THE OTHER END OF THE LEASH

First things first! Lassie’s party was a joy. Many of her friends came to talk, eat and belly rub, and Lassie proclaimed it good. Very good indeed. Lassie reveled in the attention, Willie got tons of petting too and we all ate ourselves silly. Only downside is that I forgot to take photos (camera out and at the ready on the counter…) of Lassie and all her friends. Big disappointment, I have a photo of my first Border collie Drift, at his 15th birthday party, and it means a lot to me to have it. He died 2 months later and I think that’s part of what motivated me to have this one, and I’m so glad I did. However, I fully intend and expect to have a rip roaring 16th birthday party for Lassie next year, so I’ll just get a photo next year.

Here’s a picture after the party of Lassie delving into the box of yummy dog food brought by her dear friend Rick and his GSD Ava.

DOGS, FAIRNESS AND JEALOUS

You’ve probably heard about the research from Austria that suggests that dogs have a concept of fairness and/or jealousy. By the time you read this I’ll have probably talked about it on the Diane Rehm show, but it deserves some attention (and some critical thinking on our parts.) Basically, the researchers taught dogs to ‘give paw’ for a treat, then sat them down side by side and rewarded one dog for a correct performance but not the other. The unrewarded dog’s responsiveness degraded quickly, and he or she stopped performing as taught. This would be meaningless; you’d expect a dog to stop responding if the reinforcement dropped out completely, however, the performance dropped FASTER if the non-reinforced dog saw the OTHER dog getting reinforced for the same behavior. That’s the kicker (though is left out of several of the news posts….).

So here’s a chance to engage our critical thinking. Some news posts call this evidence of jealousy. Others say it proves that dogs have a sense of fairness. Question one: are those the same? If not, then which does the study support?

I’ll weigh in with my own opinions later this week. (And my apologies for being slow to comment on the comments. I read them all with tremendous interest, but fighting the ViRus Wars last week got me way behind….)

Well, so far there have been 40 comments on this question, and what interesting ones they have been. I’m going to summarize what folks have said so far (and also am sending this question out to a list of Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists and some professional trainers in different fields. If you are on any lists you think might be appropriate, please send this question out and ask them to comment. . . ) I am SO interested in the comments so far.

Of course, you can read the comments for yourself, but here are some trends. (Keep in mind that this question was not sent out as a survey, so not everyone answered the same question.) 11 people explicitly said that other factors like age, personality and training were far more relevant than sex (or simply, “No: one is no easier to train than the other). 5 people explicitly said that the sexes were “different, but neither was necessarily ‘easier or harder than the other.’” 5 (or was it 6?) people said that in their experience, females were easier to train, while 9 people said that males were easier to train. Here’s list of some of the comments:

~Females are quicker to learn, more intense. Females (F’s) have a better work ethic while males (M’s) have a better sense of humor. F’s easier to get to focus. F’s more easily distracted. F’s quicker to learn, M’s develop more slowly. F’s mature faster. F’s focus better in adolescence. F’s more stubborn but M’s more distractable. F’s more laid back but more aloof than males. F’s smart but more independent. F’s more ‘what’s in it for me. F’s learn faster.

~M’s easier hands down. Males ‘goofier’ in adolescence. M’s sweeter but girls smarter. Males need more affection. M’s are ‘love bugs’. M’s more focused on trainer, F’s assess environment more (other people etc.). M’s more even keeled. Males more independent, F’s more sensitive. Males more drive, F’s more willing to please. M’s sweeter, F’s smarter.

Interesting, hey? What stands to me are two things: Lots of people volunteered that they think females are “smarter.” Many people mentioned that they thought that females matures faster than males. Do we know that to be true? That female dogs mature physically and/or cognitively and/or emotionally faster than males? (It is indeed true in humans, but do we know that for a fact in dogs? I’m sending this out to my veterinarian friends…) I also wonder about the difference in human ‘training’ (usually called “school!”) that makes it clear that girls do better in certain types of academic situations than males. Is it possible that some people think female dogs are “smarter” because of the way we train?

I should note here that many of the comments carefully noted that the writer could only look to his or her experience… sometimes with many dogs, sometimes with a small number. I appreciate how thoughtful many of you have been, thank you so much for your comments.

