Try a little tenderness

It's time for the Olympics, and unfortunately there's a popular sport with no qualification required to participate or limit on who can. It's open season year round, and anybody can jump in anytime.

Sound like fun?

Well, it's Breeder Bashing.

I have no idea if cat breeders - or gerbils, or exotic reptiles, or potbellied pigs - are subject to the same near incessant barrage of hate speech, slander, public ridicule, advertising campaigns, and manipulation of public opinion as dog breeders. Part of me hopes not - way too much hate in the air - and part of me hopes so; you know, more the merrier and all that. 

We're people. We have feelings. We're human. 

We aren't perfect. We're not evil. We're not greedy. We're not thoughtless, hateful, scumsucking liars and shitbags. We don't sit around spending our time trying to figure out how to produce dogs with faults, or health problems, coming up with new and creative ways to fuck up. We really don't.

And anyone that suggests otherwise is lying.

I have a puppy buyer (doesn't own a computer, so she'll never see this) who calls roughly once a month. Usually it's all about how happy she is with her dogs, how beautiful they are, what great temperaments they have, how much their groomers love them, how good they are at the vet's office... and at some point, without fail, she'll say "You know, Fluffy is missing a tooth."

Yes, I know. You've told me once a month for the past year.

No, I don't say that out loud; I just bite my tongue. Yes, I know. So is her sister, my pick bitch. It's unfortunate, but it's not a DQ, and one premolar isn't going to affect her show career, hunting ability, or quality of life.

Here's the thing: There is no way on god's green earth I could deliberately produce a dog missing one tooth; I wouldn't know how to do it. Particularly not when I'm bending over backwards to do the exact opposite. 

Both parents had full dentition. The sire's dam is missing one tooth so we spent a LOT of time looking for a bitch strong for full mouths. The dam is from a litter of full mouths with both parents having full dentition. On the long, long, long list of things Mother Nature has a knack for being unpredictable with, dentition is a doozy. And don't get me started on bites (scissors, level, anterior and posterior crossbites, popped bites, undershot, parrot mouth...), recent data found roughly 30 separate genes control jaws/bites and dentition in dogs. It's something of a miracle perfect mouths are ever produced!

People want guarantees, even though we are dealing with living organisms. They want the impossible.

We do the best we can, we really do. We accept, grudgingly, that no matter how hard we try, we're still going to get screwed. Because that's how Mother Nature works.

Let's look at my breed, at borzoi, and what health testing is considered routine. 

There's degenerative myelopathy, and we have a great DNA test for that. What we don't have is a good understanding of penetrance - why some At Risk dogs never develop the disease and others do. (A recent break-through in corgis holds proffers answers --- but --- what is true in one breed doesn't always apply to other breeds.)

There's a great lab test for autoimmune thyroiditis, but all it can do is identify affected animals. And a dog that is Normal at 2 years may be affected at 5, or 7. So repeating the test, again and again, over an animal's lifetime is more accurate than a single test. And it's an expensive test - not the test itself, but shipping blood overnight. We assume all offspring of an affected dog are carriers, so we can identify carriers (and not breed a carrier to another carrier, thus not knowingly producing dogs that will be affected) - but we can only do this if the test results are in the public database.

Those two tests are pretty bullet-proof. They are lab tests with controlled references run on finely tuned and very expensive machines, with built-in redundancies to verify abnormal results before owners are contacted. DM is a "one and done" test because it's DNA based. Thyroid should be repeated every couple of years to detect later-onset. 

The remaining tests available to us are important, but generally not as black and white when it comes to execution.  

There's a great testing procedure for eyes, and such testing is pretty easy to get and widely available and generally very affordable -- other than it's an annual exam. Commonly known as a CERF exam (though technically it's an CAER exam), this is performed by a veterinary ophthalmologist (AVCO), it can identify congenital problems in puppies under 12 weeks of age (e.g., coloboma), separate acquired problems from genetic ones (e.g., FMAR), and track the progression of problems (macular degeneration, developmental corneal opacity, PPM - the list is long). It's another one of those tests that should be performed multiple times over the course of a dog's lifetime, because some heritable problems are detectable in young dogs (e.g., lens luxation) and others don't present until a dog is an adult or even a senior animal (e.g., catarats). As you can see (no pun actually intended), eyes are complex. Getting perfect eyes is hard, but vision is essential to both quality of life and function, so we try.

Then there's hearts. There are three different cardiac exams, and breeds have varying expectations about testing based on the type and frequency of problems known to exist. Auscultation (listening) can be done by a regular clinician, specialist, or a cardiologist. Depending on the quality of the stethoscope and the expertise of the vet, this is generally viewed as being of limited value; there are just too many variables. Holter exams are useful for finding chronic arrhythmias, but unreliable for intermittent ones and useless for an acute arrhythmia (which can kill a dog with no warning - ruefully referred to as Dead Dog Syndrome because the first symptom is, well, the dog is dead). Holter exams are standard in some breeds (Boxers and Dobermans, among others) and require shaving off the coat so the leads can be attached to the skin. Results can be interpreted by a specialist or a cardiologist, and the accuracy of that interpretation depends on the skill, experience, and training of the person reading the data. Echocardiograms are generally considered the gold standard for a heart exam, and can be performed by either a specialist or a cardiologist. Sometimes the hair has to be shaved off a large area of the chest to get really accurate views, and (like auscultations) the quality of the equipment and skill of the user are factors in the accuracy of the information gathered. A standard echo may only get three chambers of the heart; all four chambers and all four valves are desired, but sometimes the weight of the dog or the temperament or the equipment or the skill of the technician limit the views. Sometimes color dopper is used, and it may reveal additional information which has no known clinical significance. One of the most frustrating things about hearts is the range of findings can go from "perfect" to "OMG awful" -- but most of the time it's somewhere in the middle - normal but not perfect; not normal but acquired not congenital or heritable; not normal and genetic in some way; and on and on.

