “Look at That” because Maisy is a highly visual dog. Most of her triggers are thing she sees, as opposed to sounds or smells, and she is very sensitive to fast motion, novel sights, or things that don’t look the way she expects them to.

Interestingly, she has the most difficulty when she knows something is present, but can’t see it, or when she can’t see it in its entirety. For example, on one of our recent trips to a pet store, there was only one other dog in the store, and it was in the adjacent aisle. Maisy knew the dog was there- she could hear it, and could probably smell it as well. Being short, she decided to check out this other dog by peeking under the display racks. Of course, she only saw feet, and this set her off in a barking fit. However, once the dog rounded the corner, she looked at it, and then quickly looked at me. She was still nervous, but she was no longer overreacting. It seemed to me that now that she had all of the information, she could make a better choice about how she ought to behave.

I could cite many similar examples, and in fact, her very first reactive response was to an incomplete visual stimuli. (In that instance, it was a very tall dog in the ring adjacent to us at training club. All Maisy could see was its neck and head.) However, if I shared every example, this post would become entirely too long. The point remains: Maisy is more likely to become reactive when she cannot look at whatever is upsetting her.

And that’s why I allow her to look at things while we are heeling. Ultimately, I’m hopeful that by working on just one step of attention heeling at a time, we can build up her focus so she doesn’t feel the need to look around. Of course, I also understand that I have the dog that I have. Although I hope that she will conquer her reactivity, I realize that she will likely always be more susceptible to stress than the average dog. So, my long-term goal is to help her learn to manage her stress so that she only needs the briefest of glances before she returns to the task at hand.

I know that sometimes I choose different methods than others, and I’m okay with that. I also know that in doing so, I’m probably sacrificing precision and high scores and ribbons and placements- things that I really do want, but that I’m content to give up if it’s what’s best for Maisy. I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: training and trialing is about being with my dog, and about the relationship we build in the process. As much as I want that coveted OTCH title, I want Maisy to feel loved and respected and protected more.

Training and Retraining

Maisy graduating from her puppy class. She's about five months old in this picture, and clearly thinks that wearing a hat is stupid.

When I first got Maisy just over three years ago, people who knew me were shocked. Crystal? With a dog? As much as people who know me now can't imagine me without a dog, people who knew me then couldn't imagine me with one... because I hated dogs. Well, maybe hate is a strong word, but I did not care for how ill-behaved most dogs are.

Despite my strong dislike of dogs, Maisy somehow wormed her way into my life and my heart over the course of approximately thirty seconds. Still, I didn't like ill-behaved dogs, so I swore that Maisy would never become one. I signed her up for training classes before she even came home.

Now, three years later, I wish I had known more before bringing Maisy home. If I were to do it all over again, I would do many things differently, not because Maisy isn't a great dog, but because I was haphazard in the way I taught her.

Take, for example, heeling. Since I never planned to compete with Maisy, I figured that if Maisy was more or less close to my left side, that was good enough. I didn't even know the concepts of forging and lagging existed, much less cared about them. Maisy learned that the behavior of heeling was to get on my left side and walk the same speed as me.

A year later, when we went to classes at a local training club, I learned that heeling was about a particular position. I began to tighten up what I expected of her, and as a result, Maisy has passable, though not spectacular, heeling.

After our last two trials, though, I realized that Maisy's heeling needs to radically improve, so I began to work on attention heeling with her.

All of which is to say: I never had a very clear picture of what I was teaching until long after I began teaching it.

So, I've set out to retrain heeling, and since I finally know exactly what my criteria is, I've been using my five daily sessions to work on attention heeling on both the left and the right.

Oh my god, you guys. The difference in retraining something and in training it properly in the first place is astounding. Although I am starting to get some nice attention with heeling on the more traditional left side, I am getting way more attention and focus on the right. This shouldn't be surprising- learning something new is obviously so much easier than trying to fight against prior learning and muscle memory. And I'm not surprised, really. More like amazed at the degree of difference I'm seeing.

So, elementary training lesson of the day: Know what the end behavior looks like before you start.

What do you wish you had trained differently? What have you had to retrain? How successful were you? I'd love to hear about your experiences.

Training Schedules

What’s your training schedule like? How often do you train? How long do you train? How many exercises do you work on at once?

I have always treated training like homework- you sit down, do what you need to do, and then go to the next task. So, I’ve always trained in one daily chunk, generally about 15 to 30 minutes. And in that daily chunk, I’ve worked on an average of four to six items. This has always worked well for us, although sometimes it's hard to get my lazy butt off the couch.

