These Aren't The Droids You're Looking For

QUESTION: How many Zen Masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
ANSWER: There is no light bulb.

This is the joke that comes up so frequently in my lessons. It's probably a mistake to include it in this post, it will never have that chin rubbing "hmmmm..." quality again (assuming you've read this of course) This joke helps set the stage for what I'm ultimately, really asking my dog owners to do and that's to think differently about the problems they're having with their dogs. I'm also trying to establish a dynamic where you the dog owner are expecting your dog to think and problem solve, to understand why their behavior results in one consequence versus another. One is compelling, rewarding, the other is not. 

I'm working with a couple with two beautiful little dogs. Levi, a miniature dachshund and Stanley, a beagle/dachshund mix. They are also expecting a baby and have concerns about how their dogs will adjust to the addition of the new family member. Levi doesn't like when John touches Felicia's belly to feel the baby kicking. Perhaps he views it as an aggressive overture, a preamble to conflict of some sort. He jumps, barks and nips at John's hand. Our goal was for Levi to reevaluate what this gesture meant to him. We wanted Levi to tell us that he wanted John to feel the baby kicking because ultimately, Levi's objections to this gesture could be symptomatic of broader misinterpretations which in turn can have a negative, even devastating impact on the human/animal bond. Conversely, it can lead to outright denial, which can lead to escalating aggression. There are ways to work through these problems with our dogs that often deepen the bond we have with them. Here's how we approached Levi's "What are you doing to Mom?" problem.

Stanley & Levi practice stay after hearing the doorbell.

The first step was to teach Levi and Stanley how great being on the floor is. This is not a semantic argument, this is Real Estate 101. Your dogs want the couch, they want the bed. but these coveted locals are off limits when there's a baby in the house, so our job is to convince them that these spots are not prime real estate as they believe, the floor is, their beds on the floor are. Resentment can fester into dangerous behaviors so removing conflict from the proceedings is a high priority, as it happens, it's also considerably more fun. I have another favorite way to frame this arguement, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." instantly relevant to fans of Star Wars Episode IV, Obi Wan doesn't massacre the inquisitive storm troopers, he changes the nature of the encounter in a way that is devoid of conflict. "I want to be up there on the couch!" , "Nah, you don't want the couch, what you want is the floor. The floor is awesome." "You're right, the floor is awesome, I love this floor. This is the best floor in the history of floors. Thanks for showing me." This may seem overly simplistic but that's it in a nutshell. The details of getting there with your dog may differ depending on their attachment to elevated perches and what they're compelled by but it's still about rewarding the floor while managing the couch and your bed. The elevated places are never bad which means they're not punished for being there, merely redirected to the floor where they're once again met with praise. Using things like Kong Wobblers or my personal favorite the IQ Ball is another way to use the food they'd otherwise be eating from their bowls (boring) into a game that unfolds on the floor (fun) adding further value to the lower elevations of your dog's living space. "But aren't some dogs fine on furniture? My dog's never acted aggressively on furniture" There's no question that some dogs are sweet as pumpkin pie in these situations, still, safety first. There's no down side to this exercise, quite the contrary. The dog owners I've worked with report that their dogs thrive in this modified dynamic because it's fun and they're getting more attention then they ever did before.  

Now that the two pups are very keen on being on the floor, we take to the couch where John, equipped with treats, presents Levi with an opportunity. Levi can have the treat, but only after John rubs Felicia's belly. Is this getting weird? No? Good, let's move on then. A quick rub, feed, another rub, feed, repeat. Now, ask Levi to sit. When he sits, John rubs Felicia's belly and feeds Levi a treat. "Levi Sit", Levi sits, John rubs Felicia's belly, feeds Levi, repeat. Here's where something interesting happens. We stop everything. If Levi understands his role in the proceedings, that one thing (sitting) triggers another thing (belly rub) to happen and that it ends with him getting a treat then,...wait for it,....Yes! Exactly! Levi will get things going again by sitting. He knows John's going to rub Felicia's belly when he sits, but now that's less important than the reciprocal effect of getting a compelling treat and now Levi is sitting on the floor to prompt a belly rub and a treat. 

This sets the stage for the sorts of things that happen once the baby is born. Feeding, changing diapers, playing etc. They can be predictive of a compelling consequence. No conflict, no yelling, no whaling and gnashing of teeth. Understood in these proceedings is that while troublesome, neither dog has a serious history of aggressive behavior. This approach is reasonable only when there is no such history. 

 Consequence changes behavior (Thank you Dr. Dunbar) 

Closer to the Heart

 

Dr. Dunbar wins the attention of a very cute, very distracted puppy.

This weekend, K9 Connection in Warwick, RI hosted a two day workshop with Dr. Ian Dunbar. Over the years Dr. Dunbar has been an important influence on me. What got my attention first was the example he set. Trainers and behaviorists  can debate who they relate to most but there’s little debate over his relevance. If you do what I do for a living you know who Ian Dunbar is and yet despite having few peers, he is approachable, intellectually curious and disarmingly funny. He’s quick to turn the spotlight on the trainers and dogs in attendance. He’s slightly compulsive, not allowing the one brown chair amongst the other identical black chairs in a game of dog training/musical chairs. Dog slobber was a problem, yup, one of the very best vet/behaviorists in the world doesn’t do dog drool. Go figure. Above all though, Ian Dunbar is an extraordinary and energetic teacher who wears his love for what he does like a superhero's cape. This weekend I watched a master at work. Two days of one incredibly clever idea after another went by in a relative flash. So much information had been communicated, it felt like a great movie I’d watch over and over again, collecting new bits of nuanced goodness with each viewing. A day after it was over it started to register with me that there was a wonderful subtext that had unfolded right in front of me. Everyone there had gotten more than we'd expected. At 5:30PM on Sunday, as the workshop drew to an inspired close, there was one final message that summed the experience we’d all had in a very sweet way. I won’t spoil it by elaborating on it because it’s something you deserve to experience for yourself. If you have an opportunity to see Dr. Dunbar lecture or workshop do it, don’t think twice about it. Do it if you’re an accountant, systems analyst, roofer or mechanic and you’ve never had a dog before. I say this because the subtext of the workshop transcends the otherwise obvious attraction for people who work with dogs. It was about being kind to one another as well as to our dogs. It was about the importance of doing the right thing. It was science vs. nonsense. Amidst all the wonderfully clever games and insightful techniques, I found myself rooting as an observer for the dog owners in the ring. Clapping and cheering for people and dogs I’d never met until this past weekend. It wasn’t just me, everyone was in on it and it happened with the seemingly effortless guidance of the brilliant and self described shameless teacher. If playing the fool drove home the point that everything he was sharing with us were things we could do ourselves, he was not above it. “Yes, by all means photograph, video tape, post it on YouTube, I’d like to think I’ll still be around after I’m gone.” Think about that for a minute. 

It's satisfying to learn that someone you admire a great deal would approve of how you do things. I appreciate the value of clicker training but am not a clicker trainer. I prefer to use by voice for audible cues, a personal decision I've doubted from time to time. However I was also compelled to reevaluate a number of ideas I've both relied on and thrust upon my clients with a great deal of earnest over the years. They include:

Don't Repeat Yourself: Unless you want your dog to think the instruction for "sit" is "sit, sit, sit"

only say it once. "Absolutely ridiculous!" was Dr. Dunbar's response to that question asked by a fellow attendee.  I could have looked at this as simply a difference of opinion but as a hypothesis, Keir and I tested it with Miles Saturday night. It works. To this I say to every dog owner I've beat that drum relentlessly with, I apologize.