I have first hand knowledge of a bitch that was diagnosed (dx) with a heart murmur at age 6. Because it was found by auscultation, an echo was recommended. The echo found the heart murmur was acquired (age related) and not heritable. Had the owner not done the echo, they would have had incomplete information. I have first hand knowledge of a dog with a similar finding at age 4; echo found evidence of infection had damaged a valve in the heart. A finding on auscultation is incomplete at best, and misleading at worst.

Then there's osteosarcoma and GDV; neither of which has any test but time and plagues every line in some way. We do the best we can to identify problems, and breed away from them (either by not breeding affected animals, or breeding to lines that don't also have the same problem). 

Dogs aren't perfect. People aren't perfect. We don't have perfect tests for everything. We're doing the best we can, we really are.

Yes, your bitch is missing a tooth. I'm really sorry about that, I'm doing the best I can.

And the breeder bashers are on constant standby, ready to blame. The peanut gallery is always primed to say oh you shoulda, you coulda. And somebody who's never bred a litter, much less several, who's never agonized over what to do, or not do, or how to make something right, has never cried a million tears when it all goes to hell despite every effort to do everything right... Well the peanut gallery is just wrong. And mean. And hurtful. Anybody can stand on the sidelines and run their mouth in judgment or pretend they have 20/20 hindsight. They all need to fuck off because they do not know what they are talking about. 

So, why spend all this money and effort and heartache on testing? Why indeed.

Because we believe it's the right thing to do. Because not testing, or not sharing results, is a type of lie. Because doing everything we know how to do to prevent problems makes it easier to sleep at night. And when we, inevitably, get screwed by Mother Nature anyway, we have our friends with the same values and ethics to share the tears.

Yes, your bitch is missing a tooth. I'm really sorry about that, I'm doing the best I can.

People want guarantees, I get that. Uncertainty is hard. But we are dealing with living organisms. We all want the impossible, we all want perfection. The ethical among us won't talk in absolutes, but will tell the ugly, messy, and unhappy truth. And when honest breeders won't lie or give guarantees of the impossible, some people will go and buy a lie from someone else. 

So, let's be kind to one another, and supportive of best efforts, and be a shoulder to cry on for each other, and not be party to the whispering or finger pointing. Let's ask tough questions, and give honest answers, and be understanding of the inherently imperfect nature of Mother Nature. Let's try a little tenderness.

Time to Stop the Madness

I try very hard not to let my buttons get pushed. But sometimes, it happens. I see it coming, and say, yeah, go ahead: push it.

Things started out innocently enough. Victoria Stilwell (of BBC's It's me or the Dog fame) posted on her blog a link to an article written by Sophia Yin DVM, MS - a giant in the world of veterinary behavior.

Dr. Yin has published several books and articles, and was a brilliant public speaker. Her untimely passing last year was an incalculable loss for dog owners and dogs alike.

Sophia had serious cred, and made important information accessible to everyone. Victoria started out as an actress, and has done tremendous good for the field of dog training via tv (way more that that other guy).

I posted, perhaps foolishly, perhaps provocatively, in response to Victoria's posting of Sophia's article:

 

The point of the article, is, on the face of it, one that most people agree with. In fact, I find it pretty easy to agree with most of it. A lot of things can go wrong in breeding domestic animals; it's not all sunshine and roses and puppy breath. Mother nature is a wicked bitch, and things go wrong. Entire volumes have been written about the myriad things that can go wrong and how to try to prevent them, and what to try when it all goes to hell anyway. The financial and emotional costs should give pause to all but the most dedicated breeder. (sidebar: #5 of this post should should be a tattoo.) Statistically, most people "get out" of dogs in about five years (I've seen this several places over the years, but can't find a link at the moment. Readers - help me out?).

It's hard work. It can force gut-wrenching, soul-searching choices. And the good days, few and far between as they sometimes are, are a reward full of intangibles that are impossible to quantify.

Which is why we refer to ourselves as a bit dog-crazy... You have to be a bit touched in the head to do it.

Predictably, the haters started:
 


and - cue the GSD card:


Ah yes, the predictable, one-size-fits-all, "always" and "never" and holier-than-thou misinformation.

tip: the vocabulary of absolutes is the language of extremists. real life is full of nuance, of sometimes and maybe.


Wait - what? Misinformation?

Well, yes. The problem with propaganda is, it's not accurate. The haters are furiously clinging to ignorance because they don't want to deal with the facts.
   Oh, if only we had to "force" our dogs to breed. Anybody that has ever had crates, doors, and walls destroyed by two dogs determined to get to each other - or, conversely, had a bitch say over his dead body to a male's advances - knows what a ludicrous fallacy that is.

What facts?