Then, my dog training “crush,” Patricia McConnell, posted in her blog about a book about people who had strokes, and how they made more physical progress when they were immersed in their therapy than when they did the more traditional daily chunks. Learning by immersion has long been considered the best way to learn foreign languages, and based on the science, it makes sense: you can form new neural pathways better if you’re immersed in what you’re doing. And why wouldn’t this been true of our dogs, too? After all, their brains are very similar to ours. Trisha decided to set a learning immersion goal for her and her dog: she would work with her dog five times a day.

Call me a hanger-on, but I decided to try it, too. I thought it would be really difficult at first. How do you find the time to train your dog five times throughout the day? At 30 minutes a pop, well, you don’t. Plus, Maisy hates drilling, so I decided to do very short sessions: two minutes.

I’ve done this a couple of days now, and I’m surprised by how much easier this is! Before, it was a struggle to find 15 minutes all at once. But two minutes? That’s the length of a commercial break. It’s easy to fit in while cooking or doing the laundry. It only adds marginally to a bathroom break between chapters in the book you’re reading. Before you know it, you’ve done five sessions!

And the learning seems to be faster, too. Maisy and I have been working on heeling. We spend one minute on attention heeling, and then one minute on right-side heeling. I throw a few right finishes in there, too, to help her understand the difference between a right finish and a right “get in heel” command (which I desperately need a cue for- any suggestions?). In only a matter of a few days, Maisy has almost mastered the “get in heel” on the right side- my body movements are less extreme, and she’s almost sitting straight every time now. Her attention, on both sides, is much better! And she seems to get the difference in my hand signals for right heel and right finish.

Maisy seems to be enjoying this new schedule, too. She loves training, and now she gets to do it five times a day instead of just once! Could life get any better? She still needs to entertain herself between sessions, but stretching it out like this seems to be more stimulating, even if we’re spending the same amount of time (or less!) actually training. Plus, it’s so much easier to keep her attention the entire time and end on a good note when the sessions are so short!

I’ll report back in a couple of weeks, but I think we’ll keep working like this. It will be easy to add in fronts, moving downs and back up in heel. Of course, the more I add in, the less time we can work on each skill, but I think I could easily increase the session length to three minutes while simultaneously reducing the amount of time on each skill to 30 seconds or so. After all, 30 seconds is really quite a long time.

So… what’s your training schedule like? Are you ready to take the Five Times Challenge?

Asking the Wrong Questions

I’ve spent a lot of time over the last week thinking about no reward markers and keep going signals. In fact, I’ve thought so much about it, that I just had to post about it again.

In the comments to my last post on this topic, the point came up that there is a huge difference between shaping and competition. This is absolutely true. Shaping is about teaching a new skill, while competition is about testing a skill which is, presumably, under stimulus control. This means that you can’t really compare how a dog interprets silence from the learning stage to the performing stage; they’re two completely different contexts.

More than that, though, I realized I was also asking the wrong question entirely. When it comes to shaping, the question should not be How does my dog interpret silence? Instead, the question should be Why is there silence at all?

Think about that for a moment.

Now think about your last shaping session with your dog. How much silence was there? And why was there that much silence? For my last session, there was about thirty seconds of silence. Why was there that much silence? Well, because Maisy didn’t meet my criteria, of course.

But is that true?

My job as a clicker trainer is two-fold: split the task down into many small steps, and give a high rate of reinforcement when my criteria is met. These two things are interrelated. If a task is properly broken down into small, achievable steps, your rate of reinforcement will naturally be quite high. Likewise, the inverse is true: if you lump the steps together by setting the criteria too high, it will take your dog longer to figure it out, and thus your rate of reinforcement will be lower.

So why was there that much silence? Because I failed to do my job as a trainer. I lumped when I should have split.

Clicker training is difficult to master. To be a truly efficient trainer, you need to not only be able to split the task up into small steps, but you also need to be able to analyze your dog’s response, assess whether that means your criteria is too high, too low, or just right, and then adjust that criteria… and you need to be able to do all of that in a matter of seconds!

Thankfully, clicker training is also easy to learn. Even if you never move beyond the basic "click the behavior you like and give your dog a treat" stage, your dog will still learn. That's what I love about clicker training: regardless of your skill level, it has something to offer to everyone.

The Year in Review, Part 2: Skills and Attitudes

Earning titles and ribbons is fun, of course, but Maisy and I learned a lot, too. This is the second of three entries reviewing how Maisy and I spent 2009, and in this entry, I’ll talk about the skills we’ve developed, and the way Maisy’s attitude has changed.

Obedience wise, Maisy and I worked on many, many things. I’m really proud of how far her heeling has come. Just over a year ago, loose leash walking was still pretty tricky for us. Now, Maisy has a decent heel position. She can heel on and off leash with a lot of attention (although that depends on the distraction level, of course). She has learned to find heel position with either a hand cue, a verbal cue, or my body position.