The Verbal Cue Follows the Instruction: Lure for sit then respond with "Good Sit". Wrong again! The connection is not clear as I had thought. As a form of praise it's fine but the connection between the word and the lure (hand signal) is cloudy or non-existent. Again, Keir and I worked on this with Miles giving only hand signals first followed by only verbal commands, measuring response ratios. They were all over the place and changed as the venue changed. Lots of practice and proofing to be done there.

Always Use Food Rewards: This applies to other forms of reward (toys) that may not be on your person when a response is required. My argument stemmed from the use of choke, pinch and electronic collars. Response ratios can be maintained (reliable) so long as they're around, therefore treat rewards should always be around. Much to my shame and humiliation, wrong again. While for dog owners who are hyper-vigilant about having treat bags within arm's reach, get reliable responses from their dogs, there are situations that will trump the most compelling treats you can imagine. Higher value treats for more challenging environments, done that lots of times and while I'm not ready to toss out everything I've read, seen and done related to counter conditioning for proximity with primary and secondary reinforcers,  I did witness a game of follow the leader with roughly 30 dog/handler pairs. No treats used and lots juicy, behavioral goodness on display. The prolific use of treats are under review.

In this exercise, participants are asked to lie down next to their dogs the way their dogs are lying down.

I've written before that training is a science and as such is evolving. Remember Bertrand Russell, "Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas..."  That’s an extremely important idea and segues nicely into my favorite hypothetical question, "Are you interested in the truth?" assuming the answer is "Yes." it follows, "Then you won't be upset if you're wrong." Still, I am a little upset. There are lessons that would have yielded more specific, more desirable long term results. I suppose that will always be the case. Engineers design bridges knowing all too well that more sophisticated, safer and longer lasting bridges will be possible in the future. So too will the science of training continue to advance thanks to people like Dr. Dunbar. 

Leaving K9 Connection this past Sunday evening, I wanted to thank Dr. Dunbar, tell him how much he'd inspired me but he's British and I'm shy when it comes to things like this so I'll say it here. I started the weekend feeling drained and down, I left reinvigorated and grateful for the experience. Thank you Ian Dunbar and thank you Jamie Dunbar for the invitation. Thanks also to Teri and Cassandra at K9 Connection for hosting the workshop. Great, great, great.

Quite Logical

It's been my experience that dogs are logical creatures. But as another Vulcan proverb concedes, “Logic is only the beginning of wisdom” and that means that dogs make mistakes based on otherwise logical assumptions. Without question, the most common one is jumping on people. While not a mistake necessarily it is a misunderstanding between we humans and our dogs. Here's why. When dogs are puppies they're amongst the cutest things in all creation. Small, furry, helpless and given the opportunity, jumping all over us. Most puppies are encouraged to do this by us. It's harmless enthusiasm at this stage in their lives and very few dog owners discourage it, quite the contrary in fact. When I was a kid, Pepsi ran it's famously effective ad featuring grandparents unleashing a litter of Labrador Retriever puppies on their grandkids. It's the perfect illustration of the information that's changing hands quietly beneath the adorable bedlam. I'm not implying anything sinister is being sewn into this exchange, not even that it should not be allowed to happen. It's beautiful if you ask me, if only all of us were this unabashedly enthusiastic about one another. There is a very big “BUT” however. Little 2lb puppies are fuzzy and delightful but some of them grow exponentially in their first year becoming adult dogs 50-150lbs and more. Now jumping is a problem and we don't want them doing it anymore. Imagine those Lab pups jumping on those little kids one year later,...YIKES! The kids aren't laughing hysterically, they're traumatized. Things have changed for us but for our dogs, well, they haven't got the memo and if they're unaware of your sudden distaste for them leaping into your grill for sloppy, wet smooches, then it's not fair to assume they'll understand why you're sticking your knee in their chest when they do.

 

To assume dogs know they're doing something wrong is to both ignore the messages we've unconsciously etched in their brains when they were puppies and assume they'll grasp an abstract concept like right and wrong. What's this? No right and wrong? It's anarchy, ahhhhh!!!! Relax, it's not the apocalypse. Consider this. If I were to shake hands using my left hand you might think it's odd but you wouldn't think it's offensive. Yet in some parts of the world it's a cultural norm to wipe with the left hand only, so offering it is not advised unless you intend to offend, in other words it's “wrong”. It's right to tip your waiter but wrong to tip the person at the drive thru window (Thanks to Mr. Pink for that revelation.) Dogs are not confronted by a jury of their peers, they don't editorialize, they don't pontificate, postulate or castigate. In other words, the concept of right and wrong is a societal construct, to assume our dogs are privy to them is not,...logical. 

So now we agree it's not wrong so to speak but we still don't like it. It's potentially dangerous and we want to bring an end to it. What can we do? If our dogs learned that we liked them jumping on us they can learn that we like it even better when they greet in a sit. I had this discussion with a local family I'm working less than a week ago. They're expecting a baby in the fall and with their 18mos old Golden Murphy jumping impulsively on his mom Kelley, this problem took on a real sense of urgency. It was with great satisfaction that as I got off my soap box, Murphy's dad Ryan produced a photo of his daughter Tori welcoming Murphy, then about 12 weeks old, as he jumped on her. I knew at that moment they got what I'd been droning on about. As Murphy began showing a marked preference for greeting in a sit (praise and treats) Kelley was able to sit down with a baby doll standing in for the real thing as Murphy greeted politely in a sit. Just as he'd been encouraged to jump as a puppy, he'd been encouraged to sit as an adult dog, it was a Vulcan mind meld! Fascinating...

What Do You Want?

Training is fundamentally about communication. It forms the nucleus of any such dynamic, branching out in often unexpected sometimes elegant ways like fractal geometric structures spiraling off to form into something beautiful. It can also deteriorate into a terrible mess. Like all trainers I'm working not just on inter-species communication, I'm also channeling ideas vicariously through a dog's human counterpart(s) . At it's best it's what I imagine fusion jazz must be like. A free floating exchange of information back and forth between multiple individuals each communicating in their own way, saxophone, standing bass, piano and drums. Everyone bringing an innate understanding of each other that transcends language in the traditional sense. What and how we communicate determines direction, comprehension and can have a big impact on whether the ideas that come out of training are going to take hold over the long term. 

"Tis nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so" - William Shakespeare

            So what do I want to communicate with this entry? As the title of this entry asks, "What do you want?" Answer, to shift the focus of training to addressing what we want and away from what we don't want. This could easily be brushed aside as a semantic argument but it's much more than that. Proof lies in how difficult it can sometimes be. A common scenario, "My dog loses her mind when the doorbell rings. She scratches the hell out of the door and jumps all over whoever walks in." Traditional, pack leader, dominance training punishes the bad behavior (P+) with the punishment subsiding only when the behavior itself subsides. If the net result is that the dog does not bark or jump the next time someone rings the doorbell and comes in, no punishment is inflicted  and the behavior is reinforced by it's absence (R-) This approach has been used for a very long time, it sometimes works and often creates collateral damage in the process. To make the shift away from "How do I stop this?" to what you want, "I want her to be quiet and greet calmly with her paws on the ground or better still in a sit." requires a change in the way you think about conflict and how to address it. Well framed questions can do this. Veterinarian/Behaviorist Dr. Ian Dunbar, speaking at a TED convention, CLICK HERE, asks how dominance training would work if you were training a bear. Answer: Not well at all. I like to pose the hypothetical question: Can a 5'-2" tall female dog owner weighing 110lbs have and train a French Mastiff weighing 150lbs? Answer: Yes, but you'd be well advised not to make it a battle of wills. To expect a dog to have an innate understanding of good and bad is to invite conflict. An understanding of good and bad is crucial in societal terms but strictly speaking, an abstract assumption in a human/animal relationship. Conversely, to communicate to a dog how great it is to do the things you want them to is responsible for amazing feats both familiar like Canine Agility CLICK HERE and less familiar, like Freestyle Dog Dancing CLICK HERE.