These facts: Why dogs are in shelters. Where shelter dogs come from. What's changing with shelter populations. The trends in dog flipping. The reality that this is a demand problem. The reality that it's actually smart money to get a dog from a responsible breeder. The fact that it's pretty easy to tell a good breeder from a bad one - all you have to do is make an effort. The fact that there are NO DATA that support the urban legend of random-bred dogs being healthier than purpose bred dogs; the data in fact show that mixed breeds are LESS healthy. Read Hutchinson. Peruse OFA. The facts are there.

One pet peeve - it ain't adoption. Money changes hands. It's a purchase. The difference is, where did you buy the dog?

Read the last sentence in the bottom comment. Read it again. I do wonder what the rest of the story is on that...

My favorite comment - sorry, I can't find it now - was someone suggesting (tongue in cheek) that people stop having babies as long as there are children in foster care. Now there's an ironic analogy that would give one pause.


Many people posted their agreement (50+ "likes" is a lot), and their own comments. It's nice not to be the only voice of reason in the dark.

  

And this:

Name another hobby where people feel comfortable verbally assaulting total strangers and telling them how to spend their money. I bet knitters don't get this sort of vitriol. Model horse enthusiasts. Remote controlled gliders. College football fans. Shriners. Collectors of stamps, coins, rocks, fine art, guns, books, jazz... No? Can't think of one? Me either.

And, really, that's what this is - hate. Plain and simple. Hate usually stems from fear, which often comes from ignorance.

I have always said - ignorance is curable. Stupidity... not so much.

Jon Katz said it well:

As always, it is the dogs who suffer from this human arrogance, not the people. Dog bites on children are epidemic, millions of dogs are returned to shelters and rescue facilities each year because people get them without knowing anything about them or how to live with them.

 Sometimes it seems that the whole point of getting a dog for many people – this is quite clear from my messages –  is to rescue something, to feel good. The messengers have no ideas about getting a dog other than that it must be rescued. As if that is enough to know.

You can read the entire essay here.

Time to stop willful ignorance, the hate. Time to look at the DATA, not the propaganda. Time to deal with reality.

Perception is Reality

Flying back from Texas this weekend, I had an enlightening and disturbing conversation with a seatmate.

Enlightening in that how breeders are (sometimes? frequently? always?) percieved by rescue groups; and disturbing in that, well, her view was utterly toxic.

After a little "hi, whatcha reading" chit-chat, she mentioned that she volunteers with a local breed rescue group - and that she hates breeders. Hm, I said. I'm a breeder.

Awkward silence.

She's involved with a very popular breed, and no doubt sees more dogs in a year locally than I do borzoi at Nationals. But, still...

As we chatted over the next hour, we traded stories, the way strangers do when looking for common ground. She told me a sad story about a friend who paid a fortune for a puppy from a breeder and wound up with a health problem - must be a terrible breeder, she said. Well, I said, maybe. But sometimes we do all the health testing available, generation after generation, and mother nature will take you out for a spin. I told her about Bruno, and showed her the OFA database listing his ancestors' clearances - she didn't know such a thing even existed! 

She told me about her daughter's new SUV, and how they go on home visits together. Ah! I said. Yes, I require that too. And told her about a buyer that didn't get a dog from me due to inadequate fencing and an unwillingness to improve his fence.

Wow, she said. I didn't think breeders cared where their puppies went. They just want to make money.

::speechless::  I mean - really, how does one respond to that? I know it wasn't intended as an insult... It's just her perception - her reality - based on what she sees in rescue.

Well, I said, you may not believe this, but I know, right now, at this very instant, where EVERY puppy ever born in my house is. Right now. 

She looked shocked. 

And, yes, I charge for my puppies. Does your rescue group charge for the dogs you place?

She squirmed. Yes, she said, there's an adoption fee - but, she hastened to add, we lose money on every dog.

Me too, I said. Calling it an adoption fee is just marketing, I smiled. You sell dogs, I sell dogs. And we're all losing money. I haven't figured out how to make a profit. I've easily got five figures invested, once you factor the health testing on the parents, and on the puppies, and the costs of a few years campaigning before doing a breeding. Forget initial purchase price, food, and regular vet care. I lose a fortune on every litter. But - money changes hands - it's a sale.

I also told her how every good breeder I know is also involved in breed rescue, and that the purpose of rescue is to reunite the dog with its owner, or breeder; and only if neither can take back the dog, is it then made available to a new owner. At first she didn't believe me, so I told her a couple of stories of owners that had become very ill, or a breeder that died, and how we all pulled together to get those dogs back home. 

We did not talk about Piper. It is the nightmare scenario that every breeder has been losing sleep over for more than two months now: a wayward dog picked up by ACO and turned over to breed rescue, and breed rescue refusing to return the dog to the rightful owner, co-owner, and breeder. But the conversation made me think - we need to find ways to educate people in rescue, people like my well-intentioned traveling companion who has a negative view of all breeders.

I told her, nobody hates bad breeders as much as good breeders. NOBODY. Because we understand that JQP paints us all with the same muck-covered brush. It's easier, I told her, to blame breeders and not owners; to lump all breeders into the same barrel of bad apples. But that it's not right, it's not fair. Come to a dog show I told her (giving her the date and location of one next month). Talk to people, ask breeders how they screen their homes and what's in their contracts. Ask them if they've ever had a dog returned. Listen to their stories.

