Those of us arguing that we should be teaching our dogs, rather than forcing and threatening them, have an excellent study by Veterinary Behaviorists to support our perspective. Meghan Herron, DVM, DACVB, Frances Shofer, DVM and Ilana Reisner, DVM, DACVB, of the Matthew Ryan Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, asked clients what methods they had used in the past, and how the dog responded. (Applied Animal Behavior Science 117 (2009), 47-54). 140 people, selected because the dogs were brought to the clinic because of “aggression” problems, responded to their survey. Granted, surveys asking people about past behavior are never ideal, we humans being poor historians of our own behavior, but I would argue that this retrospective study has a lot of value. The owners were asked what methods they had used in the past, a question I also always asked of my clients, and to describe their dog’s response to the best of their recollection.

The authors divided the methods used by owners in response to their dog’s misbehavior into the following categories: “Aversive: Direct Confrontation” (alpha rolls, leash corrections, “dominance down,” hit or kick, neck jab, putting on a muzzle, etc.), “Aversive: Indirect Confrontation” (Yell “NO,” Say “Schhhtt,” stare down, growl at dog), “Non-Aversive: Reward-Based” (Food, “Watch Me,” Clicker Training, Sit for everything) and “Neutral” (Avoid, increase exercise, pheromones).

Not surprisingly, leash corrections were common, used by 71% of respondents and 74% yelled “No” in response to their dog’s behavior.  However, 18% reported using an “alpha roll” and as many as 26% used a “stare down” to “correct” their dog. 11% admitting to hitting or kicking their dogs, and 14% to roughly grabbing the dog by the scruff or jowls.

Here are the numbers that matter: The most confrontational, and I would argue, aggressive, behaviors on the part of the owners resulted in the highest levels of aggressive responses from the dogs. 43% of dogs responded with aggression to being hit or kicked, 38% to having an owner grab their mouth and take out an object forcefully, 36% to having a muzzle put on (or attempted?), 29% to a “dominance down,” 26% to a jowl or scruff shake. You get the idea. Of course, these are all dogs who were seen by veterinary behaviorists for aggression-related problems, but it makes the data even more important. Violence begets violence, aggression begets aggression.

An important distinction: Note that the authors, correctly, did NOT label the owner’s responses as “punishment” or “reinforcement.” For one thing, “punishment” is an action that results in a decrease in behavior, so if an owner stares a dog down (argh! who ever started that idea anyway!) and the dog becomes more aggressive, the stare down was not punishment. Second, there are all kinds of actions correctly termed as “positive punishment” that have nothing to do with force or confrontations. For example, I use tons of food (positive reinforcement) to teach dogs a solid stay, and respond to breaks in a stay with a Body Block (Here’s a video as an example.). A Body Block is an example of positive punishment (adding something to decrease the frequency of a behavior), but it is not confrontational or threatening if done correctly. (Note how little I move in the video, and how cheerful the entire episode is.)

Thus, the study is not so much about “reinforcement” and “punishment,” as about what happens when you threaten your dog, or forcefully and physically respond to misbehavior. Please be clear that I am not saying that if one of us occasionally raises our voice to our dog, or has a moment of humanity and loses our temper, we are going to destroy our dogs forever. Neither am I saying that aversives are always bad: aversive events are part and parcel of life, and we all need to know how to handle them, dogs included. However, as many of us have observed for years, using force and confrontation as a primary method of dog training often backfires and creates some of the very problems it is trying to solve.

One of my favorite parts of this study is that it was conducted by two Veterinary Behaviorists (Meghan Herron & Illana Reisner, both, DVMs and board certified vet behaviorists (DACVBs), who I suspect (I am just guessing here), are the experts most likely to effect the behavior of many others in the field of medicine. It has been my experience that quite a few canine professionals, included some veterinarians, are still quick to buy into the “dominance-based” theories of dog training, and it is great that we have data to add to the observations of CAABs and progressive trainers that force elicits force in return. Surely the study is a great addition for anyone who would like to have some good science behind their arguments for benevolent, science-based training, so don’t hesitate to remind people that if you force a dog to defend itself, it will. Canine defensive behavior does not include calling a lawyer or writing a letter to the editor. Teeth will be involved. I’m just saying.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm. It’s GORGEOUS!!!  I mean, it’s make-your-heart-sing, heart-breakingly beautiful this week. There are tulips scattered as if someone sowed jewels instead of seeds in the flower beds. The wild plums are blooming and the air actually feels heavier with their scent. The birds at the feeder are a riot of color: Scarlet Tanagers, Indigo Buntings, Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks, bright yellow Goldfinch. The leaves are swelling from their buds, the grass is growing almost visibly, and the sheep are luxuriating in it.  Of course, the weeds are growing like…  wait for it…  weeds. The pasture needs reseeding, there are a gazillion plants to plant, thistles to battle, barns to repair, etc etc. Jim and I fall into bed after creaking up the stairs on the days we can work together on the farm. That’s actually one of the reasons for the extra work: we’re making major changes in the back yard so that 1) the basement will stop flooding and 2) we can put in a hot tub before fall. One more wonderful thing: the harvest has begun! Amazing, given that we had snow just a few weeks ago, but I’ve got rhubarb from the farm in the frig, resting beside asparagus from friends. I made a special dinner for a good friend last weekend, and we had fresh asparagus roasted in Meyer lemon-infused olive oil. Yummmmmmmm.

Here’s the Scarlet Tanager (thanks to Jim, he took the photo). The tanagers don’t nest here, not the kind of woods they like, but we got to watch them at the feeder for 3 days. Heaven! (And no, I didn’t boost the color, the bird REALLY is that bright. It’s crazy scarlet-orange-red, and one of the prettiest birds in the Northern Hemispheres, in my humble opinion.)

Here’s Rosebud napping under a willow tree with her triplets. Regrettably, she completely rejected one of them (Ralphie), the black and white one curled up on the bottom left. He never tries to nurse from her, but often hangs around with his brother and sister. He is completely imprinted on me, and if he had woken up he would have run to me, bawling for milk. It’s rather sad sometimes, he’ll watch the entire flock run up the hill, stand at my feet and look up as if to say: “And what are we going to do?”

Some tulips to make you smile! I absolutely get why people became obsessed with these flowers, there are few flowers that make me happier. Smiles to all of you dear readers, with my gratitude for spending time with me.

We all know that dogs need to chew, and thus pet stores and the internet are full of appropriate things for them to chew upon. Yet often our attitude toward their chewing is to see it as a problem, rather than an interesting behavior that deserves more attention and inquiry. What do we really know about chewing in dogs, beyond how to keep them from ripping up our designer pillows? (Well, that would be someone else’s theoretical designer pillows, since the farm house I live in has nothing that could be classified “designer” in it).

If left to their own devices, how often do dogs chew? Are there benefits to encouraging them to chew beyond keeping their teeth clean? I did some research for this post and quickly discovered how little information there seems to be on the behavior as part of the natural repertoire of the dog. Even  Steven R. Lindsay’s extensive series on applied dog behavior (Vol 3) discusses chewing as problem behavior to be prevented, and managed by the provision of appropriate chew toys. This is not a criticism of the books, the series is essentially about training and behavior problem solving, but it highlights what I’ve found in my (albeit brief) research: Our perspective on chewing is that it is a problem to be solved.

Yet I am finding myself categorizing chewing as an important behavior in a dog’s repertoire, and I’m curious what you think. Both of my current dogs, Willie and Tootsie, appear to be as excited about their chew sessions as anything else I have to offer. That could be because their “chew toys” are clearly categorized as food, but I have a gut feeling that it’s not just the food they enjoy, it’s the process of using their mouths the way nature intended. I’ve had the opposite impression of their response to some of the popular interactive games available, like the Nina Ottoson games, which I think are cooler than cool, and I suspect the dogs think are slightly irritating. (But that could be just my own dogs.)

Currently the standard advice to provide a good life for a dog, especially one who lives as a companion dog in a city or suburb, is to give her a good walk at least once a day and exercise her mind with some games or training sessions. Perhaps we need to add in a daily chewing session? What do you think? I’m curious about your thoughts on the matter.

Safety Issues: I can’t bring this issue up without mentioning the importance of giving dogs objects to chew that are safe. The primary concerns are 1) Toys that can break apart and create small pieces that choke your dog. Don’t think this is just marketing: I almost lost a dog a million years ago when he began to choke on a piece of rawhide. I didn’t use rawhides for years because of it, would never give them to a dog when I wasn’t in the same room with them, and take them away if they’ve been chewed down to a small piece I think might be dangerous. I will admit to a certain amount of obsessiveness  here, but if you’ve ever seen your beloved dog’s tongue start to go blue, you’d understand.