Screen Capture of Joyce and Kaia in the Agility Ring

           
             Now if dancing with your dog strikes you as silly, that's fine, it is a little silly but it would be unfair not to concede that there's a breathtaking amount of inter species communication going on and that neither dog dancing or my friend and colleague Joyce Gauthier (That's her with her dog Kaia in the agility ring) could every achieve that level of cooperation without first communicating to their dogs how much fun they're going to have and how rewarding the whole thing is going to be. What I want is for you to come over here and weave in between these upright poles. Huh? Try just one, click, treat, now two, click, treat etc.

Louie, Archie & Miles: No dogs in the kitchen rule.

            Only a fraction of dog owners will every venture into the worlds of agility or freestyle but the information that's extracted from these sports trickles down in meaningful and profound ways for far more common scenarios that unfold between regular dog owners and their canine family members. They should also prove as examples of what's possible. That's a big deal if you're feeling helpless to resolve a conflict with your dog and you're in desperate need of some perspective. The next time you're agonizing about bringing home a new couch (Ernie's going to lie down on it when we're watching Game of Thrones and get Labradoodle fur all over it.) try convincing  Ernie how great the dog bed on the floor is instead of yelling at him for being on the couch. Now if George R.R. Martin would just stop killing off all the best characters, how great would that be?

New Year's Resolution

We're an inpatient culture. At the very least we've developed into one. If you're old enough to remember Dana Carvey's grumpy old man eschewing the virtues of the old days, "Why, if we wanted to go to the bathroom we had to walk a mile in the rain and mud to a wooden shack in the middle of the night,...and we liked it that way." then you're old enough to know how much things have changed. Each generation views their respective realities through they're own period lens. The lens Du jour expects instant gratification, consider on demand movies (on your cell phone no less) books, music, etc. Home delivery is available, overnight if you like, for just about anything.

Inevitably this sensibility has spilled over into my world as well with the occasional dog owner assuming little more effort than that needed to call or e-mail should be required for a miraculous transformation in their dog. It comes across in different ways but I've gotten pretty good at ferreting these dog owners out and that's important because there's no better opportunity to set things straight than at that moment. Serious behavioral problems take time to address, in some cases so much time that it tests the will of even the most steadfast of the dog owners I work with. It's critical dog owners struggling with behavioral problems in their dogs understand this before they dig into the business at hand. For my part this idea cannot be understated.

As behaviorist Katenna Jones suggests in her book "Fetching the Perfect Dog Trainer" dog owners should expect to see a tangible response to training and conditioning very quickly. Some indication that the trainer's  hypothesis has merit and that the predicted outcome will come to fruition. The hard work comes in the day to day business of working and living with these dogs; fast food and  instant downloads this isn't, not by any stretch. It's also not for every dog owner and communicating that from the outset is critical. Julie K. Shaw, RVT, KPA-CTP, VTS (Behavior) at a recent seminar emphasized how important it is to assess the strength of the human animal bond. In other words, "How do you feel about your dog?" That's an enormously important question that plays very neatly into questions of expediency. If the bond you have with your dog is fractured, then the notion of pouring time, energy and financial resources (training, veterinary care etc. all have costs associated with them) into that relationship is pointless, it's also a disservice however expedient the draw of a new client may be. 

For dog owners who are informed and ready to put in the time, work begins. There are so many smart, creative thinkers working on ways to make training, counter conditioning, desensitizing and management more effective and often times more fun. It's an embarrassment of riches and yet it remains an imperfect science. A favorite Facebook page (Swipe to read) I Fucking Love Science posted a quote by 20th century philosopher Bertrand Russell, "Science does not aim to establish immutable truths and eternal dogmas; it's aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved." For me that means I can sleep at night so long as I've been honest about my role in helping dog owners make their own successive approximations. It's also my responsibility to know when I've done as much as I can and whenever possible appreciate that the problems a dog owner is dealing with are outside my skill set. On that front I intend to do a better job. That's my New Year's Resolution. To listen more closely to what dog owners are telling me, to ask better questions and be a better part of that process of successive approximations. Oh, and eat more vegetables, can't forget that.

Pinch Me

Last night the local NBC affiliate, channel 10 news, attempted to do what television news is poorly suited to do. That is, to try to encapsulate an important subject in a piece lasting a couple of minutes. The subject was the use of prong collars, focusing it's vitriol on Rhode Island based dog trainer Jeff Gelman. I've referenced a well known quote by Eleanor Roosevelt before in this blog and I'll do it again, "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." The piece focused on an individual, vilifying him in the process. Did he have it coming? Maybe; this is an outspoken person with a Saturday morning AM talk show, a podcast, perhaps there's even a sandwich named after him but when it all shakes out it really doesn't matter. The impact of the story will be short term and while the message board, CLICK HERE, was lively with discussion afterwards (I chimed in as well) most everyone who's seen it has or soon will forget it as our attentions will turn to other things. That's too bad. Not because I would've indulged in some schadenfreude watching this trainer thrust into the spotlight for public ridicule or for that matter watching my friend Katenna provide some insight into effective alternatives. What disappointed me was the missed opportunity to focus on the debate. There's more than one trainer in our little state using pinch, choke and e-collars. For the record, I used to be one of them so it's not my first impulse to wag my finger at Jeff Gelman. What I do find maddening is the steadfast adherence to old ideas that no longer hold up to scientific scrutiny. I think trainers in the not too distant future will look back on traditional training methods the same way we look at phrenology and spontaneous generation, with a collective "Huh?". For all the horn blowing any of us do, there will be a time when we won't be here anymore and only the ideas will survive. Katenna stayed on point never talking about Jeff but instead on methodology, again, on the IDEA.

Lively debate is good, discourse is good, ("Fire Bad" - Frankenstein,...sorry, couldn't resist) particularly if we learn something along the way. In contrast, trotting out one guy to be the poster child for pinch collars is silly but I suppose that coliseum mentality lies just beneath our skins. It reminds of the George Carlin bit where he pulls up to a car accident and asks the police to drag the body closer to the car so his wife can get a better look. If that's why you tuned in, and thought to yourself, "Holy cow, that guy's a jerk" then you're missing the point. Not that Turn to 10 didn't do their part to take your eyes off the shell with the marble under it.

Traditional training is fading, I've done my little part to help that along and would encourage my peers in the training world still employing those methods to do the same. It's a scary prospect, if you've got a family, a mortgage, bills to pay and a successful business model predicated on aging ideas it can be downright terrifying but it's the smart move because it's where the training world is headed, undeniably, like a slow moving juggernaut. It's also evolving as emerging ideas and peer reviewed research adds to the knowledge base. 

Finally, since we're on the subject of pinch collars. If you've moved on to No-pull harnesses or head halters and have some old choke chains and pinch collars lying around, please consider donating them to FoF-RI. Katenna, in her "spare time" transforms them into beautiful bracelets and key chains then sells them, (See them at Dog In Harmony) all proceeds going to Friends of Fido Rhode Island, a grass-roots group of Rhode Island dog lovers who are volunteering to improve the lives of outdoor dogs in Rhode Island. Hey, that's an idea.