I'm not special. I'm not better. I am lucky to have mentors with decades of experience, and incorporated their values into my own. In my circle of friends, there are more good breeders than bad ones. 

I don't think that's unique to me. I do think we aren't getting the word out. We need to find ways to educate those focused on rescue what the truth is about breeders, and partner with the good ones. 

As we deplaned, she said, well, good luck with your dogs. Thank you, I said. Hope to see you next month. Your breed always has a huge entry, there will be lots of people for you to meet.

Wonder if she'll make the effort. For the sake of the dogs, I sure hope so.
  

Fact, Fiction, and Fantasy - or, reality vs conventional "wisdom"

Twice in the past week I've been read essays blaming clicker training for misbehavior in dogs. I don't know what's behind this resurgence, but will offer my perspective on why that is foolish and dangerous.

The authors are postulating that a return to the use of aversives (under the slick marketing term of "balance") will magically create "better" behaved dogs. One post was about alpha rolls and dominance; the other was about the need for using punishment in training for competitive obedience.

Neither cited a single peer-reviewed reference or controlled study; that should be a clue to all readers that what they are getting is opinion and not fact. I will endeavor not to make the same mistake.

Let's tackle alpha rolls first. (Like the metaphor?) There's so much misconception, myth, and misinformation wrapped up in this, it's difficult to know where to start. So I'm just going to pick a place and begin. 

One commonly heard rationalization for the use of alpha rolls is they establish the human as dominant - "alpha" - over the dog. That should beg the question - what is dominance? For a primer, read Dr. Sophia Yin's excellent article. For a "how to" on being the pack leader using brains instead of brawn, read this.

Wolves don't actually physically dominate one another. At least, healthy wolves don't. They don't have access to medical care so risking injury by actually fighting one another would be, from a survival standpoint, stupid. Why get into a physical confrontation, even if you win it, when an infection could kill you? The alpha wolf / dominance / roll myth has been disproven so many times I've come to the conclusion that people cling to it willfully. You can read the facts here and here (and if you don't have the Coppinger book and own a dog, for pete's sake buy it); watch video evidence here and here. Need more? Here you go: more and more and more and more.

And by the way, it may seem obvious but bears pointing out: dogs aren't wolves. So even if wolves do use physical dominance - and current research finds no evidence they do - it would be foolhardy to presume that behavior transfers to dogs, which are a different subspecies. (If you're aware of real evidence, by all means share it in the comments section below.) If we get hung up on the genus canis we are making the same mistake as anyone that assumes a horse Equus ferus caballus and a donkey Equus africanus asinus are the same because they both start with Equus. Ask anyone that has lived and worked with both and you'll get an earful of reality.

Why on earth would someone that loves their dog, and wants to be a good trainer, willingly cling to this myth? After a decade of working with people and their dogs, I think there are three likely reasons:

1 - Ignorance

Many people continue to use outdated training techniques because they just don't know differently.

Pavlov, Skinner, Breland, and Bailey have repeatedly proven for the better part of the last century that it simply isn't necessary. The data show that, even with non-professionals, it is more effective not to use punishment to train. Click here for an interesting discussion on the vocabulary used by professional trainers and behaviorists. Read this for a short overview and this for a longer and more technical presentation.

Anyone genuinely interested in becoming a better trainer will find countless resources available to get them started. It's not an easy journey, but an indescribably satisfying one.

2 - Delivering punishment is a self-reinforcing behavior to the person meting out the punishment

Go back to this link for a moment. Read slide 40: "Punishment reinforces the punisher." Read it again. Then read this and this. 

Simply put, physically punishing a dog makes the person feel good. Even though it is, conclusively, bad for the dog, bad for the relationship, and doesn't actually change the behavior supposedly being punished. People feel like they are doing something, get a chemical rush out of it, temporarily suppress the dog's behavior, and pouf! Perfect recipe for repeating the deliverance of punishment. (For a full discussion of this phenomenon, read this book.) It's also worth noting that using positive reinforcement has long term benefits to the cognitive ability of the dog (or whatever species is being trained - from fish to primates). 

3 - Not everything is a training problem; thus training isn't always the answer.

There was an incident at a recent obedience trial that got quite the emotional write-up. Being subject to attack or witnessing one is traumatic for all involved. What's missing from this piece is first-hand knowledge that the attacking dog was clicker trained, had never been herding (nor why that would be relevant), nor that fuzzy toys were actually used by its handler (nor why that would be relevant in a normal healthy dog with good vision). Nonetheless, the author has made the assumptions necessary to put forward her "solution" euphemistically described as a return to a balanced approach to training and thus supports her postulation that the use of "corrections" - another euphemism - and rationalizes the use of punishment in dog training. 

Does punishment work? Sure; with precise timing and the right level of force, it can. But it's got a heavy price and as documented above, isn't necessary.

When a dog has a true behavior problem - is unstable, unpredictable, or just crazy (and yes, that happens) - then what is called for is Behavior Modification. There are several choices, but what's mostly needed is a professional (who can be hard to find, depending on where you live) with successful experience. We must always remember that training has its limits; we can not teach a fish to drive a car or a horse to do calculus - only what it is physically, cognitively, and emotionally capable of learning. B-Mod can make a difference... and when that fails, an owner is left with few choices. Let's be very very careful and not blame training technique when it may not be a training problem at all.