2) Dental Health: Chewing can be a great way to keep your dog’s teeth and gums healthy, but chewing on hard objects can also break a dog’s tooth. You may recall a post I wrote about Willie’s root canal, and how displeased I was when the veterinary dental specialist informed me after the procedure that Willie should never be allowed chew toys because his tooth was now more fragile and might break. Given how important I think chewing is to dogs, this was not welcome news. I did restrict chew toys, but the tooth broke within six months anyway and I had it removed. I still avoid hard objects, and don’t give him Nylabones or antlers, but don’t hesitate to let him have satisfying chew sessions on a regular basis. As we well know, every dog is different, and you need to choose the toys appropriate for your dog’s size, teeth and jaw power. I love how many of the new, well-made toys will rank how well their products will stand up to vigorous chewers, some dogs being able to chew their way through the Great Wall of China if given a chance.

3) Toxic Substances: What’s in those chew toys anyway? Are they good for your dogs? It is those concerns that motivate me to buy American-made rawhide only, and to love the healthy toys available through Planet Dog. I’ll be the first to admit that I give my dogs some edible chews whose exact ingredients are a mystery to me, but I do try to be mindful of concerns about additives. I still love giving my dogs real bones, in part because there is nothing added to them (and that’s what their teeth are designed to chew on anyway), but of course would never give them cooked bones or the long, harder bones of large animals that could break a tooth. Here’s a new product line I’ve never used: Bionic Pet Products, anyone used any of these toys or stuffable chew toys yet? Willie and Tootsie still get a stuffed Kong every morning, but I think I’ll give the Bionic line a try.

Two questions for you then: Do you agree that dogs “need” to chew, or that allowing them to use their mouths and teeth on a regular basis is good for them? And what do YOU give your dog to chew? Favorites? Products you have had problems with? I look forward to your always thoughtful contributions.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: The leaves are out, the tulips are blooming and the summer breeding birds have arrived. Just last week we greeted the Rufous-sided Towhee, the Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks, and the Orioles. Jim and I are about as busy with the farm as one can get; all of you who also live in the country know just what I’m talking about. Everything needs to happen RIGHT NOW! Reseed the bare patches in the pasture QUICK before it gets too hot and the rains stop. Clear out the new trail through the woods NOW before it gets too overgrown. HURRY and weed out the flower beds before the grass takes over. Set up the portable electric fences (which involves trimming the grass beneath them each time they are moved) for the week’s controlled grazing. Feed the 5 bottle lambs 3-4 times a day, including Spot’s triplets who just couldn’t ever figure out the self feeder and take forever to get milk into their bodies.

I mustn’t give the wrong impression: We are busy (especially with this being the last week of the UW class I teach to 150 students) but spring is heaven here, and sometimes I think we are the luckiest people in the entire world. Willie and I get to work sheep again and have been loving it, the world is a palate of greens and pinks and blues, and the bird song wakes us up each morning like a symphony.

Here are the two bottle lambs who are masters of the self-feeder, Ralphie (black, in the front) and Goat Girl in the back. They suck like a vacuum cleaner and are done in less than 30 seconds. Lambs wag their tails when they are getting milk, and these two look like  helicopters when they are feeding.

Here’s the action at the bird feeders–I took the photo through the kitchen window so it’s not as sharp as I would like, but I thought you would enjoy the colors. (Along with all the Goldfinch, there is a male and female Downy Woodpecker and a male Rose-breasted Grosbeak in the bottom right corner. We’ve had as many as 10 males RBGs at the feeder at the same time, such fun. Along with their physical beauty, they have a beautiful song, sort of like a slow, raspy Robin whose notes start with W’s.

Uh oh. That’s the posture that behaviorists, trainers and owners of resource guarding dogs know well, (or learn fast), and it immediately sends the primitive part of your brain into Alert Mode. I always picture some version of a submarine’s warning signal blaring: UH ooooGA! UH ooooga! as the captain yells DIVE! DIVE! to the first mate. It’s a relatively common posture in the world of dogs, and it’s message is clear: “This is Mine. Attempts To Take It Away Will Be Met With Force.” Common although it might be, what do we know about its origins, and how should we handle it when it happens?

DEFINING THE TERM First, I should be clear about what I mean by “resource guarding” (RG, also known as “possessive aggression”). I define “resource guarding” as behavior that discourages another to take, or get too close to, an object or valued area in a dog’s possession. Usually this refers to food, treasured toys or sleeping areas, but I’d argue that some dogs guard their humans as if they were the best bone in the house. RG can range from a quiet head turn to a deafening growl, forward charge or an actual bite.

[Note: If you are primarily interested in how to treat or prevent RG, skip to the bottom of the post. I'm beginning with a discussion of more theoretical interest.]

(Someone asked a related, and great question: Should we include “territorial aggression” into the category of “resource guarding”? Hummmm. On the one hand I’d say No, in part because of my dislike of the term “terr’l aggression,” since so often it is used to describe agonistic displays from dogs who are not actually aggressive but are afraid of strangers. Given that neophobia is a very different motivation than a desire to possess something, much of what is called territorial aggression may have little to do with possessiveness. On the other hand, I’ve worked with several dogs who showed absolutely no sign of fear when I approached the house, but signaled what I interpreted as “You might want to rethink coming any closer to my den.” Thus, I’ll use my standard answer to all good but complicated questions: “It depends.”) By the way, Lee Niel and Jacquelyn Jacobs, in the Department of Population Medicine at the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, are currently doing research on “possession aggression/resource guarding,” which included asking a number of behaviorists their definition and what term they most often use. Stay tuned, I look forward to seeing their results when they come out.

WHEN IS IT A PROBLEM? Between Dogs: It is perfectly reasonable for one dog to signal another that his chew bone is HIS chew bone, thank you very much. Appropriate signals are head turns, stares and, depending on a host of other factors, a quiet growl. Appropriate responses are immediate withdrawals or strategic (and often brilliant) attempts by an item-less dog to worm her way into the others good graces. (Not to mention the famous distraction technique of Einsteinian dogs: BARK BARK BARK BARK!!! says the dog who wants the chew bone, vigorously vocalizing at the front window. Dog with bone drops it on the way to join in the barking, while Einstein Dog circles back and gets the bone.) Every owner has to decide what is acceptable in their own household; my criteria are quiet warnings like head turns or stares are acceptable, anything else is discouraged.

Between a dog and a person: This again is very much up to the owner, but I’ll go on record as saying that,  in general, I expect every one of my dogs to let me take anything away from them without protest. Caveats: First, I am very careful not to abuse that right. I work hard to train my dogs to drop things on cue so that I am not taking something out of their mouth by force. Second, there are exceptions: Tootsie grabbed a dropped metal twist tie and ran off to swallow it a few days after she came to the farm. You’d better believe I swooped in like a falcon and took it out of her mouth. On the other hand, before Tulip my sheep-guarding Great Pyrenees died, she would occasionally find the body of a small mammal or bird in the woods or pasture. I made an executive decision that if she was in charge of protecting my flock from coyotes and stray dogs, she could be in charge of any treasures she could find in the woods or pastures. Not so in the house however. The two of us seemed to come to that agreement easily and with clarity. (But I had to teach her to be polite if she had a treasure and was approached by another dog: Stay tuned for the blog on how I did it some time later in spring or early summer.)

CAUSES OF RESOURCE GUARDING: That’s easy to answer: We don’t know. Seriously, we really, really don’t know. Does growing up in a large litter and having to fight for food make a difference? Could there be a genetic predisposition to resource guarding? Katie Martz and I could find nothing in our searches, so I emailed a list of Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists to ask if there is any research on genetic or environmental factors related to RG, and and there simply doesn’t appear to be anything out there on this specific topic. However, PhD behavior-geneticist Steven Zawistoski and PhD psychologist John C. Wright reminded me of some of literature that might relate in some way. Remember the early behavioral genetics studies done at the Jackson Laboratory by Scott and Fuller? Steve and John directed me to some of the early papers that might relate. Pawlowski &  Scott (1956) did some of the early work on priority access to a valued item (which is the correct definition of “dominance,” by the way) among 4 breeds (Basenjis, Beagles, Wire-Haired Fox Terriers and American Cocker Spaniels) and summarized their results: “It is concluded that these differences are the result of genetic inheritance, which probably acts through physiological mechanisms which affect the threshold of stimulation.’ Of course, dominating access to a bone is not exactly the same as guarding it, but it includes it, because some dogs maintained ownership of the bone by doing what we define as RG.