In addition to improved heeling in straight lines, she’s really improved her ability to stay in heel position while I move in odd directions. The halt-left pivot 90 degrees was the most terrifying thing to me when I signed up for our first trial, but now she can left pivot 360 degrees even with distractions! She can also do the halt-sidestep right-halt and remain in a pretty good heel position.

I’m thrilled with her ability to heel past the distraction of a food bowl with treats in it! Although she has a momentary lapse now and then, she usually doesn’t even look at it anymore! I’m especially proud that I was able to teach this without using the words “leave it” excessively.

Maisy’s heeling has probably improved more than mine, but this year, I have learned about walking at a brisk pace and improved my foot work. I’m better at walking in a straight line (which is harder than it sounds), too.

Maisy’s fronts, while still not where I want them, have improved a great deal. In fact, they are nearly perfect at home! Not only does she come in centered and straight, she’s getting much closer! One thing I had to improve while working on fronts was about treat delivery. Once I took the bait bag off my hip and became consistent about giving the treat in the center of my body, her fronts improved a lot.

I introduced a lot of new concepts to her as well. Although we have a lot of work to do to finish these behaviors, Maisy and I have started working on jumps, retrieving a dumbbell, using a pivot board, and backing up.

I also successfully desensitized Maisy to a Dremel for her nails (although I wouldn’t say that I’ve fully counter-conditioned her- she doesn’t love it, but it’s better than using a nail clipper), and really improved her eye contact and attention behaviors through doggie zen. I’m also really proud that I finally figured out how to legally use treats in the APDT rally ring!

On the reactivity front,I think that one of the biggest areas in which Maisy developed skills this year is her ability to relax. In January, we started our first Control Unleashed style class, which is a class specifically designed for reactive dogs. A big component to CU style classes is teaching the dog to relax and be calm in the face of triggers. One method to accomplish this is through mat work, which may be combined with massage and TTouch. Maisy really struggled with this. She seemed very uncomfortable, and wiggled all over the place in an effort to get away from me when I first started massaging her.

The instructor also encouraged me to reward calm and relaxed behaviors at home. This is harder than it sounds; when your dog is lying quietly and being good, you tend to take them for granted. This year, I really had to learn to look for and reward calm behaviors. It was a weird experience for both of us. Back in January, I wrote the following in my journal:

THIS IS SO HARD. I tried doing this [rewarding relaxed behavior] today- I gave her verbal praise for lying nicely in the living room and she just looked at me like “what the hell? I’m not DOING anything.” A couple of times she’s gotten up and run away.

These days, Maisy is very comfortable on her mat, and I see her relaxed around the house a lot more often, and while she doesn’t love massages, she does appreciate a few well-placed pets. Not only is she more willing to relax by stretching out in the house, she has become more snuggly with me. She often chooses to curl up next to me, which is incredibly endearing. I also think this is a sign of our improved relationship due to all of the work we’ve done together.



Maisy’s fear has also decreased. Over the last year, she has learned to go through agility tunnels (on her own terms, not on my cue), and sit in a canine-eating hula hoop. She is also generally more willing to interact with objects. Although she has no interest in stepping on an A-Frame or a teeter, she is quite willing to go sniff them for a treat. This is huge for her!

Another neat way her fear has decreased is her willingness to move things. Maisy has a lot of fear of movement, and until recently, she wouldn’t even nose aside a door to retrieve her beloved tennis ball. Now, though, she is not only nosing aside doors but actively pushing her way in to the room where I feed the cats, and escaping from her crate. For three years, we’ve never once latched her crate at home- we knew she wouldn’t try to open it. Recently, however, we’ve found her out and about when we get home. Most people would probably be upset by this, but honestly, I’m just thrilled that she’s become so brave! I also like that it offers her the choice of remaining safely inside her crate or leaving on her terms while we’re gone.

Her reactivity has fluctuated a lot this year, and it’s hard to know where we stand on that front. Still, I think it’s improving. It seems like her reactivity has become less emotional and more of a habit or learned behavior, which truly is a good thing, even if it is still frustrating. I’ve identified a lot of her triggers, and am becoming better at both preventing reactivity and interrupting and managing it, and Maisy’s become better at seeing a trigger and offering an alternative behavior (usually frantic eye contact) in the expectation of a treat. Good dog!

Overall, Maisy has become a very easy dog to live with. I probably wouldn’t even know that she’s reactive if it weren’t for the fact that I want to go to obedience trials. She’s genuinely mellowed out and become less anxious at home. She’s also pretty good in low-pressure environments. Although we still have the occasional issue while on walks or at a pet store, she’s usually good in those environments, too. People tend to look at Maisy with admiration, and once, a lady in a pet store looked at Maisy, and then looked at her dog and said, “Why can’t you be more like that dog?” Since I have thought that endless times, I was so thrilled that Maisy was finally the “other dog.”