Have I ever manhandled a dog? Well yes of course I have. I'm not perfect and have done any number of things in my life that I'd rather I hadn't. Do I still use physical means when training dogs? While this invites a longer discussion of management vs. training (a worthy topic all its own), in the main, the answer is: rarely and consciously. Deliberately. With specific purpose and then immediately move from P+ back to R+. I have in fact worked with a client to use a shock collar; it took weeks of soul-searching, long and detailed conversations, and careful planning. Did it work? Yes. Would I do it again? Maybe. Would I prefer another solution? Yes.

Do I use aversives with my pack at home? While I never claimed to be a purist, neither is P+ the first tool I pull out of my metaphorical bag of tricks. You'd have to ask my dogs - aversives being in the opinion of the receiver - if I am a fair and predictable trainer, owner, and leader. I expect you'd conclude that they are happy, generally well behaved, and respectful. They are not plotting to dethrone me (and they are a lot faster and stronger than I am), and I live with a large number of dogs that never fight - for the simple reason that I ensure they never have something to fight about.

I'm not perfect and neither are they, but then training is never truly done, is it?

Excuses are like bricks: they don't fly

It's 5:30 in the afternoon, my cell phone rings, a number I don't recognize. I answer it, and can barely make out the caller saying:

How much do you charge?

Well it depends, I say. What's your name?

**Billie.

Can you tell me what you are looking for?

Her version: She has a mixed breed dog that, she says, needs "training." Right away.

My perception: She has a dog with a serious behavior problem and history of multiple bites. There is little pattern to the behavior, and it has been going on for close to a year.

My recommendation is an initial evaluation; I tell her how that works, how long it takes, and how much I charge. And what some possible next steps would be, depending on the evaluation, ranging from medical work-up to behavior modification.

But she just needs some training.

You said, the dog is muzzled full-time, right? Has this dog bitten you? Do you have any children in your home? Are you afraid of your dog? It sounds to me like this dog has a serious behavior problem. I'd like to see if I can help you; would you like to schedule an appointment?

She says she might call back next week.

**not her real name - if she actually gave it to me. 

Truth, lies, and fanning the flames

A lot on my mind, many a post not written or shared... Busy is good, silence is golden, and all that.

I spent yesterday temperament testing dogs at a shelter. As a therapy dog team evaluator, this is something we do about once a month, attempting to identify shelter dogs as potential therapy dogs. Of 10-15 we examine per session, on average, 3 qualify as candidates.

The time in-between dogs is usually spent having interesting discussions about dogs, behavior, "the system" of shelters, breeders, puppies, on and on. Yesterday it was suggested that, oh if only, everyone could stop breeding until every shelter dog had a home, then overpopulation and kill rates would be resolved. I pointed out that the market for shelter animals is very different than the market for dogs from Responsible Ethical Breeders. I suggested that if somebody wants a well-bred puppy with health-tested parents and proven lines of breed XXXX, that somebody is not going to go to the shelter and pick up a dog that doesn't meet those criteria. That person won't get a dog at all, until one becomes available from a REB.

The problem, I suggest, is that there is a huge market for puppies in the country. Not a huge market for badly-behaved adolescent dogs or elderly, ill, and infirm dogs.

The truth is: Responsible Ethical Breeders don't produce enough puppies to satisfy the puppy market in this country.

The problem, I suggest, is that shelters are pressured to lower kill rates and increase placement numbers, which results in poor placements to begin with and untracked returns as well.

The problem, I suggest, is that REB's are portrayed as the enemy, when REB's don't contribute to the shelter population at all.

The problem, I suggest, is that most shelters do a poor job of breed identification, and many shelters refuse to work with breed-specific rescue groups.

The solution, I suggest, is that we stop pointing fingers at each other and focus on the people who buy dogs, regardless of source, and ensure they have good information for making informed decisions on acquisition AND information on how to be responsible owners. This means buyers understand how much food and vet bills cost, what good training is and where to find it.

And I say BUYER quite deliberately. Cute euphemisms like "adoption fee" don't change reality: money changes hands. It's a purchase, let's not deceive ourselves. No matter our feelings, dogs are, legally, property. That makes us owners.

Most of us are involved in rescue, on some level. Most of us are familiar with "foster failure" and have the dogs (and vet bills) to prove it. Most of us come to understand that the people who buy from shelters and irresponsible BYB's are the ones that create the shelter problem: if there is no market, there would be no supply.

Can one get a great dog from a shelter? Of course - but the odds are against it. Can one get a terrible dog from a REB? Of course - but not only are the odds against it, the REB will sell her soul to make it right.

Driving home, I saw a billboard that said "There's nothing wrong with shelter dogs." Having just spent 5 hours temperament testing shelter dogs, I vehemently disagree.

It's all Semantics

This post is a cheat... was originally an e-mail posted to a list with over a thousand people on it in response to someone who claims to place borzoi as assistance dogs... The entire thing gave me such heartburn that I wrote the following in response. It has since been re-posted and shared on other lists, so I'm posting here so that my original content is unadulterated.

------------
Thank you for clearly articulating some important questions. I can't speak for anyone else, but will try to answer, generally, what is required of Assistance/Service Dogs (and briefly, a Therapy dog).