More recently, Liinamo et al (2007), looked at genetic variation in “aggression-related traits in Golden Retrievers in the Netherlands, asking if owners saw “aggressive” behavior  in a variety of contexts. Those related to RG were family members either approaching or removing a dog’s food, or removing a dog’s toy. The context of approaching or removing food had high “heritability” factors (.94 and .95) which does not mean that the behavior is “mostly genetic,” but means that there is a large amount of genetic variation related to the trait, and thus one could begin a selection process of selecting for or against a particular trait. (I always have to stop and take a breath when interpreting the term “heritability,” because a trait like “herding” in Border collies would show a low heritability, it being pervasive in BCs, and thus showing low genetic variability. Make sense? (Steve Z explained to me that he considers this term the genetic equivalent of the term “positive reinforcement,” because it means the opposite of what one might think.)

I would argue, based on the little research we have and my own experiences with hundreds of RG cases (1,000′s?), that there is a genetic component to the behavior. I’ve worked with litters of 11 dogs in which the biggest and strongest (and first to get to the nipple) pup became the RG dog very early in life. On the other hand, there is a great deal of research on a variety of species that reminds us that experience plays a significant role in “winning” and “losing” competitions.  (See Hsu & Wolf 1999 for example.) One early win makes subsequent wins more likely, and vice versa. I suspect that this is one of those complicated behaviors that has both a genetic and an experiential component, and that the resultant behavior is some kind of interaction between nature and nurture. But again, we really don’t know. Anyone looking for a PhD topic?)

TREATMENT FOR INTERSPECIFIC GUARDING: I’m going to talk here about resource guarding between dogs and people. Treating it between two dogs uses the same basic principles, but requires enough alterations in technique to deserve its own article. That said, the most effective technique for stopping a dog from guarding resources from human intervention is to change your dog’s internal response to anothers attempt to possess their “treasure.” That is why you are best off using Desensitizing and Classical Conditioning to teach your dog to love it when you approach and reach toward an object. In other words, in this case you are not training your dog to respond to a cue, but conditioning an internal response to someone approaching something that they cherish.

Before going any further, stop here an contact a behaviorist or progressive trainer who understands how to use classical conditioning if your dog has ever put you at risk of being seriously injured. You’d call an electrician if you thought your wiring was unsafe in your house, wouldn’t you? Meanwhile, or if your dog is threatening but not dangerous, follow the steps outlined below.

STEP ONE: Be an armchair ethologist by thoughtfully and specifically writing down what objects your dog guards, what your dog does to cause you to say she is guarding, and how close you need to be to see any sign of guarding. Here’s an example:

Objects: Chew bone, stuffed Kong, favorite stuffed toy in the shape of a deranged dinosaur.

Behavior & Distance: My dog first stops chewing or eating, and stands motionless if I get within 4-5 feet of her while she is chewing on her Kong. If I move to within 2-3 feet, her body tenses and her mouth closes. If I walk right up to her and reach toward the object, she will growl.

STEP TWO: Find something your dog likes even better than what she guards. Usually it will be some form of meat, but every dog is different. Be sure to experiment–every trainer or behaviorist has seen X,000 numbers of people who swear their dog “doesn’t care about food” until we get out our super stash of cooked chicken or freeze-dried liver and get their dog turning somersaults for it. Food is ideal because you can have it on hand and chop it up into pieces that allow you to create lots of reinforcement.

STEP THREE: Stocked with lots of treats, set up a situation in which your dog would guard. In the example above, give your dog a stuffed Kong, leave the room and re-enter with a handful of cooked chicken. Stop WELL BEFORE you would predict a reaction (any reaction) from your dog. In the example above, that would be at about 7-8 feet away. Toss a piece of chicken so that it lands right beside your dog’s mouth. (If you are like me, and flunked softball in school, just toss another one if you miss.). Wait for your dog to eat it up, and toss another piece. Repeat once or twice, then leave the room. If your dog leaves the Kong and comes over to you for more, look up at the ceiling and ignore her. You want her to learn that food only comes out of the sky if she is eating and you are standing nearby.

STEP FOUR: After a few sessions of this, start where you began in the last session, but don’t toss any food until you walk forward one step closer, no more. Toss chicken and withdraw one step. Walk forward one forward again, toss a treat and then WALK AWAY. You want your dog to think “NO! Don’t walk away!!” If, however, your dog reacts by stiffening, make a mental note to start farther back or to only approach in half steps. You can either stop there, or leave the room and re-enter it, repeating Step Four one or two times.

STEP FIVE: Gradually, ever so gradually, decrease the distance between you and your dog. Walk to within 5 feet in one session, then 4 in the next. Go back to just 5 feet for 2 sessions, then go to 4 and possibly 3 IF the dog is responding well. “Responding well” means that your dog is switching from “Oh No! She’s going to take my bone away” to “Goody! Here she comes! Whenever I have a chew bone and she comes close to it I get something better! How cool is that????” That means your dog’s body is loose and not stiff. She does not start chewing frantically as you approach. Her mouth is open and she looks as if she is happily anticipating your approach.

What if she leaves the bone and come to me? Well, good girl Fidette, that means you’ve stopped guarding the bone in search of something better. Again, simply ignore her and wait for her to return to her bone. It might take awhile for some dogs, but if you look away (this part is important) she will eventually give up and go back to her Kong or dinner bowl.

STEP SIX: Once you can approach your dog and stand right beside her, begin skipping the food toss until you are a few strides away, and start classically conditioning a reach toward the object. Keep in mind that you are working on re-wiring her brain so that she forms a new association between your actions and how she feels about them. Walking toward her is a different action than reaching toward her, so you need to think of it as a different category. (Understanding the distinction between each action you make is perhaps the most important aspect of being able to use classical conditioning to turn around a behavior, and it is not something we do naturally without training ourselves to be expert observers and thoughtful analysts of behavior.) First, bend toward the food or toy, drop a treat and then straighten up. Do this several times, or as often as necessary for your dog to remain relaxed. Remember: your dog drives the system here, not an idea you have in your head for how long this should take.  Gradually move your arm and hand closer and closer to the food or object, eventually taking it away and giving your dog something wonderful in return. I once convinced a head-strong and very RG’y dog to give me the dead bird she had in her mouth, and when she did, I gave it back to her. The people watching were appalled, but that’s what she wanted more than anything in the world, and she trusted me ever after.

STEP SEVEN: Keep it up. Forever. Not every day, or even every week, but at least every month or so you should remind your dog why it is in his or her best interests to let you take anything away.

PREVENTION: That’s easy–just follow the step above, but you don’t have to go as slowly as you would if you were trying to turn around an established behavior. Willie and Tootsie both love it when I pick up their bowls, because it means they are getting something even better. Neither have ever even suggested a modicum of RG’g, which is exactly why I continue to remind them how fun it is to let me take things away from them!

OPERANT CONDITIONING?: One last comment–there is a role for operant conditioning here, which is to teach dogs to “Leave It” or “Drop It” (those are different in the mind of a dog I suspect: in one case the dog is focused on something, in another he or she has it in his or her mouth, and possession is the law in canid society.)

MEANWHILE back on the farm: Spring has sprung! Although today it is cool and rainy, it’s been absolutely glorious for a few days. (My sympathies to those in Minnesota and northern Wisconsin who got over a foot of snow yesterday. Not fair, not fair at all!) The lambs are finally settling in, all 17 of them. We have one orphan (Ralphie, rejected by his mother) and 4 other lambs who need supplemental feeding. Feedings occur 4 times a day (down from 8, whew!) and take about a half hour total to get the milk ready and the lambs fed. The ewes are getting a mix of fresh, spring grass, alfalfa hay and a corn/oat mix and so should be making lots of protein-rich milk for their babies. (Would someone tell momma Buttercup that bawling at us at 120 decibels every time she hears our voice will NOT result in any more food? Not to mention that there are sheep starving in China….)

The lambs are now old enough that Willie can help me move the flock around, and we’ve gotten up the portable, electric fences so that we can do controlled grazing all summer. We are re-seeding one third of the pasture, it suffering from the drought last year, and will have to keep the sheep off of that for two months or so once it is seeded. Meanwhile, the daffodils are sun-shining their blooms all over the yard, and the crocus are starting to fade. Here are some now, along with the first bee I saw the spring:

If there is life outside of this small but saturated universe, would it do my laundry? This is not a small thing to ask, given that the pants I am wearing into the barn could stand up by themselves, and whose smell could clear a room. I should save them for the next time I think I’ll have to stand in line and wait for something.

And so, today post is all about the farm. Although I have had an especially interesting week on campus (including a vigorous discussion in my University class yesterday about meat eating, and getting to see Jane Goodall speak on Monday, more inspiring than I can say), most of my waking hours alternate between grading papers and attending to lambs and ewes. And dealing with mud. And more mud. And then more lambs, and then more mud.