An Ode to Bo

Several weeks ago I got a call from my son's art teacher. She'd adopted a 4 year old Wheaten terrier from the Warren Animal Shelter and needed some help. While all had started well enough he'd given her two superficial bites when she'd tried to get him out of her car and now she wasn't sure she could trust him. I told her to keep a leash on him at all times, the only exceptions were when he was alone in the house or at night when they were sleeping. It's significantly safer to handle a dog who resorts to aggression to address conflict. Dogs on leash are less likely to have aggressive outbursts at all, particularly once they know you can handle them without getting close enough to their teeth that they can deliver a bite. Grab a collar and there's a high probability of a bite, grab a leash and the probability is relatively low. Nothing punitive, as I tell my dog owners, the message is, I'm not going to hurt you but you're not going to hurt me either. Things improved immediately and we scheduled a series of lessons that involved both her son and boyfriend. The first two lessons went nicely and everyone was getting to know each. By any measure, Bo had made a successful transition to life with his new family. Fear had given way to confidence and it is at this critical juncture where, in my opinion, things can either settle into a good routine, or things can go horribly wrong. When confidence gives way to letting your guard down, to assuming your dog is  "cured", mistakes are made. Behavior can be modified by multiple means but for new, more desirable behaviors to be sustained, a certain amount of hyper-vigilance in required. It's not for everybody and while I'm careful to advise dog owners that behavior modification is like exercise, keep it up and things should go well, stop and things will deteriorate, lapses in judgement are still made, myself included.

Shortly after our second session I got a message that Bo had aggravated his ACL and was limping, we'd have to get the all clear from the vet before resuming training. There was the possibility of surgery, so his next lesson was "wait and see". A couple of weeks went by and I received the good news that it was nothing serious and we could resume working with him. The next lesson was scheduled, then, the worst most rattling thing you can hear from a dog owner you're working with, an e-mail from Bo's Mom that he had attacked her son. There were red flags throughout the message, "...he was sitting with a bone at my feet..." , "My son was sitting on the floor near him..." It would be extremely easy assign blame, to dump this squarely on the shoulders of Bo's new family. "Shouldn't they have known better?" Or on me, "Didn't you warn them about this sort of thing?" So let's get this out of the way quickly since this isn't about either of these things. Bo's new family were kind, compassionate people. Though it was a kind of resource guarding that had led to his initial aggressive overtures, they hadn't seen that behavior from him in several weeks, and even his initial overtures were mild by comparison, her son had been hurt badly.

We had addressed resource guarding and while Bo was on the floor as opposed to furniture, they were comfortable enough to let him have his bone out of a crate. A mistake to be sure and something Bo's entire family ached over both literally (the attending police officer who took Bo from the home described the living room as looking like a crime scene) and figuratively. The attack started from a distance of roughly eight feet as the owner's son recognized some emerging resentment with respect to his proximity to Bo and had begun to back away. The gesture was too little too late to stave off Bo's response however. He bridged the gap and delivered several bites before the son grabbed him and threw him into the next room. He returned for more but was stopped by Mom, who managed to separate him from her son.

There are more details to be sure and I haven't pressed for any of them. It's important to note here that the son is an able bodied 20 year old, but what if he hadn't been? What if he were only 20 months old? What if he were 12 years old and alone in the house? Was this the first time Bo had done this? He was four years old. He was turned in by a family in Warren who reported no aggression from him. With the benefit of hindsight, I simply don't believe that's true. In four years it's not reasonable or plausible to think this was the first time he'd guarded a resource with such ferocity. It makes far more sense to assume he had. Why hadn't it been reported? Why would a dog owner be so irresponsible as to risk putting someone in harms way? To let someone fall in love with this dog unaware of what it's capable of? The gravity of what could have happened makes this roll of the dice so reckless that it rattled my otherwise libertarian sensibilities. Amidst talk of Bo's future, I wondered with his Mom if there was a legal course here. 

Coming to the realization that a dog is dangerous is painful beyond measure. It's a horrible truth that not everyone has the resources to address properly. As I write this entry I can't help but think again of Katenna and Dave (See "I Am Spartacus") or my own attempts to ferret out this proclivity for aggression in temperament tests.

In light of the ferocity of the attack, we agreed that as painful as this episode had been, there was more pain in store for everyone involved. Bo was taken to the Warwick Shelter the night of the attack where he was held for observation pending euthanasia. I visited with him, sitting on the floor outside his kennel feeding him bits of string cheese with the door between us. He was calm, no signs of resentment, he stayed as close to the kennel door as he could manage, at one point stretchin his for-paw through the kennel door towards me eliciting some physical contact. I'm not sentimental nor do I indulge in the fanciful notion that he knew what was coming, I'm certain in fact that he did not. In a way that was more upsetting to me than for me to think he could appreciate the gravity of his actions, again, I'm sure he did not. Tears followed and I left knowing I would not see Bo again, not for a lesson, not at the park or out for a walk.

I've written that the shelter keeps me grounded, it does, so much so that Sunday that I wondered if this was even for me anymore. Is anyone listening? Are we learning anything as a culture of dog owners? About responsible breeding, about puppy mills, pet stores and hobby breeders, about the responsibility of dog ownership? There's been time to think about these questions, I do think we're learning but not fast enough. Bo's owner knew what had to be done and made the most difficult of decisions a new dog owner can expect to have to make. This past Friday Bo drew his last breath. To the pretenders out there who "guarantee" they can rehabilitate these dogs with shock collars and the like, you know who you are, I hold you with the utmost contempt. You lack the depth, the intelligence, the integrity and the fortitude to ever hope of making good on such claims. To the pet stores, puppy mills and hobby breeders, please stop. Who can profit from misery without losing themselves in this Faustian bargain? To Bo's family, in particular his adoptive Mom who mustered the courage to take him on one more walk before the end, who had the strength of character to let him go peacefully,  you are in my thoughts and my heart is broken with yours.

Tuning In

A few months ago Sue and Harry Parker of Dynamic Dog Training hosted a seminar with noted trainer/behaviorist Grisha Stewart, the mind behind Behavioral Adjustment Training (BAT) it was a great opportunity to see her at a local venue and I jumped at it. I always bring a pad and paper to these things to scribble down notes, details etc. but what I really hope will happen is for one really strong idea to emerge and stick with me once the lecture or seminar is over. For that one it was a question that precedes every exchange with a animal, "How is this for you?" It's such a simple idea but what really struck me about it was how easy it is to forget to ask that basic and so important question. That question is empathy distilled down to it's simplest form. "How are you doing?" "Is this alright?" "Are you enjoying this?" In earlier posts I've framed my move from traditional to science based positive reinforcement training as identifying problems and making them stop to understanding why those problems occur and addressing the underlying cause and effect. In other words traditional training doesn't ask or care necessarily (beyond vaguely arrived at notions) why something bad might be happening, it just wants it to stop. Behaviorists like Grisha Stewart are asking these profoundly simple, relevant questions and blazing a trail for trainers like me who are keen on distancing ourselves from the dark ages of traditional training. In a recent interview with Allen St. John of Forbes Magazine, Dr. Ian Dunbar described his training methodology like this, “When I’m training a dog I develop a relationship with that dog. He’s my buddy and I want to make training fun,” - “Training a dog to me is on a par with learning to dance with my wife or teaching my son to ski. These are fun things we do together. If anyone even talks about dominating the dog or hurting him or fighting him or punishing him, don’t go there.” That's about as good a way of capturing the spirit of modern dog training as I've ever read. It's absent any pretentious notions, any narcissism. It's someone relating the process to something they do with a loved one, with someone they care about. 

Of course trainers are going to be called on to intervene in situations where the human and dog are no longer buddies and they're no longer having fun. Does Dr. Dunbar's model apply here?