I am certified dog trainer (CCPDT) and a professional instructor/trainer for Assistance Dogs of the West (ADW). ADW is a Full Member of Assistance Dogs International (ADI); ADI is the governing body world-wide for assistance/service dog, organization, and trainer standards.

My organization, ADW, focuses on placing dogs with people with cognitive and physical disabilities. Scent alert (diabetic, seizure, etc.) is a new area we're finding some dogs talented in. We do not do seeing-eye or hearing-alert dog placement. We secure our own liability et al insurance privately, which is extended to clients when a dog is placed.

ADW begins the selection process of potential assistance dogs at puppyhood. Youngsters are repeatedly evaluated for appropriate temperament, aptitude, and structure. I am intimately involved in this process and can best describe it as rigorous; well over 50% of candidates are rejected. Every organization does things differently, but because the wash-out rate puts crippling expense on the training organization, ruthless selection is essential. ADW is able to place 80% of the dogs we accept, the other 20% are released.

Training takes an average 18 months; ADW does it faster than most in the US because of our unique, community integrated approach. After a year of training, ADW's dogs have 90 commands; by placement they have 150-200 behaviors on cue, depending on the type of work a specific dogs is suited for. Many assistance/service dog training organizations take 24-36 months. Because the ADA standards require that a dog be able to provide essential life functions the person can not do for themselves (http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm and http://www.petpartners.org/TAP-FAQs#ServiceTherapy) these dog skills must be perfected prior to placement.

And don't get me started on the placement process, it's complicated and thankfully the special responsibility of people in our organization with decades of experience and expertise (including Occupational Therapy) with people with disabilities and the diagnostic capability to match needs and skills. Not my area of expertise, and I am in awe of our staff professionals that do this "matchmaking".

Once placement has been determined, the handler comes to our facility for two weeks of "boot camp" to learn how to work with and care for the dog. Before going home they MUST pass a Public Access Test (AND be re-tested by us every two years) in order to take the dog home. We provide livelong follow-up support. ADW retains legal ownership of the dogs, and sometimes takes back a "retired" dog (if the handler can't take care of the retired dog along with their new assistance partner, for example).

These are a few reasons Assistance dogs are so difficult to get, waiting lists are usually years-long, and the dogs themselves extremely expensive.

And one last word on Therapy dogs... I am with Delta Society and a Therapy Dog handler. Therapy dogs **ARE NOT** Assistance dogs, and the certification tests for Therapy dogs absolutely do NOT qualify them in any way shape or form for Assistance Dog work. BTW, Delta provides insurance for their teams.

I love my therapy dogs, but have no delusions about them being Assistance Dogs. An Assistance Dog must be biddable enough to to work 18 hours a day; a typical Therapy dog will "work" a few hours a week. This is why the vast majority of ADI organizations use labs, goldens, or shepherds - these breeds have the human-driven work ethic required to do the job, year after year. (ADW is doing a pilot program with smaller breeds; the jury is out on these.

As you can see I'm quite passionate about this topic . Hope it's answered some of your general questions about Assistance/Service dogs and Therapy dogs.

Charismatic Mega-Geeks

Oy, my aching head!! And it feels so good...


This past weekend I went to the 3rd Annual ORCA Conference - and I intend to be a regular attendee. This year's line-up of speakers was an über-geeks dream come true, with a wide variety of species experts (birds, wildlife, marine mammals, horses, dogs, etc.) sharing their knowledge, ideas, thoughts, experiences, and notions of what to do next. A few of the speakers I had heard/seen/met before, a few were legends in the OC community, and a couple I'd never heard of before! What a wonderful mix... I was full of eager anticipation.


Friday morning dawned and I scurried to get all my morning chores completed before my ride/room-share for the weekend arrived. Suzanne and I had met casually a few times; this was to be our first in-depth time together and I will confess a certain amount of trepidation... three days (two driving, one at the conference) and two nights (splitting the hotel expenses) can be an eternity if people don't "click" (pun fully intended). Thankfully we got along exceptionally well, and I look forward to many intriguing conversations with her in the future. 


Before 9 a.m. we were on the road, headed east to Texas. Texas, the land of gentlemen (we never opened a door ourselves), meat (more steak restaurants than any other three states combined), and terribly interesting rest-stops (free wifi and scary signs). 


We rolled into the Dallas area well after dark, checked in (very nice hotel), and set about finding a place for dinner. Suzanne is a vegan, so we found a place that would work for her and had dinner. Off to bed, then up early on Saturday morning.



The conference set-up was excellent - but I was just floored by how many people were there!! I have no idea how many registrants there were, but seating for 75!! and the room was full. Honey was set out by the hot tea - now that's good planning. 


We had arrived early enough to get prime seating (which I will prove later), but the multiple enormous screens around three sides of the room insured everyone would have an excellent view of the presentations. All day tech support was in quiet evidence, adjusting sound quality as needed with minimal fuss. After filling up on coffee I wandered the room... and found a board describing current research projects by some of the graduate students. Two of of the topics caught my eye:

 

I believe the students at NTU in this department are the brain-trust that will take all of us to the "next level" of understanding of what is possible through OC. It is essential that their findings be published so the "rest of us" can learn from their work.

I'd been told that the speakers at this conference don't "talk down" to their audience. That is putting it mildly. 