It has rained here relentlessly, although I should be accurate and mention that at the moment it is actually sleeting. We have had 2 gorgeous days in the last 2 weeks, but other than that it has been grey and cloudy at best. It doesn’t take long for this desert-bred woman to perceive dewy and moist as soggy and moldy after a few days, so I won’t pretend I’m happy about it. If I could stay inside reading good novels and eating bad food I suspect it would be much more fun, but I’m walking to the barn six or eight times a day, and slopping through the mud to fill the water buckets for my lactating ewes, whose lambs are too young to be out in a downpour.
Speaking of lambs, all the ewes have now finally had their lambs. Spot was the hold out, and she had triplets late last night. She was due to lamb around April 1st, but played an April Fool’s joke on us by not getting bred that round and waiting until the next go-round to have her lambs. This is her first set of triplets:

Regretably, she is suffering from the same problem as Rosebud (now cured) and Oreo (not cured, but only has a single lamb, thank heavens), in which her milk glands are blocked and she can’t give any milk from one side of her udder. I am already bottle feeding two of Spot’s lambs, the one standing is always fat with milk, so I think she is getting the lion’s share. (FYI, the analysis on the milk has yet to come back, but there are no symptoms of mastitis. We have had the best luck with a peppermint based udder cream called Dynamint, which seemed to turn Rosebud around. (Thank you Ann T!). Cabbage leaves and alternating hot and cold packs turned out to be logistically a tad challenging to do 3-4 times a day, given the ewes lack of interest in the project.)

Earlier I sat down in the larger pen with the older lambs to get some photos. Here’s a lamb discovering the concept of “the toe of Trisha’s boot.”

Here’s one of my favorite lambs: Lady G also had triplets, one black, one white and this one who is mostly white with a bit of freckling on the nose and a grey ear. He’s very bold and curious, but this afternoon he was mostly very sleepy.

The lamb summary is thus this: 17 lambs from 7 ewes, 4 sets of triplets (a first for the farm). One lamb is an orphan, his mother has completely rejected him, but he is doing well on a self-feeder. There will be at least 3 other lambs who need supplemental feeding, they are all taking milk from a bottle and are in various stages of learning to use a self-feeder. All the ewes are doing well, although not all their udders are. However, dear Solo had a ruptured pre-pubic tendon and probably wouldn’t have managed any live lambs if I hadn’t been lucky and gotten my sorry ass out of bed early enough, and if she wasn’t a hardy warrior-woman-sheep and a wonderful, dedicated mother. She and I have bonded over her difficulties, and I have to admit a special affection for her now. She should never be asked to lamb again though, so I am going to have to find a pet home for her. I don’t have a photo of her today, but I’ll post one soon. We are going through prodigious quantities of goat milk, and if it wasn’t for good friend Donna H with a goat dairy I’m not sure what we would do. There is powdered lamb milk replacer but I’ve never found that lambs do all that well on it.

In spite of the weather, there are other signs of spring besides lambs. A few of the bulbs have managed to put up with the alternating warm and then freezing/snowing/sleeting/raining weather and begun to bloom. These are the first flowers on the farm and they do my heart more good than I can say. There’s nothing like color when you’ve been starved for it for months. These flowers are tiny, you could walk by them and barely notice them, but I’m drinking them in like a thirsty beast in the desert.

Time to go feed lambs. And grade a few more papers (right now I’m grading papers about the ethics of using psychiatric service dogs, fascinating stuff).

Anyone else have a spring story to tell? Or how about fall if you live down under?  I love to hear from you if you have a story to relate to the changing seasons. I’d write one about my own dogs, but I’m afraid there is nothing to say about them except that they are being sorely neglected. Poor Willie sits inside the barn and practically trembles with excitement over the lambs, but otherwise gets little exercise. Me neither.  How about you…any spring or fall stories to tell?

Over 292 people sent in their guesses, and congratulations are due to Robin S!  Of all the 290+ guesses on the blog, you came closest of anyone to guessing Leo’s genetic background, as analyzed by the Wisdom Panel (Professional), by guessing (in order of genetic representation), Boxer/Shih Tzu/Sheltie . But then, no one actually came very close to guessing what came back on the Wisdom Panel, which was:

One parent was half Boxer and half American Staffordshire Terrier (so Leo is 1/4 of each). (No one guessed both breeds as part of the mix, which is understandable if you think about it, but a good reminder to us all when guessing breed backgrounds.) This result appears to be definitive, in that there is a very high confidence level that one of Leo’s parents was indeed a Boxer/Am Staff cross.

The other parent came back as “Mixed Breed,” as did Leo’s grandparents and great grandparents. The top 5 breeds comprising that ‘mixed breed’ were German Spitz 21.86% , Shuh Tzu 8.5%, Belgian Tervuren 6.35%, Parson Russell Terrier 4.88% and Mastiff 4.49%.

Reports like this have generated a veritable stew of questions, confusions and in some cases, if I may be so blunt, snorts of derision. A cursory look at articles and comments about the results that others have received are full of skepticism about reports that include extremely rare breeds like Dandi Diamont Terriers, Jindos, Cane Corso & Scottish Deerhounds as part of the mixed-breed analysis. Look, for example, at some of the analyses that came up in a study being done by Dr. Julie Levy. I can understand the questions: Exactly how many Salukis or Brussels  Griffons are out running the streets breeding willy nilly with someone’s mutt down the road?

In Leo’s case, Katie and I were 100% on board with the Boxer/Am Staff results. We always thought he had some pit-type breeding in him, and Leo behaves as much like a Boxer as, well, a Boxer. He is high energy and clownish and most importantly, uses his paws like a Boxer all the time. In Katie’s words “He thinks any problem can be solved by throwing a paw at it.”

Then we looked at the breeds listed under “Mixed-Breed.” German Spitz? Hummm. Seems possible, but certainly not a breed that comes to mind looking at Leo. (At least not to us.) However, look up German Spitz and you’ll find that it is both a breed and a type, which includes  American Eskimo and Pomeranian. And 8.50% Shih Tzu? Seems possible. 4.49% Mastiff? Hmm, what might that mean?

This is when it is wise to actually pay attention to what the good people at Mars are telling you. Here’s the text at the top of the page titled “What does the Mixed Breed Analysis mean for my dog?” It began by saying “We have identified for you the next 5 best breed matches which appeared in the analysis of your dog’s DNA. One or more of these breeds could [my emphasis] have contributed to the genetic makeup of the ancestors indicated by the mixed breed icon.” It goes on to say that there may be a breed or breeds that they can’t detect with their current data base of purebred dogs. In other words, they are confident that one of Leo’s parents is a half Boxer/half Am Staff, and are making likely predictions of the other parent. In other words, the ‘mixed breed’ analyses are guesses. Good ones, but still, just guesses based on probability statements. Neither are they saying that Leo is, for example, exactly 21.86% German Spitz, but rather, “…the relative strength of each result in our analysis with the most likely at the top of the list.” Exactly, then, what the percentages mean were unclear to me, until I spoke to several people at Mars itself.

After networking through just a few channels I was able to speak with two of the top people at Mars Veterinary, Alan Martin, PhD and Senior Bioinformatics Scientist, and Angela Hughes,  DVM & PhD and Veterinary Genetics Research Manager. They know more about genetics in their sleep than I do wide awake–I don’t even know what “bioinformatics” is for heavens sake. Happily, after almost an hour and a half speaking to the two of them, I knew a heck of a lot more than I did before we spoke. (Don’t be jealous; anyone who would like to talk about the result they obtained is more than welcome to call and speak to an expert at the company.)

Here are some of the things I learned: First off, the test done by Mars is best described as a pattern recognition test. The computers (each dog’s analysis requires 7 million runs) look at 321 “markers” on the chromosomes in the sample, looking for patterns of base-pairs in the strands of DNA. The computer program is looking for patterns consistent with both different ancestral breed types (“Guard breeds” like mastiffs, Am Staffs, etc, “Ancient breeds” like Chows and Siberian Huskys or “European breeds” like hounds and retrievers), and individual breeds, each of which has its own distinctive pattern of arrangement of base-pairs. (Here’s a good Genetics 101 refresher for anyone who would like the review.) Some breeds have more definitive patterns than others, especially those that have been closely bred as purebreds for a long time. Dr. Hughes reported that breeds like Catahoulas, Jack Rusell Terriers and Rat Terriers, who were bred more for function and less for form for so long, are more varied genetically and thus a bit harder to pin down. (It also explains why some of these breeds show up as false positives, when the computer searches can’t find a match and in some electronic version of desperation, settles on a Catahoula.