Yesterday, I started the day with with Jean, a dog owner in Cranston who'd lost her husband two years ago. This was our 3rd schedule lesson together. Her dogs, Samantha and Rudy, a 10 year old Chihuahua/JRT and 4 year old Lhasa mix respectively, had helped her through a difficult time. Recently however, Samantha had begun to behave aggressively, biting her several times with little warning. Resource guarding the bed and food appeared to be the antecedent. We took a multifaceted approach. With a clean bill of health from her veterinarian, Sam was prescribed fluoxetine (antidepressant), we changed their food and set about training them. Even at 10yrs, Sam's energy level is relatively low. Jean had become fearful of handling her and their relationship had deteriorated. How were we going to right this failing ship? Our ace was Rudy, a lively, happy go lucky little guy who bounced around the house not a care in the world. He was the polar opposite of Sam who was serious and appeared to have little joy left in her. More specifically, Rudy, who Jean trusted completely, was the dog we wanted Sam to be more like and Samantha, we agreed, was not about to let Rudy get all the attention. At our first session, we headed out to the yard with Samantha on a 6ft leash and Rudy on a 30ft leash. Jean would walk around the yard with Rudy at the end of his 30ft leash practicing his recalls. I picked a prime stationary spot with Samantha where she could see Rudy having all the fun, getting all the treats. It didn't take long until Sam's interest in participating peaked and she was straining at the leash to get in on the action. We swapped leashes and dogs and just like that Sam was doing recalls for treats. Jean was on the right track and it all started with a simple hypothesis, "How do we think she'll react to Rudy getting all the attention?" or "How will this be for her?" It even managed to be fun. The exercise represented a dramatic shift in momentum for Jean, it was an eye opener since we were able to draw a behavior from Samantha without force, by putting our heads together and without putting anyone in a situation where they could get hurt. When we were done, Sam was exhausted, (a tired dog is a good dog). Jean would leave a leash on Samantha whenever she was home and awake. This provided her with a way to move Sam out of situations (e.g. chicken bone falls on the floor) without exposing herself to a potential bite. She now knew that she could draw Sam out of her malaise by turning her attention to Rudy. We found ourselves resorting to this approach again yesterday morning when Sam's aggression resurfaced momentarily during the 'down' lesson. No one was bit, though Sam could easily have done so if she wanted to. She'd shown restraint. Was this the fluoxetine? The training? Was it the change of food? It could be any one or the combination of the three. No way to know for sure but there's little doubt that this constituted an improvement in her behavior. Nevertheless it remained inappropriate so, Rudy to the rescue! Sam had to sit out the next several minutes (five for fighting) as Rudy did 'down' after 'down' with Sam initially sulking then perking up again with earnest, as if to say, "Can I try again?" We were looking for that indication so when we brought her closer for another try, plunk! Down she went again and again. That lesson could easily have been derailed by her initial outburst but with Rudy there to help shape the situation and Jean ever mindful of the question, "How is this for Samantha" it was productive on several fronts. In a sense she had managed to teach someone to dance who initially wanted to bite her. Not bad Jean, Tango on.

I Am Spartacus

There's a well known scene from the 1960 Stanley Kubrick film Spartacus where, following defeat at the hands of a Roman legion, a general asks the surviving members of the slave army, "Who among you is Spartacus?" Kirk Douglas, playing the titular role, stands and says, "I am Spartacus". Then, out of loyalty to their friend and leader, his comrades rise, one by one identifying themselves, "I am Spartacus", "I am Spartacus" and so on. As a kid most of Kubrick's work went over my head but that movie meant something to me and in particular that scene. To say those words meant certain death but each man stood together side by side no matter the cost. It's a strong message that speaks to what's best in all of us and how difficult it can be to be that kind of person, it's a decision very few people will ever make, not with those consequences. That's been on my mind the last few days since first seeing an invitation to a fund raising breakfast for Defenders of Animals. I've been aware of the D.O.A. for several years and while individuals within the group no doubt have feelings that may not hold in lock step with the group's mission, the organization is not held in universally high regard in private conversations. "Exploitative", "Sensationalist" have been used to describe a group who's name suggests the most altruistic of intentions. For myself, these conversations have tinted my view but I avoid drawing conclusions from anything but primary sources. That invitation was my first primary source. It described two people I consider friends as mindless, blood thirsty hooligans (Hey, one hyperbolic rant deserves another, no?) Recklessly presiding over the future of two pit bull terriers. Katenna Jones and Dave Holden were the targets dujour in this D.O.A's latest effort to whip the rank and file into a furious lather. No one who knows know either Katenna or Dave would see that invitation without a resounding, "What the...?"

                      I'm going to backtrack a little because to understand where I'm going with this I have to tell you what I think the real problem is. Where the attention of Defenders and the like should be focused. Poorly bred dogs, many of them bully breeds, from puppy mills, hobby breeders etc. Individuals and groups with little or no regard for the future of the dogs they're breeding and the unpredictable consequences that often occur because of what they do. The toll is difficult to quantify because it expands beyond the actual monetary impact to real pain and suffering and sometimes death. That's the problem and anyone who's spent any time in a private or municipal shelter sees it every single day. I've been shown the door at evaluations more times than I can remember for explaining to dog owners that their pet store dogs likely came from puppy mills. "But if I didn't buy him, somebody else would have" and the cycle continues and the dogs are unwitting, innocent participants in this most existential of quandaries, "To be or not to be?"

                       The mess is left for others to deal with and that brings me back to the central theme of this entry. Katenna and Dave, both former founding members of the Rhode Island Animal Welfare Coalition, co-workers at the RISPCA and current members of Friends of Fido. Katenna, a graduate of Brown University, published author and shelter worker, was among the first on the scene to help in Joplin, MO following the tornado that destroyed that town. She's a certified behaviorist, worked with American Humane and spear headed an effort to improve the lives of all the animals at the Providence Animal Rescue League, a project I'm proud to say I helped her with. At the RISPCA Dave and Katenna worked together investigating animal cruelty cases doing real, meaningful things to improve the lives of the animals and sometimes the humans they lived with as well. It's not something anyone can do. It requires brains, compassion, and skill. It requires a degree of focus unhindered by the desire to judge. I've known both of these people for years and I ask you, do they sound like the source of the problem to you? They clearly are not and yet the invitations treats them as if they've been commanding a death camp. This in the wake of evaluations that lead to two dogs being euthanized at a local shelter. This is not about kill vs. no kill shelters. That's a book not a dopey blog entry and I'm not the person to write it. I know where I stand on this issue however and while I bring only a fraction of the expertise either of these two do to their jobs, I have logged hundreds of evaluations on dogs at my local shelter over the years. Some of those evaluations were mitigating factors in whether a dog was going to be made available for adoption or considered dangerous and euthanized. Temperament tests are far from perfect and there are different ways to do them, some considered more scientific/accurate predictors than others however, the ones I've seen share a common theme which is fundamentally how a dog responds to different stimuli including play, handling, food and loud noises. It is a snapshot of a dog, in a moment, responding to you (large, heavy male with glasses and a beard) in a small room in a strange, scarey place. Of course these tests aren't perfect, they also are not the source of the problem. Temperament test are typically done with big picture sensibilities in mind. The more information you have on any particular dog the more effectively you can screen applicants for adoption. The more effectively you can screen potential applicants the greater the chance of a successful adoption. Less information, lower likelihood. That's the corollary. Successful adoptions can and often do have secondary effects. Chief among them are that families that adopt one shelter dog will adopt other shelter dogs, I've adopted two, nearly all of my training/behavior friends, including Katenna, have shelter dogs at home as well. Friends, family and co-workers aware of your satisfaction with a shelter adoption may choose the same route rather than go to a hobby breeder or pet store who gets their puppies from puppy mills. Don't be fooled by semantics, puppies in pet stores come from mills, period. No thoughtful breeder leaves the all too important vetting process to a part time employee at a pet store. In the starkest of contrasts, an adoption that goes poorly has the opposite effect and because the connection that dogs in shelters often come from hobby breeders and pet stores (mills) is rarely made, the next dog often comes from one of those two sources and the cycle continues. Awareness and education are good starting points in stifling the flow of unfortunate animals into shelters. Temperament tests like MYM Safer and Assess-A-Pet are another and that means having smart, experienced and compassionate people to carry the tests out, people who understand the big picture. No one who knows either Dave or Katenna could reasonably dispute their intentions or their qualifications. They personify all of these qualities and where they should be the object of our collective admiration, they've been offered up as hapless fodder to otherwise caring individuals who, if they did a little homework, would know as I do that these are good human beings, the best among us in fact.