The keynote speaker knocked it out of the park. Three pages of notes made my hand cramp non-stop as he talked for an hour: Evolutionary Theory and the Analysis of Animal Behavior. Dr. Andronis effortlessly ranged from the unifying paradigm of consequential contingencies as a driving force of natural selection, to the fallacy of panselectionism, and segued into strategies of reproduction, exaptation, and behavioral cusps before I could catch my breath.

If I'd gone home right then and there, the price of admission would have been a bargain.

But no, we were just getting started...

Next up was Phung Luu, with slides and videos of birds - endless variety of species - in free flight performance (educational shows), kennel management, the responsibility of the teacher to reduce errors, the balance of training and the development of natural behaviors essential for mental & physical development and stability and how that actually makes training easier, and efficiency of production as a good business practice.

Kay Laurence, always good for a thought-provoking laugh, made the challenging concept of increasing criteria easier to digest. The analogy to glass-blowing and videos of micro-shaping (teaching a dog to back-up 360* around a cone in 20 sessions); the continuum of luring to free-shaping and its relationship to mental stamina; and research on undifferentiated results between luring, targeting, and shaping - fascinating!!

A much-welcomed lunch break found me seated with several students at UNT, all in the Behavior program. Juniors and Seniors, I peppered them with the usual mom-questions about what they liked most about the program and what then envisioned next for themselves. Many want to work with people, not animals, and that is tremendously encouraging. After eating, I wandered around the building, and found a small exhibit of student and faculty art.

The afternoon session started off with a bang with Alexandra Kurland, whom I've wanted to see for years. "Loopy Training" is her name for using subsequent cued behaviors as reinforces for prior behaviors - nothing new there but her protocol for resolving poisoned cues was intriguing. Clearly built on Premak, the concept of an "anchor behavior" in systematically and ever-increasingly complex behavior chains was really interesting and something I'll be exploring.

Steve White. What can I say? I first saw him five years ago, and he is still the fastest talker in the room - so fast, I sometimes couldn't listen fast enough, much less take notes. So I finally resorted to using the camera on my phone - and what a good idea that turned out to be! 

"Fluency" means many things to many trainers, but when put in the context of bomb sniffing (false positives OK) and drug detection (false negatives OK), makes running contacts and precision heeling look like child's play. Sadly, I didn't get a shot of his "J curve of change" but did draw one in my notebook - excellent explanation of resistance and progress.

The energy level in the room when Ken Ramirez took the stage reached a fever pitch. His topic of "Training to Save Wildlife" was, to say the least, controversial. I, like many others, have an ethology background, particularly to non-domestic species, most especially in the wild. My initial tension faded as he outlined his four pillars of animal care, priorities driving training, and a candid description of initial failure (condor reintroduction) and later success (wolf release). Ken detailed the use of a Skinner Box for remote training in a wild sea lion study, and the use of scent detection dogs to relocate sea turtle eggs after last year's gulf oil spill disaster. Why "good enough" just isn't. Once again, I was impressed beyond words with the care and skill; no controversy here.

Last thing on the agenda was to be a panel discussion, but that was scrapped when a last-minute speaker was added. Bob Bailey. Yes, that Bob Bailey. The one of Chicken Camp fame, a mere twenty feet away from me. It was like having Pink Floyd in my living room, too freaking cool and yes I know how I sound ;-)  I will confess to having introduced myself to him at lunch (trust me, he won't remember but I will!!). I was rapt, didn't even take notes. Bob was charismatic and passionate, his enthusiasm for the subject after all these years uplifting.

Training is easy, he explained:

But not simple:

And the space between those, my friends, makes all the difference.

So, how great was my seat? This great: no zoom, not cropped. When I grow up I wanna be a mega-geek, too...

Yeah, OK, so it's blurry. Who cares. I was this close.

Until next year...

Back in the Saddle

After a lovely summer spent playing with puppies, cooking with my son, celebrating a milestone wedding anniversary, and teaching (and learning from!) a lot of new clients, it's time to get back in the proverbial saddle - which in fact is a keyboard - and release a slew of posts that have accumulated in my head.

Starting Monday. Probably.

Later today I'm off to Colorado for a seminar on structure and performance given by Helen King, renowned Connemara breeder and agility competitor. Maybe I can get her to sign my Rocky statue...

Anyway, planned topic is a long-ago started draft on unforgivable faults. Hoping for lots of discussion on this one....

Heroines

I have been inspired, twice, this week. That could be a record.

First, by a peer and friend that is offering an opportunity to someone that most people would go to great lengths to avoid.

Second, by a former student who, through hard work and tremendous generosity, has grown in ways she can't yet appreciate.

Three cheers to both.

I doubt it's coincidence that both of these have a little something to do with dogs. The universe is talking - and I am all ears.

One Last Time

It's one o'clock, and I can't stop crying.

This morning I put Bugg on trailer, headed to new owners and a new life. The barn feels hollow, my view of our empty pasture is sad.

Her new owners have been wanting a Connemara for their grandkids to ride. A chance conversation over dinner a couple of months ago raised a possibility that today became reality.

Bugg's new home has other horses, regular trail rides, and two girls that want to see what possibilities exist. (My son learned to ride on Bugg's niece, Laurel.) It sounds ideal.

But it has been bittersweet.