Speaking of Rare Breeds:  That was my primary question to both scientists at Mars. What do those low percentage breeds really mean? That somewhere way back in time Leo really did have a purebred Tervuren ancestor, or not? The answer is maybe. It could be that Leo simply has some patterns of base-pairs on his chromosomes that just happen to be very much like a similar sequence in Tervs or more likely, a related breed in a similar group. It could be that indeed, somewhere back in time a purebred Terv bred with someone’s purebred Whatchamacallit. Mars has done extensive testing of their computer models and found that their “Mixed-Breed” analysis is about 90% accurate. Given the complexity of genetics, that is impressive. It also means that 10% of the time, it is flat wrong.  Thus, an analysis could come up with several very likely breeds and one outlier.  Rather than dismissing the results as a whole, the surprising outlier simply deserves more attention, or to be taken with a grain of salt.

If you’ve scrolled ahead you’ve just seen a photo of Leo’s mother.  She came into the shelter pregnant, and so half of Leo’s parentage is definitive, if not to breed at least to an individual. Katie did not send the photo in with the DNA sample (she sent in a blood sample; do be careful of cheek samples, they can be easily compromised although it costs less to do). However, I sent the photo in this morning to Dr. Hughes at Mars and she immediately said “Oh, that explains the breed that came up just under our reporting criteria, Miniature Wire-Haired Dachshund.” (I thought PBGV when I first saw her. Shows what I know… which is enough, I would add, to keep my mouth shut whenever anyone asks me to guess a breed.) Based on looking at all the details of the data (only the top 5 breeds making up a “mixed-breed” are reported unless you call and ask), there is a suggestion that Leo’s mom has a lot of Min WH Dachshund and Shih Tzu in her. I also learned that wire hair (or “furnishings” as they as so delightfully called) and short legs are dominant traits, so it is not surprising that they show up in Mom.

Overall, after all this, I have a much more nuanced understanding of what the results of the Wisdom Panel tests actually mean, and find the results to be extremely interesting. Much of the time I would argue that the motivation for the tests is to satisfy our curiosity, a trait I find to be one of humankind’s most useful and endearing. However, there are other more practical applications: Once one knows if there are purebred lines well represented in one’s “mutt,” one can also ask for Genetic Mutation Tests to be done. For example, Terriers suffer from several diseases more often than other breeds (lens luxation for example), and Leo’s test shows that he is negative for the ADAMTS17 mutation that could cause that affliction. Good to know, especially if early treatment would make a difference in the case of some diseases.

But what if you get back a report that says “No Result”? I read several comments by angry or disappointed people who got back a report that said there was no particular breed that could be assigned to their dog.  They felt that they had wasted their money, and clearly wanted to get results that listed a breed, any breed, in the report. I asked Dr. Hughes about this, and she said first, reports are now sent even with low probability results, in the understanding that everyone wants to know something about what the analysis found. In addition, all “No Result” reports are now sent with a letter that describes the process that led to the finding, and offers a refund if the owner wants one. One could argue it is possible that a re-analysis would come up with a different result; even computers make mistakes, and sometimes, in Dr. Hughes’ words, “go down a tangent” and need to be redirected. I’m glad to hear it’s not just me that can be easily distracted.

However, in some cases one’s dog really contains such an amalgam of genes that it is truly impossible to associate any breed to it. If I got back such results I would be fascinated, because to me that’s not “No Result,” it’s an extremely interesting one. Biologically, such dogs are called “mongrels,” but many hesitate to use the word because it has negative connotations in other contexts. If my dog came back closer to a village dog than a Labrador, I’d be fascinated, not disappointed. I’m not sure that is, genetically, the correct analogy, but the point here is that “no breed detected” is a definite result to me, and an interesting one at that. My very-much-unsolicited advice would be to re-title “No Result” into “Unique and Special” or “All American” (the All American is actually a favorite phrase of Dr. Martin, who tells me that US dogs have much more genetic variance than dogs in the UK… many more strays and random matings for example). Dr. Hughes tells me that the most common questions they get are questions about breed ID: That black is dominant and so is black and white spotting, so not every all black dog has any labrador in it and not all black and white dog have a snippet of Border Collie.

In summary, I better understand now why some of these rare breeds pop up in the analysis, and have more confidence in the results. Next time I am curious about a dog I suspect I won’t be able to resist sending in a sample. Most importantly, blog reader Robin S came closest to the analysis, and wins the DVD of her choice.(Robin, email us at info@patriciamcconnell.com and tell us what DVD you’d like!)

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Beyond blogs, grading term papers, and trying to keep up with email (ha!), it’s pretty much all about lambing. Four ewes have lambed, with eight lambs total. Two sets of twins are doing well, but things have not gone so smoothly with the others. Rosebud (triplets) and her daughter Oreo (who delivered twins but one was found dead when I returned home from UW on Tuesday evening) both have dsyfunctional udders. It’s not typical mastitis, no fever, the little milk that comes out is fine. But their bags are hard as rocks, poor things, and they are giving almost no milk at all. The condition is called “hard bag” (not very creatively, but certainly descriptive) and isn’t well understood, there are several possible causes but no reliable cures. We’re working on it (vet visits, hot packs to the udders, reaching out to UW specialists) but right now the 4 lambs are being bottle fed as often as possible with goat milk from our good friend Donna H. (Bless you!)  I’d write more, but the lambs are way overdue for milk. And we have 3 ewes to lamb yet… if one has a single I might be able to graft a one of Rosebud’s triplets on to her. Rosebud has completely rejected one little lamb, so it would be good to graft her onto another ewe if she has enough milk. Solo looks like she might be thinking about having her lamb(s), I’m hoping for a single.

Here are Buttercup’s two contented, napping lambs, more lamb photos when I get a minute:

And for those of you in the Facebook “When will Spot lamb pool”…. she’s not saying.

We thought it would be great to fun to ask what your best guesses of what breeds make up Leo’s heritage, and will reinforce the winner with a signed Patricia McConnell DVD of his or her choice.

Below you’ll find pictures of Leo, as well as some physical characteristics. Guess up to three breeds that you think might be represented in Leo’s genetics, in order from greatest to least percentages. Get your guesses in by 11:59pm CST on Thursday, April 11 and we’ll let you know who won, along with the full results of Leo’s breed profile in Friday’s blog.

Here’s what we can tell you: Leo is just over seven months old, weighs in at 46.6 pounds and is 22 inches and the shoulder. (His mother was 17 lbs postpartum. We’ll show pictures of her on Friday.) Happy Guessing!

Willie’s injury and subsequent surgery in 2o11 meant no play for over 14 months, and so it wasn’t until this winter that I started trying again to see if  Willie could learn to associate names with objects. The answer is yes, he can. Sort of. Maybe.

I’m glad I’ve cleared that up. I’ll describe what is happening and leave it to you to decipher what is going on. First, let me explain where we are now. Willie associates three different words with three different toys. If we say “ball,” over 95% of the time he will go and get the object we designated as “ball” and bring it to us. (“95%” of the time is an estimate, I am far too lazy at night to take actual data here. But I can’t remember him not retrieving the ball when asked in the last 2 months, so I’m going with 95%.) This, I should note, is one of his absolutely favorite toys, which is partly why I chose it.  It was also the first toy we began consciously naming this winter. The next toy we taught him to name we called the “fris,” and it is another one of his favorites. (And it is incredibly sturdy, which is one of the reasons we sell it on the website, it’s call a JR ring.) He got very good at fetching the “fris” or the “ball” until we lost the “fris” and can’t find the #&^% thing anywhere. Sigh. I’m tearing the house apart this weekend because I really, really want to see how he will react to it. (If I can’t find it I’ll bring home a new one. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly he learn to associate the word with a new version of the same object.)

I thought that teaching a third toy would be most difficult (it’s one thing to distinguish between two things, another altogether to switch from “this or that?” to “there are multiple things with names…”. For that reason I was extremely cautious about adding in the third toy, which we now call “red red.” We’ve worked with it for about 5 or 6 weeks, I’d say he is about 85% accurate when asked to get it. I’ll explain how I’ve been working with Willie on this in a minute, but here is a pictorial from this morning:

First I asked him to sit and stay while I got ready with the camera, a completely different context than our usual way of playing the game. You can tell by Willie’s face that he looks a bit… what? Unsure

Then I said “Ball” and he went right for it immediately. He picked it up and brought it to me.

Then I said “red red,” which is the bone-shaped, red toy on the left. (Of course it is only red to us, not to red-green color-blind dogs.) He  did not go to the correct toy at first, he first focused on the blue vase-shaped one.

I stayed still, and after hovering over the blue one, he corrected  himself and picked up the correct toy.

This all looks really good, except began again and said “red red” and he looked completely confused and went immediately to the blue toy. I suspect his response was a of function of 1) everything about our routine was different (different room, me with a camera (the shutter noise seemed got his attention every time), much less play after getting the right toy) and 2) Willie is ridiculously hyper-sensitive to virtually everything in his environment, and is easily thrown by anything that confuses or bothers him and 3) he is not as sure about “red red” as he is “ball.”