                      Everyone in the shelter/rescue world can have a discourse about the best way to address the issues associated with dogs in shelters, kill/no-kill etc. There's not a reasonable person I know who would expect anything less. To demonize these two people however, neither with a cruel bone in their bodies, is absurd, dumb and a waste of perfectly well intentioned angst. My message to Defenders of Animals and it's membership is simple, focus your energy on the real problem. We all know what it is so stop with the nonsense already, stop and think. There's not a soul alive who knows Dave and Katenna who'd believe for moment that they're not the good guys. If they aren't then I'm not either, I am Spartacus.

What's The Big Idea?

Early this past Friday evening I’d worked with a young Lhasa-poo that while good natured and sweet had his owner’s nerves severely frayed by his compulsive behavior of eating every bit of road debris he could get his mouth on. This little guy has some manic energy to burn and was terrible on leash to boot. We’d had great success initially with a Newtrix head halter but after three days it was apparent that the classical conditioning routine I employ to introduce dogs to head halters hadn’t stuck, we needed a Plan B that would address both issues effectively. I pulled a ThunderShirt out of the car, paired it with a Premier harness and within a few minutes we were doing greets in a ‘sit’ followed by a walk free of trail mix, get it? Trail mix? Rocks, twigs…things you’d see on a trail…moving on. The lesson ended on a high note and as I sat later that evening with the owners of a pair of Welsh Cardigan Corgis it struck me what a great time it was to be a dog trainer.” Twenty years ago the tools I was using to work with the Lhasa-poo weren’t around and while it’s not my first instinct to wax “Q” like, festooning dog owners with high tech gadgetry it’s great to have them at my disposal when a leash and martingale aren’t getting it done alone, add to this the collective wisdom of generations of animal trainers evident in an exhaustive and ever growing library of training books, internet message boards not to mention living in a part of the world where interest in the subject appears to be peeking with everyday dog owners. It’s an embarrassment of riches.

Also this past Friday, I received an e-mail sent in error by someone who’d mistaken me for another trainer. She said she’d attended his recent “seminar”. Why the quotation marks? The Webster Dictionary defines a seminar as follows: A group of advanced students studying under a professor with each doing original research and all exchanging results through reports and discussions. I don’t doubt that it was described as a seminar, in full disclosure I haven’t attended one of them but I feel comfortable speculating that it no more qualifies as a seminar than it would a Bris. It could however be described as a sermon, defined as A religious discourse delivered in public usually by a clergyman as part of a worship service. I’m agnostic by nature so a sermon would require I suspend disbelief to enjoy and appreciate the spectacle dujour. The e-mail in question inquired what the best method was for fitting a pinch collar to a 6 month old Labrador puppy. I’ve worked with former clients of this trainer; no quotation marks there, technically there is training going on; there is however, nothing professorial about it. Eleanor Roosevelt once said that small minds talk about individuals and great minds talk about ideas. I’m no great mind, no delusions of grandeur here, but I’ll take a stab at the sentiment by sticking to the idea. With that, another quote from the recent IAABC conference, “I believe in science”, simple, easy to remember and with profound implications. Bob Bailey, a patriarch in the field of animal training said this in the second of two presentations. I believe in science as well. Science is evolving, it’s subjective and it requires those qualities in its practitioners, even we lowly dog trainers. For some time I relied on pinch collars to address a myriad of training issues. I had quite a bit of success with them as well but most of the dog owners needed a sort of indoctrination before they’d subject their dogs to something so draconian. Some of them wept openly they felt so badly about it and the dog owners who welcomed the notion weren’t ones I was connecting with in any meaningful way. I didn’t understand it very well at the time, pinch collars are a tool after all, like a chest splitter, an auger or a sledgehammer, I shouldn’t be all that difficult to remain dispassionate about them; but there were dogs whose response to them was so poisonous it would take weeks just to regain their trust. This was an aggressive measure for a problem that rarely required one. They’ve since been relegated to the bottom of my training toolbox, a tool of last resort and certainly not for any six month old Labrador or any other puppy I’ve worked with for that matter.

There were so many great ideas I came away from the conference feeling much more strongly about but the one that stands on top was the importance of free will in training and counter conditioning. Delivered with great poignance by Dr. Frank McMillan of the Best Friends Society, the merits of free will were contrasted with the horrors of forced confinement, and myriad other forms of animal abuse from around the world. Dr. McMillan outlined the kinds of permanent damage visited on animals forced to endure cruelty, both physical and emotional at the hands of humans. This subject was examined again later in the conference by Katenna Jones and alluded to by a number of other speakers.

A scenario I come across commonly involves a dog learning that it’s more rewarding to go to a designated place when they hear their doorbell as opposed to charging the door, barking and jumping on the guest(s). Less common is helping a dog crippled by fear learning to reevaluate the things in their environment that trigger fear responses from hiding to biting. Deconstructing these triggers requires patience and creativity and no small measure of cooperation with the dog’s owner. Coaching dog owners and their dogs so they can navigate slowly through these emotional mine fields is an awesome experience and it feels good, it feels really good. The big idea behind these experiences is education vs. subjugation. I’ve done both of these things and can tell you there is nothing special about controlling a dog through domination, been there, done that. Watching the wheels turn as a dog problem solves and/or learns to reevaluate scary situations is in contrast endlessly fascinating and satisfying.

As with most things there are exceptions. It is not alright for a dog to react aggressively towards another dog, person etc. Biting is not a reasonable choice. To that end there are tried and true methods that are not punitive in nature for modifying aggressive behavior. Counter Conditioning and Desensitizing (CC&D), Behavioral Adjustment Training (BAT) and Constructive Aggression Training (CAT) are three methods I’ve employed with great success. There is some discourse on both BAT and CAT as technically they fall under the umbrella of positive punishment, negative reinforcement. Both involve exposing a dog to a negative trigger, removing either the trigger or the dog when the desired response is given (calming signal). I take issue with the idea that these approaches can be associated with choke chains, pinch collars etc. for the simple reason that within the course of a normal day some dogs will encounter a negative trigger, i.e. another dog, cat, person etc. It’s not a decision, but a naturally occurring part of their environment. Add to this that the dogs I’ve worked with using CAT and BAT are clearly coping with these triggers with measurably more confidence and it’s hard to ignore their respective merits. In the end, both approaches afford reactive dogs the option of reacting to these triggers as they typically do or with relative composure.

Bob Bailey discussed how in his early years he spent a lot of time observing how animals behaved without thrusting himself into the equation. What were animals doing? Why were they doing it? It formed the basis for a career that’s stretched from the 1950’s to the present. Aversion methods turn a blind eye to this kind of inquiry. If the goal is to control through domination then it hardly matters much why an animal is doing something. They need to stop doing “that”, whatever “that” happens to be. Ethology based training assumes our pet dogs are, as Brenda Aloff mused, “trying to conquer the world”. Imagine Charlton Heston in “Planet of the Dogs”,…”Get your paws off of me you damned dirty mutt!”