The last several days I've been spending a lot of time with Bugg, re-playing the Parelli games, stripping out her winter coat, handling her feet. I was struck, time and again, by what a nice, nice pony she is. Sane, sensible, easy, kind. Since late 2008 the rhythm of my life's routine has been closely tied to her needs - daily feeding schedule, regular grooming, trying to keep her in work, blankets on and off during the bitter nights of winter. Mucking and scrubbing and hauling hay and scrutinizing grain. But she deserves better than the life of pasture candy, more opportunity to get out and about and have fun than I have been able - or willing - to provide.

I had high hopes, big dreams for us, when Bugg arrived two years ago. But having horses means having a having a horse-centric lifestyle, something I realized I'm never going to do.

While there are no regrets about Bugg's departure to better things, I do have disappointments. Two AI breedings that never took and now will never be repeated; there was a time when I would have sold my soul for a Go Bragh or Clearheart baby (and I'd have sold more than that for a good quality hard-colored colt by either one of them). Time and money and hopes never to be recovered - such is the lot of a horse breeder. Perhaps it's just as well, the horse market has been brutal the last few years. I'll never see the view of my dogs course hare from her back, or find out if I had the courage to learn to take fences despite my age (closer to 50 than 40).

Yesterday I was acutely aware of each thing being done for the last time. The last grooming, the last trim of her bridle path; the last time I'd rest my ear on her flank and listen to her healthy gut's gurgles. The last face rub; the last time our breaths would mingle as she nuzzled my cheek. The last time I'd scrub a water bucket, or throw hay, or dump grain into a pan. Once more I climbed on her back, Bugg's nose coming around to touch the tip of my boot before we moseyed around the paddock... for the last time.

As we walked out to the gate in the dawn's early light, Rick snapped a couple of pictures. She didn't mind that I interrupted her breakfast to put on a halter, and she liked the bits of apple as I led her out. She went on the trailer like she did it every day, rather than less than a dozen times in her life.

I treasure the lessons she taught me. Horses are smart, in their prey-animal ways. Bugg took to clicker training as easily as a dog, and better than most cats I've tried. But her run-or-be-eaten wiring challenged me to try harder, breath deeper, go slower. I trusted her with my life, as well. One day last year, while picking out her feet, my glasses fell off my face, somewhere under this 800 lb. animal with lightening reflexes and a keen sense of self preservation. Without thinking (foolish, foolish human that I am) I dropped to my hands and knees, feeling around in the straw bedding until I found my glasses. I pushed them up my nose and stood up - and then the stupidity of what I had just done struck me. Bugg was looking at me, one ear back, as if to say "silly biped, don't you know most horses would kill you for doing that?" She was right, of course, and all I had to offer was a cookie for her kindness.

It hasn't all been sunshine and roses, but that's more my failing than hers.

So this morning we took one last walk together: through the barn, down the driveway, between the trees, out the gate, into the morning's first rays of sunlight, and onto a truck. And I said a quick goodbye and gave her a slice of apple - for the last time - and sent her on her way.

Then sobbed all the way back to the house.

And then it was one o'clock and time to feed lunch; I'd walked halfway to the barn before I remembered, looking at the empty corral... and wiped away more tears as I turned away.

Godspeed, LoveBugg. And thank you.

Training Predators

A betrayal of the worst kind.

A horrible tragedy, made worse because children witnessed it. Tilikum reportedly grabbed the pony tail of his trainer, Dawn Brancheau, pulled her under water, and Brancheau was drowned.

Is it possible that the tickling of the trainer's hair on the orca's nose triggered a feeding reflex? Or the latest murder of one sentient being of another?

Training predators is not like training omnivores or prey animals. Part of my practice frequently involves evaluating behavior to determine its intent and its cause - and getting it wrong sometimes goes very badly. There are few companies that insure dog trainers, and fewer still that offer riders for dangerous dogs - known biters. It never ceases to disappoint me how many people will state "no bite history" during the intake interview, then later reveal "oh, he nips all the time" when I observe some behavioral clue inconsistent with the history.

I get bitten every couple of years by a client's dog; it's part of the risk package I accept in doing this work. I've once been dragged off my feet with a bulldog clamped to the ankle of my pants, been bitten several times on the leg, a couple of times on the arm (thank heavens I always overdress: heavy jeans and long-sleeved shirts), and once in the face (I looked like I'd come out on the wrong end of a bar fight). And I've had one, a golden with *too* much toy drive, grab my ponytail. Twice. (The second time I reflexively smacked him - he never did it again.) In virtually every case, the dog's bite history was incompletely revealed to me by the owner. I'm a LOT more careful about the language in my waiver (all dog bites I witness will be reported to the State), and I give the owners' reports little weight. I count on my own skepticism and observations to keep me safe.

Dogs bite. They have teeth. Even a stable dog will bite if sufficiently provoked - the rules of self preservation apply. Because there are so many undiagnosed unstable dogs out there, it's best to be really really careful. They over-react to benign provocation, and the results can be disastrous. I love working with dogs, but let's not pretend they are robots. A good dog is a treasure, a bad one is a danger. Sometimes knowing the difference is obvious; sometimes it takes skill.

And sometimes we just get it wrong.

I know nothing about training marine mammals. I do know they use R+ methods, as I do. So the loss of a fellow traveler in the world of training predators is keenly felt. By all reports, Brancheau died doing what she loved. Cold comfort. My heart breaks for her family and colleagues.