Reasons aside, it is clear that Willie still struggles a bit with “naming” objects. (Or does he still think of them as verbs, as in “go get your ball”?) But he has made huge progress, and we have great fun every night now playing our “object” game. Here’s how I’ve been working on it, for those of you whose dogs have struggled like Willie. (I know that lots of dogs catch on this easily, but not my Willie boy, and not lots of other dogs as I understand it.)

First, years ago, I tried doing an operant conditioning paradigm in which two toys sat between me and Willie and I clicked and gave him a treat if he touched or picked up the toy I was naming. It was disastrous, in that Willie never could figure it out, even when I switched to playing with the toy as reinforcement. Willie just could never figure it out; he seemed to run through one hypothesis after another: “It’s the last one she touched!” “It’s the one on her left!” but none were right and he looked so miserable I dropped it altogether after a few weeks.

This winter I tried a completely different tack. First, even though we would often say “Go get your ball,” (or “Find your…”) I noticed that Willie attended to “Go get…” and little else. So we began picking up his favorite toy and saying its name whenever we handed it to him. After playing awhile, we would ask him to stay, then toss the toy and say “Ball!” and nothing else. When he went to get it we would clap and then play with it for a long time. We did this for at least six weeks before we even thought about adding the second toy (the “fris). At first when we’d toss the fris Willie hesitated and looked back at us. We’d encourage him, repeating the word in a happy voice, and within one evening Willie was enthusiastically going after the fris when we said the word. We played with it by itself for at least 3 weeks. (I should add that we’d play with many of his toys when we weren’t training or naming, but we were very careful to only use “ball” or “fris” as part of a structured training session.

After three weeks of that we began to say “ball” or “fris” when both objects were in plain sight. He absolutely made mistakes, but we responded with a quiet “uh uh” and repeated the object we wanted. The correct choice got a celebration and lots and lots of play. We added a third object in before we lost the “fris,” the “red red” bone-shaped toy that you see above. (I didn’t want to call it “bone”  because bone and ball start with the same sound and my dissertation research found that dogs were responding to the first 200 milliseconds of a verbal signal.) We played with “red red” for at least two weeks before beginning to ask him to choose between it and “ball.”

Most importantly, we went INCREDIBLY SLOWLY. By that I mean I’d ask Willie twice in one night to make a choice, and then never again the entire night.  We’d play with objects, but I wouldn’t use the name and ask him to make a choice. I might ask three times the next night, but not at all the night after that. We thought nothing of mistakes, but always made it fun and easy. I suspect that the key with Willie is to never put him into his state of “Oh no! That was wrong! But I don’t know why! Oh no! Now what do I do?” (And yes, I meant every exclamation point. I suspect that is how Willie thinks about everything.)

I’d love to hear from others who have hyper-sensitive dogs who have worked through similar issues. The whole ‘what do words mean to dogs?” issue continues to fascinate me, especially with dogs like Willie take being “right” so much to heart. Meanwhile, it is great fun to have a new game to play with Willie. We won’t be able to work sheep for awhile once all the lambs are born, so finding other ways to play feel extra important, especially after a long winter.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Spring lambs have arrived! Here is one of Buttercup’s twins, out of the smaller pen for the first time yesterday and exploring something we call sunshine. There is still (!) ice and snow on the ground in places, including beside the barn where Willie runs and is in danger of slipping and re-injuring himself (can you feel me stop breathing?), but the days are warming and the ground is thawing out and there are bulbs emerging from the sponge-like soil.

I’m not going to write too much because one of the ewes is days and days over due and I’ve been pacing the barn  about it. I’m off to there now, maybe there will be two more lambs in the barn? Cross your paws for us all (hooves?), one ewe down, six more to go.

Dr. Hare has since come out with a new book, The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs are Smarter Than You Think, and a product called the Dognition Assessment Toolkit. I haven’t read the book yet, but was intrigued by a set of games he has developed that are supposed to increase one’s understanding of their dog’s personality and cognition style. The perfect cabin-fever reliever perhaps? Even better, the website explains that all the results will be aggregated and used as an example of “citizen science.” It says: “By gathering this data we can begin to understand more about all dogs, much more quickly and on a broader scale than if scientists had to conduct this research themselves.”

I signed up Willie, Tootsie and Katie’s dog Leo at $59 each, passing up the $129 offer of the toolkit + one year’s annual membership. Katie and I began the games last week, and finally finished with Tootsie yesterday. I say “finally” with intention: I want to tell you that the games were incredibly fun and that I learned oodles that I didn’t know about Tootsie. Alas, here’s the bottom line: Sometimes the “games” were fun, sometimes they were tedious, sometimes they were mildly aversive (more on that later) and I’m afraid I didn’t learn much about Tootsie that I didn’t know. I had planned to finish the games with Willie today, but realized that rather than looking forward to it I was… what’s the right word? “Dreading it” is too strong, but it felt like a great burden that I would have to slog through. Then I realized that I didn’t need to finish the games with Willie at all; I already had learned what I needed to know to make my own evaluation of the project for this post, and didn’t have any expectation that I would learn anything especially useful about Willie that I didn’t know before. Before I continue, let me be absolutely clear: Others might find the exercises great fun and the eventual evaluation extremely useful in improving their relationship with their dog. But all I can give you is my honest assessment of my own experience, for whatever it is worth.

Here is a bit about how the program works: There are five categories of games, labeled Empathy, Communication, Cunning, Memory and Reasoning.  Before playing the games one fills out an extensive questionnaire. I’d give it kudos for being thorough, but many of the questions should be answered with “I don’t know” (which, good for them, is always an option). For example, you are asked if your dog “understands” the cue to sit. Without testing Tootsie a la Ian Dunbar’s game, and asking her to sit while she is already sitting or while lying down, I can’t answer that question. I can answer if she does sit when asked, but that is an entirely different question (which was also asked, I should note). However, many of the questions were easy to answer, like “Is Tootsie friendly to other dogs?” One could answer “All the time, Some of the time,” etc. I choose “Some of the time” for Willie often, given that his behavior is so context dependent.  After the questionnaire, you begin the games. With a few important exceptions noted below, they are explained very clearly. If you decide to play, be aware that you’ll need someone to help with all of them, a fact not made clear before you begin and that threw me off when I first tried to get started by myself one afternoon.

Many of the games involve putting a treat on the ground on one side of you or the other. The treats might be on the ground, inside a cup or under a piece of paper. Your dog has a variety of ways, over the course of the tests, to choose the “correct” side, based on your pointing toward it, showing your dog that it is in the cup before turning the cup over, etc. Each of the games that require a dog to “choose sides” do a good job of establishing first whether your dog has a side preference. (Both Willie and Tootsie more often went to my right side (their left), which fits with the knowledge that most dogs are “left pawed.”) Katie and I did quite a few of the games together, either with her as the helper for me and Tootsie, or vice versa for her and Leo. The biggest snag that we ran into was a discrepancy between what the dog did and how we were asked to record it.

Here’s an example: You define “left and right” with 3 sticky notes, one directly in front of you, one each to the right and left of you on the floor. With a helper holding your dog, you might point to a cup with a treat hidden underneath it on your right side. The instructions tell you to score your dog as “retrieving the treat” if you pointed to the treat on your right, and your dog went between the sticky notes in front and to the right of you. Thus, passing between 2 sticky notes on the ground on the same side as the treat meant your dog had “retrieved the treat.” (The word ‘retrieve’ was confusing to us…’chosen’ or ‘focused on’ would be more helpful.) But here is what sometimes happened: Imagine I placed 2 cups on the floor on either side of me, one with a treat, and pointed to the one with the treat while Tootsie watched me from about 6 feet away. Let’s say that the cup with the treat was on my right. Tootsie was released and wandered through the sticky notes to my right, but paid no attention at all to the cup with the treat underneath, and passed behind me to vigorously sniff at the (empty) cup on the left. Based on the instructions we were told to score that as “retrieved the treat,” but her behavior indicated she was focused on the cup without anything in it.

Other games require you to say something to your dog and then stay stock still and silent for up to two and a half minutes. This was the part that Katie and I found a bit tedious. Standing silent and motionless while looking directly at your dog is so unnatural I found it unnerving. (In one test you stand still and silent for 1 minute, then 1.5 minutes, then 2 minutes and then 2.5 minutes. Katie and I were both ridiculously relieved when it was over.) One could argue that science is not about having fun, but is about designing and conducting good experiments. However, anyone who has taken Experimental Psychology 101 knows that the behavior of the experimenter must be carefully controlled in any study. For the results to be lumped together and analyzed, either only one carefully trained “handler” would have to be the one cuing the dogs in exactly the same circumstances, or a few well-trained handlers would have to undergo extensive training and testing to ensure that their behavior was consistent. Thus, it is hard to know what the results of an aggregate of hundreds or thousands of dog owners doing these tests in their own homes would actually mean.