All You Need is Love

Warwick Animal Shelter volunteer Mary Lou with one of the Dennis Dogs.

“A book is like a mirror, if an ass peers into it you can expect an apostle to look out”. 

- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

I was talking to shelter staff about the well publicized case of Clifford Dennis; a Warwick resident known by the shelter crew for breeding Pit Bull Terriers and at least a couple of times a year, dropping some of his dogs off there. Dennis tethers his dogs to dog houses with chains manufactured for use in heavy construction. With one of the worst winter storms in recent history on tap, an anonymous call was made to the Warwick City Council president alerting him that the dogs were outside. Quickly and with an apparent dime dropped to TV news outlets his dogs were confiscated by the Warwick Police and brought to the animal shelter. Dennis has been by the shelter quite a bit since then. I’ve seen him there from time to time over the years. He’s an imposing character, driving around in an old pick-up truck, often with two of his more prized PBT’s riding shotgun. To me it feels like being in the presence of darkness, foreboding. Aside from the observable there are equally unpleasant rumors about his personal politics and then the obvious question for which there can be only one answer, “Why do you breed Pit Bull Terriers?” When queried he’ll sometimes refer to Biblical passages. His dogs are a mixed bag with a couple of common denominators. They are all well fed, all, except for the puppies were extremely tactile sensitive, never having set paw on a tiled floor and while they were confiscated for fear of exposure none appeared to be suffering from it. In the south, hunting dogs are frequently housed strictly outdoors in enclosures that use chambers, wind flaps and hay to keep the dogs warm and dry. They are not family pets and while the life of working dogs seems terribly out of context for many pet dog owners it is not by it's nature inhumane. Strictly speaking these were not working dogs either. I'm not trying to beat around the bush; only Clifford Dennis truly knows what becomes of his dogs. I can only speculate and to me, it looks bad, it looks very bad. This to me is a case of "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's probably a duck." The lucky ones, thanks to the staff, volunteers and efforts of people like Sue Parker and Tammy Mello end up at the shelter and eventually find good homes. The others, I suspect, are destined for misery.

For all of this there’s a stinky cheese irony to this story that I can’t get away from. Beyond the initial “something smells amiss” aspect, by all accounts Clifford Dennis knows his dogs very well, helping Ann and co. with useful insight into their personalities. He’s quite tuned into them, his frequent visits suggest concern for them. All of this stands in glaring contrast to the strange disconnect, the degrees of separation that exist when you’re breeding a type of dog that suffers in mass at virtually every municipal and private shelter in the country. Dogs who’s “job” is all too often to fight other dogs. Again, the obvious and bewildering question is why? Why on earth would any thoughtful person perpetuate such misery while on the surface appearing to have an affinity for the breed? Of course you can’t talk about Pit Bull Terriers without a heavy, we’re talking black hole heavy, sense of irony. PBTs are vilified in the press every time someone is mauled by one, yet statistically you are far more likely to be bitten by other supposedly less aggressive breeds. I, for the record, have never been bit by a Pit Bull Terrier. If I’m talking broad strokes, they’re some of the sweetest, smartest dogs I’ve worked with. They are, in theory, bred to cope with an extraordinary amount of abuse from humans while being equally intolerant of other dogs and yet, like any other breed there are frequent exceptions, i.e. that rare dog that is aggressive towards humans. Finally, outspoken fans can still find themselves working in earnest to promote low cost spay/neuter programs that limit their numbers.

Ultimately this is a dilemma of an existential nature. In the perfect world we would be blissfully indifferent to the physical prowess that leads to their exploitation. We would appreciate and breeders would breed for the qualities my friends and peers hold in such high esteem. Of course that’s not the case at all and while people like Clifford Dennis are singled out for our collective scorn, he’s only one of many and might easily of escaped any public outing had he been doing this in a more remote location as opposed to a stone’s throw from Route 95. In the meantime, for all the references to biblical chapter and verse this is one “apostle” that at least for now, appears an ass to me. A deeply ironic ass, but an ass nevertheless. Maybe being around the shelter staff (That's Marylou in the picture above with "Baby Bear") has been a positive influence, I hope it has.

The sudden impact of bringing in several dogs all at once put a strain on the shelter's resources. A quick e-mail to my clients, past and present resulted in a flood of donations that helped fill the void. Thanks to everyone who reached out to help. Their acts of kindness was the silver lining to this still unfolding story.

You've Got A Friend

Fifteen years ago, Sue and I made the decision to move into our first apartment together. It was the second floor of a home in Taunton owned by the Dunn family who lived on the first floor. Rich and Linda were the best; accommodating, friendly and as it turned out, breeders of Miniature Pinschers. We'd talked about getting a dog but when we saw Mia, some six weeks into her gestation period (full term for dogs is 8-9 weeks) it seemed like fate. Linda liked the idea of one of her puppies living just upstairs, we liked the idea of a small breed dog. This is where some of you might be saying, "Isn't Jim big on adopting dogs from shelters and isn't he wary of so called back yard breeders?" This is true and this was fifteen years ago; I've learned quite a lot since then. Due diligence was not on the menu, this was impulsive. I'd once heard that most people can summarize their lives down to eight critical decisions. In hindsight, this was one of them.

If you've gotten this far and thought, "Fifteen? This must be an eulogy." I'm very glad to say it is not. Louie remains lively and happy. This entry is a tribute to my most unappreciated dog and oldest canine friend, as we call him "Lou Lou". Sue and I had both had dogs growing up but we were the farthest thing from experts. Nevertheless, we did one thing right and that was to bring Louie up for some face time starting at about 3 weeks old right up until 8 weeks when he came upstairs to stay. He'd come up for 20 - 30 minutes at a time. Developmentally, 3-16 weeks of age is referred to as the Critical Period. It's marked by development of the dog's nervous system and, as it's suggested by it's name, a critical time in a dog's life when their brains are "programming" for the world around them. We were bonding and easing the transition from his life with mother Mia and his litter mates to life with Sue and me.

Louie (aka "Big Lou") was a tiny little potato with fur as a puppy. He loved walks at nearby Massasoit State Park but was a bit of a grouch, snarling and grumbling to express his disgust at wearing a winter coat, brushing his teeth or clipping his nails. Tempering our image of him as a malcontent were those times when he'd cuddle up with Sue and fall into a deep sleep on her chest. It was very sweet.

About a year later Linda was breeding Mia again with the same sire. We took a little longer to consider our second dog (5 minutes vs. 3 minutes) but the Dunn's were again receptive to the idea. We chose the runt with a bald spot on his head. Keeping with the prohibition era influence, we named Louie's brother "Floyd". They were thick as thieves from the start apparently aware that they were kin. Louie's temperament mellowed considerably with Floyd's arrival. Having a canine foil to play, cuddle and walk with was just the ticket. They were inseparable, sleeping with each other, scrapping, eating together, walks in the park. The brotherly love between them was endearing and deep. Sadly, regrettably, this would be short lived.