The mildly aversive section occurred when I was to put a treat on the ground, say “No” or “Leave It,” and then wait for an entire (endless) 90 seconds without moving or speaking. This was not a problem with Tootsie, who doesn’t know a Leave it cue, and who trotted toward the treat and gobbled it up. However, Willie does know Leave It, and I wish I had a video of his face staring at mine for 90 seconds after being told Leave It when I placed a dried turkey heart on the ground. That 90 seconds lasted at least an hour… he looked so confused and unsure after about 10 seconds that I could barely maintain my stance. Next you are instructed to put the treat down, say Leave It and turn around so that your back if facing your dog. Willie waited 1 minute and 17 seconds and then padded over and ate the treat. Next you are to hold your hands over your eyes, and this time he waited less than 20 seconds. I have never been so thankful to have a dog disobey a Leave It in my life. Both Katie and I (she acting as recorder and dog holder if needed) darn near cheered when Willie took the treat, so that we didn’t have to wait another endless 90 seconds. I suspect that reading this one could argue: “Really Trisha. Ninety seconds? Seriouslyy, how long is that really?” Answer: When you have to stand still and stare at your dog for that period of time, it feels much longer than one might think.) (Cautionary note: After those games I worked on Leave It with Willie, reinforcing him for avoiding a treat on the ground for 2, 4 and 6 seconds; the games being the perfect way to ruin a well-trained cue if you don’t do some clean up work afterward.)

The results? We finished all the games with Tootsie (3 of 5 game categories are done with Willie) and immediately got her results. Tootsie was classified as a “Stargazer,” whose “unique genius lies in the mix of strategies that she uses to approach daily life… She certainly has a wild, wolf-like side that is especially useful in the environment of the rugged individual.” Labeling Tootsie, the 7-years-in-a-puppy-mill Cavalier King Charles Spaniel who wants nothing more than to eat (anything) and lie in one’s lap, as “wolf-like,” leaves me close to speechless. Her “empathy” scores were “off the charts,” even though it was Willie who yawned after I did and not Tootsie, yawning after seeing another yawn being indicative of empathy). Tootsie’s results also indicated that she is “highly collaborative;” I’m guessing that is because she did indeed focus on the food I pointed to in some of the tests. But categorizing her as such is a stretch, I’d argue. Tootsie is pretty much all about food, while Willie is often called “Trisha’s mood ring.” Willie appears to care deeply about how I am feeling, while Tootsie appears to care deeply about how quickly she can get the food out of my pocket. Of course, I could be wrong about my assessment and the tests could be more accurate, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

The one result that I found surprising, and thus interesting, was that Tootsie did indeed focus more on the treats on the ground if I pointed to them (but not when the treat wasn’t visible ). Willie, who has learned exactly what an outstretched and pointing arm means, appeared to pay no attention. I suspect that pointing to something in the distance, with one’s arm almost horizontal to the ground, is a very different signal than pointing almost straight down toward the ground, with one’s arm just a few inches away from the torso. That got me thinking that perhaps what we call “pointing” could actually involve several different visual signals that should be considered independently. (And one more pointing note, skip if all this pointing stuff is tiresome to you!: Dognition actually has you both point AND turn your head toward and look at the object in question. Thus, pointing, and gaze are confounded here. That’s a technical point, but an important one to those who study animal communication.)

At one point the evaluation interprets Tootsie’s inconsistent responses in a series of tests as “switching back and forth” between strategies, a behavior labeled as “impressive flexibility.” Another way to label this is “having no strategy at all.” I’m just saying. Reading their evaluation of Tootsie reminded me of schools in which all the students get A’s and blue ribbons because, well, they are there. On the plus side, it appears that the designers of Dognition are working hard to clarify that there are no ‘right or wrong’ answers, and that every dog is using a different kind of cognition strategy to make their way in the world. That’s important, and I credit them for it. This is not about whether your dog is a Good Dog or a Not So Good Dog, but about finding what’s going on between those furry ears of hers. Learning more about your dog is a wonderful thing; however my guess is that most people who are motivated to spend the money to play these games with their dog, and get through all 2.5 to 3 hours required, already know more about their dog than a product like this can teach them.

A few notes if you decide you want to play: 1) Don’t even think about doing this all at once. You and your dog will be toast if you do. The website is well designed to allow you to pause, and wisely encourages you to do so. We did Tootsie’s tests over 4 different sessions. 2) Round up an assistant before you start, you absolutely have to have one for almost all of the games. 3) You need to be right beside your computer to play. Laptops and iPads work great. 4) Take your own notes about your dog’s responses. You don’t get a summary of what they did (“followed point 2 out of 6 times, for example) and I’d love to see the actual data. 5) Careful of the treats: Your dog could end up getting a lot of them. Tootsie basically ate the equivalent of two dinners during the last session, even when she didn’t “get” the treat much of the time.

Have you played it yet? I’d love to hear if you have and what you thought of it. I truly wanted to write a positive review myself;  the Advisory Board on this project reads like a Who’s Who in canine cognition, including Dr. Juliane Kaminski, Dr Richard Wrangham, Dr. Adam Miklosi, Dr. Laurie  Santos and Dr. Josep Call as well as Dr. Brian Hare. I know some of these scientists and not only admire their work, I like them personally. But good science is about evaluating the facts, and it would be disingenuous of me not to be honest in my assessment. Let me know what you think.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm. We’re melting! Finally finally finally the spring thaw has begun. It may be under freezing at night, and there is still plenty of snow and ice on the ground, but there are also patches of bare, spongy ground, and the air is rich with the songs of Redwing Blackbirds and the guttural calls of Sandhill Cranes.

The lambs are due to start dropping any day now, so Jim and I are busy in the barn. We had a lovely, long weekend at a friend’s cabin up north last weekend, and came home refreshed and ready for spring. I’m finishing up my Contemplative Photography course, which I’ve absolutely adored. Here are two of my photos for the the class, a Beech leaf and a scene from up the hill, just yesterday. Enjoy.

With time running out, female dogs don’t ovulate for all that long after all, I drove both dogs to the UW Vet School to see if something was wrong with Drift or Tib. Nope, they both checked out fine. One of the specialists there suggested I try artificial insemination, and proceeded to school me on how to do just that. If you want to know what it was like to have a 6’6″ man ask me if I knew how to “collect a sample,” and then use my thumb and his hand to demonstrate stimulating Drift to ejaculate, you will have to buy me a martini and ask after I’ve drunk the entire thing. Fast.

I never did have to collect a sample. I figured out the problem by putting on my ethologist’s hat and watching the two dogs carefully as they courted. Once I did, I noticed that right before Drift slumped off, his head turned one or two inches toward me. Humm. I moved to the other side, and sure enough, this time Drift’s head turned the other direction, but again toward me. I then put the two dogs in the garage and left them alone. When I came back in five minutes they were tied (and the breeding was indeed successful.) Here’s what I think was happening: Drift was a two-year old intact male when I got him, and just a few days after bringing him home he enthusiastically began to mount and thrust against the leg of a female friend of mine. I said “NO!” in surprise, and said the same a few weeks later when he tried it on another friend. I suspect that Drift remembered that I had corrected him for mounting, and did not distinguish between mounting my friend’s leg from mounting a female dog in heat.

I tell you this story because 1) it still amuses me even many years later, and 2) it illustrates that what we call “mounting” can occur in a variety of contexts and most probably has a variety of motivations. I am writing about this topic because it is one of the ones requested by readers, and I think it is a great one. One comment mentioned that “mounting” is often labeled as a sign of “dominance,” and yet the dog she has that does it most often is extremely submissive in all other contexts. The reader correctly questions whether mounting is really just about the D word…

Which brings up the question: Why do dogs mount others, anyway? Clearly Drift was mounting Tib to copulate with her, but why did he mount the legs of my girlfriends? Dominance? Mis-placed sexual stimulation? Doubtful on all counts. No one really knows why dogs mount others outside of reproductive activity, but here are the best guesses of a variety of experts:

1. Excitement or arousal: I love the way Peter Borchelt, a fellow CAAB, puts it: “There are only so many behaviors a dog has access to, and dogs do what is part of their species-typical behavior.” In other words, arousal causes individuals to want to do something, and since dogs can’t take photographs of each other or check email, one of the actions they can perform when they are excited is to mount each other. Arousal can be positive (yippee!) or negative (I’m so nervous), but it usually, like anger, asks for some kind of action.

2. Attention-getting or play solicitation: Notice me! Notice me! Surely it is hard to ignore a dog who is clasping your hindquarters…..

3. Status related: Certainly this could be true in some circumstances, especially if the mounter in question is also exhibiting postures usually associated with priority access to preferred resources (direct stares, high head and tail postures, etc.) However, Mark Bekoff, in his blog about mounting, mentioned that he found no correlation between mounting, clasping or humping & dominance in young dogs, coyotes and wolves. On the other hand, Camille Ward, in her PhD research, found that mounting was one of the few play behaviors she studied that was”asymmetric,” in that while two playing dogs alternated who chased whom, they did not alternate who mounted whom. Dog A may mount Dog B, but not vice versa.

4. Control: I consider this a very different category than the one above (although I notice that they are often mentioned together.) Here’s an example of what I think of as control-motivated mounting: Dog A observes two others playing enthusiastically, perhaps barking and growling while they do. Dog A is a sound-sensitive dog, or a dog who becomes anxious around increasing energy levels, and so moves in, mounts one dog as a way of stopping the action. We often call these dogs the “play police,” right?

There’s more to this story. How do you define mounting? Does mounting always include clasping and thrusting? What about what is called “Standing Over,” in which one dog stands at right angles to another and puts its forelegs over the shoulders of another dog. Is that a version of mounting, or something different altogether?

If you are interested in reading more about this topic, I refer you to the excellent article written by Julie Hecht (the author of the great blog Dogspies) in Bark magazine and a post by Mark Bekoff also about the topic. If you like watching and evaluating videos, here is one that includes both “standing over” and full scale “mounting” during plays sessions between Willie, and 2 young dogs. I’d love to hear what you think about what you are observing. I’ll check back early next week and chime in myself.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: If I was reading this blog I’d be getting tired of hearing complaints about the weather, and how it was 3 degrees Farenheit yesterday morning and we are all somewhat stunned at the relentless, and untimely grip of winter. So, no more complaints (although you noticed I already managed to do so?), but a few words of concern for the Redwing Blackbird and Starling males who have arrived back from the south in order to claim the best territory before the younger males arrive. They may get the best territory, but then, they may starve to death too, because there is pretty much nothing but snow and ice out there to eat right now. Normally it would be in the mid-40′s and things would be starting to thaw out and even grow.

Here IS some good news: Willie and I pushed the sheep up the snow-covered hill in a desperate attempt to try to work sheep again, weather be damned. The flock, understandably, would have preferred staying in the barn yard, thank you very much, and my lead ewe Barbie turned and faced off Willie, her head down and her message clear. “Come any closer and I’ll smash you.” Willie and Barbie have had a long history together, with Barbie getting the upper hand since his surgery, at least if she felt strongly about not going where Willie told her to. But this time Willie stood firm and met her challenge, and darn if she didn’t soon turn her head and stomp through the snow. Willie will never win points for his inherent bravery (me neither) but he beat her fair and square a few days ago and we both walked down the hill a bit taller than we had walked up it.

More good news, for me anyway, is that I’m going off the grid until Monday. It’s spring break at the university and I’ve decided to attempt to wean myself off my iPad and laptop and desk computer and all other devices that keep me connected to a wonderful world but make it harder sometimes to savor the world immediately around me. Katie will post blog and FB comments, I will absolutely adore reading them all when I return to cyberspace.

My photo for this week is one I took for my photo class, of Nellie looking out the garage window. I love how the “stair step” lines of her head and back follow the lines of the cardboard boxes.

We all know that different breeds of dogs elicit different perceptions about their personalities from the general public: Border Collies are all “smart,” and Golden Retrievers are all “friendly.” These perceptions are sometimes based on facts that are generally true. Border Collies are indeed often clever, and many Golden Retrievers are extremely friendly. However, we all also know that although breed stereotypes often have some basis of truth in them, they are often incorrect. For a number of years, I saw more Golden Retrievers for biting than any other breed, even though other breeds were as well represented in the local pet population. I’ve met a couple of Border Collies who appeared to be as intelligent as earthworms.

These stereotypes don’t just apply to positive traits like intelligence and friendliness: the general public attributes negative traits to some breeds, perceiving Miniature poodles, for example, to be foolish and mindless little dogs. At least that is the impression I get when I hear people talk about small poodles, when in my experience, they are smart as whips. Perhaps no breed elicits more stereotypical responses from the public than one of the bully breeds. Recent research by Lisa Gunter, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, presented at IFAAB in San Diego, (and soon to be presented at ISAZ) confirmed that people rated photos of a Labradors and a Border Collie as significantly “friendlier, approachable and adoptable” than a pit-bull type dog. All the dogs in the photos, by the way, had relaxed, “friendly” expressions on their face. The subjects (228 people) also rated the pit-bull type dog as higher on “aggressiveness” than the other two breeds. None of this is particularly surprising, given the public’s perception of bully breeds in general. Another study by Protopopova et al also found a negative perception of pit-type breeds (2012 on line): they found that teaching dogs to gaze into potential adopter’s eyes had no effect on rates of adoption, while breed, size, surrender versus stray, and location in the kennel did. “Fighting and Sporting breed” dogs stayed at the shelter longest, while “ratters and lap breeds” stayed the least  amount of time.  (Side note: Research related to adoptability of breeds and public perceptions about them brings up some interesting and  important questions about breed-related predispositions of a number of breeds–not just pit-type dogs. Are any breed stereotypes valid? Both positive and negative? What are the comfort levels in the field about discussing them? This discussion deserves its own post, so I’ll write about that in another article.)

Here is what is most important about Lisa Gunter’s work: After the initial results that rated the dogs of three breeds, subjects were asked to rate the same photo of the pit-bull type dog while sitting beside a variety of people. The subjects were asked to make the same ratings about the dog while sitting beside a young child, an elderly woman, a “rough” male, (the pits) and an “active male,” and a woman in a wheel chair (the BC and Lab). Sure enough, pairing a young child or an elderly woman beside the pit-type dogs changed people’s rating of them. Sitting beside a young child increased the perceptions of the dog’s intelligence, friendliness and adoptability, while decreasing the predictions of “training difficulties and aggressiveness”. Significant changes were found in increased friendliness and decreased aggressiveness. The “rough male” photograph actually decreased the subject’s perception of the dog as friendly, but increased their perception of the dog as intelligent, and the elderly woman had the strongest effect on adoptability. (The “rough male” finding is perhaps the least relevant to applying these results to increasing adoptability of dogs on websites, but I find it interesting. Especially since we joked at IFAAB that the male didn’t look at that “rough” to us. I thought he was sorta hot… just saying.)

Here is the photo of the pit-type dog used in the study:

Here is the same dog beside a child and an “elderly” woman (who looks to be in great shape to me!):

Ideally, some of the variables would have been controlled: same photo of dog, standing versus sitting, etc, but the work does a good job of showing definitively that a particular dog can look more attractive to viewers depending on the photo, and that placement beside a particular type of person appears to have a strong effect.

The practical implications for this are huge, and not just related to any one breed. What this research has shown (along with a similar study by Walsh et al on Labradors, German Shepherd Dogs and Airedales) is that the details of dog’s photograph, say in Petfinders or on a Humane Society website, could have a profound effect on how the dog is perceived, and potentially whether it is adopted or not. We’ve all known (or assumed) that a sharp, clear, color photo of a friendly-looking dog increases a dog’s chance of being adopted, but this research adds an entirely new wrinkle to the mix. Could one increase a dog’s chance of being adopted by showing a photo of it sitting beside a child? Of course, this study didn’t look at actual adoptions, and there is a chance that a perception of friendliness and adoptability won’t translate into more adoptions, but it surely would increase the odds. Kudos for Gunter and Walsh for doing the research they did; I hope it leads to even more studies that expand our understanding that most complex and compelling of topics: the relationship between people and dogs.

I’d love to hear your take on this: What drew you to the dog(s) you have now? Did you find the dog on a website and were drawn to a particular photograph? If so, do you know why?

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Busy times, beginning to get ready for lambing, even though the ground is still frozen solid and we still live in a sea of white. But tomorrow we’ll be mucking out the barn (with the help of some young, strong neighbors, bless them) and I’ll be ordering lambing supplies. The first due date is April 1st, and that is going to come up fast. Usually there is green grass by then, but the chances of that seem to be slight at this point, winter is just not letting go this year.

Willie and I said the heck with winter and worked the sheep up in the high pasture yesterday, it being light enough after I got back from teaching to do so because of the time change. The snow was a bit deep in places, but we moved the girls slowly and I don’t think it stressed them in the least. As a matter of fact, I suspect they need the exercise. Willie and I had a great time, and I’d bet the farm that when we trotted down the farm road to the barn, through the grey-brown and inky black tree trunks, his high tail and head signified something akin to pride.

Before mucking out the barn I’ll go to my Contemplative Photography class. This week’s assignment was on texture. Here is some of my ‘homework,’ taken at a friend’s chicken house when I went to pick up fresh eggs (Thank you Sandi!)