Early the following summer Linda and Rich let us know they wanted to take back the second floor of the house. Their kids were growing up and it had become cramped quarters for them with just the first floor alone. We'd planned to begin looking for a home the following year once we'd saved for a down payment. Suddenly we were scrambling to find one right there and then. In hindsight we'd been pushed into what will likely be the best buyer's market in my lifetime. This was was prior to the bubble so prices were low and interest rates were very aggressive. We settled in the same home we live in now; nestled in a working class neighborhood near what is now my son's school and Warwick City Park where we walked Louie and Floyd so they'd have a chance to check out where they'd soon be living. A few weeks before the closing I was letting Floyd out to pee in the pen Rich had put up for all of our dogs on the side of the house. Once he'd finished I opened the pen to pick him up and bring him back in the house. What I would do to have that moment back again. This would become the reason I push the dog owners I work with to leash their dogs whenever they're outside with them. Behind me in the bushes was a feral cat. I hadn't seen him but Floyd did. He squirmed out of my hands and chased the cat into the street. Sue was around the corner and screamed, "Noooooo!!!" Screeching tires, "Oh no!, Oh my god, Jim!" The cat had made it safely across the street into a nearby cemetery. Floyd had been hit by a passing pick up truck. This happened 13 years ago, it remains painful to think about. It was preventable. This was my fault. Floyd was not killed by the impact but was severely injured. We rushed him to Dr. Mike Bruzzi at Dighton Rehoboth Animal Hospital. Mike's a terrific old school vet and we'd still be going to him now if he weren't so far away. He stabilized Floyd so we could catch our breath and discuss our options. Mike felt Floyd could recover but that he needed to see the specialists at Tufts. What followed were two weeks of visits back and forth to spend time with Floyd while the team there, led by Dr. Dorothy Michaels, worked with Floyd to keep him stable and sedated while he healed from the trauma. Floyd had suffered a spinal injury and the prognosis was for a long rehab with limited activity that we would have to closely monitor. Late into Floyd's second week at Tufts we received a call from Dr. Michaels. During the night, Floyd experienced an intestinal obstruction, something they hadn't seen. He'd passed away and I knew it hadn't happened peacefully. There are a handful of moments in my life when I've been reduced to inconsolable wailing. This was one of them, and it was for Sue as well. Dr. Michaels asked that we come up one last time both for some closure and to make final plans. Sue couldn't bear to see him now that he'd passed, I had to. Again, upon seeing him, I was struck with waves of sadness, regret and guilt. I wanted Louie's brother Floyd back but he was gone. When you work for someplace like Tufts, it's incumbent to develop a thick emotional skin. Things like this happen frequently, it's going to take it's toll if you don't. Nevertheless Dr. Michaels was right there with us, sharing in our grief. I don't know how she does it frankly but I'm grateful she was there for us. After a long gray ride back home, Louie jumped up on the couch clearly aware on some level that something was terribly wrong and doing his best to console us. I'd loved Louie from the moment I'd seen him born to today, October 1st, 2010 his fifteenth birthday but at that moment I had a new appreciation for him, for dogs in a broader sense.

There was no time to languish in this tragedy, we had to keep things in motion for the move that was just two weeks out. In the midst of all of this Sue and I worried that Louie, who had mellowed so dramatically with Floyd around, would revert back to Louie the Grouch. We began to look for a small breed dog, not wanting to pair him with a larger dog for fear of a physical mismatch. Again, my relative ignorance coming into play, preoccupied with size like two boxers at the scales before a fight. Temperament would and remains a wiser preoccupation. Our search brought us to a breeder in Exeter, RI who had a litter of Jack Russell Terriers. Another one of those "eight decisions", hooo boy! There was one puppy left, a fat little white puffball that had been overlooked for some reason. Sue and I were quickly vetted. Young couple, no children, fenced in yard, check, check, check. We'd brought Louie with us to get his impression of this puppy. I'd describe him as indifferent and their first meeting passed without incident. The calm before the storm. We brain stormed for a name, I can't recall all of ones that we passed on but when I said, "How about Archie?" well, sometimes you just know. That was his name, it couldn't be anything else. Understandably, the bond between these two was not immediate and has never been as obvious or deeply felt as the one Lou had with his brother but as the idea for this post struck me, Louie has always made the first effort to ease into friendships with the other dogs we've brought into our home. With Archie I was relieved they were getting along but I didn't

really appreciate it yet. In the years that followed, I would have my first introduction to training with my friend Ron. My son Keir was born in January 2002. While there was nothing about either of our dogs that raised any flags with respect to our new arrival, we went through the motions bringing home linens from the hospital to ease them into it. A far more thoughtful approach has been designed since then by Katenna Jones and Jane Demming, "Baby Ready Pets". Nevertheless Keir's arrival was a bright ray of warm sunshine and once again, Louie was the quintessential canine friend. Of course this relationship has proven tenuous over the years. These guys can rub each other the wrong way from time to time, of course Lou's not one to hold a grudge. If Keir's got some string cheese, Lou's doing whatever he asks him to. As a client once told me, "every dog has it's price"...indeed. When Keir was 8 months old Reno came home to live with us after I'd worked with him at the shelter for several months. Again, Louie was the first one to extend a paw of friendship. Reno's reputation at the shelter was both dog and on occasion human aggressive. Shelter environments, even the best ones, are stressful for dogs. They're immersed in an ever changing landscape of scary sounds, new dogs and people. It's hard on them and it can manifest in their behavior. Reno had introductions to Archie, Lou, Keir and Sue on neutral ground. That was a must; I had to see how everyone responded to each other. That went nicely. The real test was when he was in his new back yard. Would this hooligan make short work of Lou and Archie? That was his modus vivendi at the shelter. Ann didn't think so, neither did I or this would not have happened. As it turns out neither did Louie. Was it because he was small? Because he was neutered? I would've loved to ask Reno, as it is, I can only speculate. Reno seemed very happy to be there beneath the trees, lying on grass instead of a concrete kennel floor. Louie was quick to begin chumming around with him and in that first afternoon I snapped this picture. I couldn't wait to bring it to the shelter. It confirmed what Reno's friends at the shelter suspected was true. There was a good dog in there, a great dog as it turned out. I think on some level it gave everyone an opportunity to evaluate the dogs at the shelter with a little more perspective. I certainly did and of course this was yet another moment for Louie to show his flexibility with another new arrival. Louie and Reno remained friends until we lost Reno this past April to cancer. We were fostering Miles at the time though the dogs were not completely aware of it. To minimize stress on Reno and Archie, both very ill at the time, we played a shell game, putting our dogs behind closed doors while Miles would come up from his kennel to go outside and "commune with nature",...ahem,.. of course get some exercise and hang out. It wasn't until we'd lost Reno when we decided Miles was going to stick around. It'd been seven years since we'd brought Reno home. Louie was an old man, maybe he was too old for this shit? Archie's been rebounding the last several weeks but at the time I didn't want to subject him to a new dog. Miles had a reputation as well; for going after dogs, particularly small ones! Hoogah! What had I gotten us into? The protocol was to use baby gates during the day, kennel at night and lots and lots of leashed walks with Louie, while Archie continued to get healthier, responding to a waning dose of drugs to address what we think is Evan's Syndrome. It was habituation by osmosis and we had to be patient. The first time I let them see each other off leash, I'd invested in a muzzle for Miles. I needed to see how he'd adjust knowing he couldn't use his teeth. After going stiff, flagging and moving away, he offered a play bow. That was an eye opener. You can see the video on YouTube by clicking here. His name was still "Smiley" at the time of the post. If you watch the whole thing you'll have to forgive Archie for taking a dump a few minutes into it; no class. A few months have passed since then and it should come as no surprise that Louie took the lead to help ease Miles' transition into our family. The age difference makes for some expected friction; at fifteen, Lou's not keeping pace with a one year old JRT. Nevertheless, the muzzle's off and the baby gate's are gone. Even Archie is showing some tolerance for the new guy. Notice who's between them, keeping the peace.

When I say that Louie's the best, I say it with unapologetic bias. He's been with Sue and I through thick and thin. He jumps up on the back of the arm chair in the living room every night I come home, moaning and whining with happiness. He's still anxious to learn, still accommodating, still lively and joyful. I often say it to him when I'm scratching his chest, "You've got the heart of a lion Lou." and he does.