I find myself thinking of my own dogs in relation to that question… the two most “stubborn” dogs I’ve had were male and female (Drift and Bess) while the two most ‘biddable’ were also both male and female (Willie and Lassie). I find myself thinking about what goes into the label of “trainable…” What does that mean, after all? Smart, as in quick to put two things together? Biddable, as in do what you ask when you ask it? Skilled at a particular task so that they look like they learn fast? Emotionally mature enough to focus on a lesson rather than be distracted by the environment or internal anxiety? Quick to learn, or consistent once having learned? There are so many things that are relevant when the question is asked, it is almost unanswerable in a way, isn’t it? I’m reminded of the works about human behavior that talk about “social intelligence’ versus ‘emotional intelligence’ versus inherent skill. (Not to mention the effect of the environment. Have you read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers yet about what ‘makes’ people super successful? It’s fantastic! Boy will it motivate you to practice practice practice if you want to be a good dog trainer!)

To be continued… keep up your comments, they are fascinating. I’ll pick this up again after I’ve hear from more of you.

Meawhile, back at the farm: Here’s a photo of some of the Vermont Vixen’s savoring our monthly brunch (that’s Vermont Valley west of Madison WI, not the state of Vermont!) and Brittany Spears the hefty ewe making a pig of herself at the feeder (okay, we’re all eating!)

Well, I’ve edited and compressed 31 separate videos for my 2 talks at APDT. Whew. They aren’t perfect, but some of them are truly instructive and a few are just plain fun. It’s been like being in a tunnel for the last 4 days working on these things, and still… I continue to be fascinated by all the issues related to play between people and other animals. One of the the things I’ll be talking about at APDT is how often dogs intersperse PAUSING with active motor patterns. As I watched videos of dogs playing I was impressed by how many times dog would use some typically exaggerated motor activity, whether it was a bite or a hip slam, and then stop and either stand still, or stay still in a play bow position. If you think about it, play bows not only provide information to the receiver that what happens next is “just in fun,” they also give the participants a ‘time out’ to manage their emotions.

I suspect this is one of the problems that people run into when they are playing with dogs. People don’t tend to pause as often during play, and often end up over arousing their dog. The dog spirals up, loses emotional control and ends up biting too hard or cycling into aggression. I’m going to suggest in my talk that dog training classes should include a section on play, including the importance of teaching both people and dogs a “pause” that is on cue for both of them.

I’m also going to talk about play signals… how individuals of both species tell one another that they want to play. It turns out that signals are relatively species specific. Here are 2 photos illustrating typical “I want to play” signals from a person and a dog:

Here is Jasper telling his human he’d like to play, using the stereotypical play bow of wolves and dogs.

Here is primate Sara  doing the classic “play face” of  a primate!  Primate usually communicate play with their faces, while dogs use a  full body posture…

How do you tell your dog you want to play?

And here’s a photo from fall at the farm. It is heartbreakingly beautiful right now.. I have to admit I am loathe to leave the dogs, the farm and the fall colors. But I know that once I arrive at APDT I’ll be caught up in the joy of intellectual stimulation and seeing good friends and colleagues. Come up and say hi if you’re there!

I’m deep in “speech preparation” tunnel, working sun up to sun down on my presentations about play at APDT next week. It’s a lot of work, but gratifying. Play is such an interesting topic, I wish I could spend a few months doing nothing but learning, thinking and writing about it. One of the most interesting things about play is its reason for being is a bit of a mystery. Why do animals play? The answer seems like it should be obvious, but the more you think about it, the less you know. Is it for ‘practice?’ That makes sense, since play is seen mostly in young animals who are physically developing. However, some of the research suggests that practice is not the primary force driving play… (in some studies animals kept from playing are equally adept at predation and fighting.) Another idea proposed historically was that animals played if they had “excess energy.” It’s certainly true that play is only found in individuals who are healthy and safe enough to have the luxury of playing, but there is no data that suggests that ‘excess energy’ somehow needs to be used up!

One current hypothesis is that play allows animals to train their bodies for the ‘unexpected.’ Play usually includes many actions that involve quick responses and exaggerations of movements seen in other contexts, etc, so this hypothesis has some favor now. Perhaps there are several reasons that animals play… surely there doesn’t have to be only one reason.

But there DOES have to be a reason that play is so common in some species (”it’s fun” isn’t enough! why is it fun?). Play is costly and dangerous, (just look at all the sports medicine clinics out there!) so there has to be a big evolutionary pay off.

Another condundrum that scientists face when studying play is defining it in a way that uniquely defines a behavior as play. This is a tricky one, because most of the actions of play are seen in other contexts, like fighting and predation, for example. Certainly there are times that it is overwhelmingly clear that animals, our dogs for example, are playing. However, sometimes it’s not so clear. I have had several clients who were relatively new to dogs who called me out for a “dog fight” that turned out to be completely appropriate play between two dogs having a great time. On the other hand, how many of us have been at a dog park and listened to someone say her dog is “just playing” when it’s clear the dog in question is a bully who has terrified all the other dogs at the park?

Here’s a question for you about the photo below, sent by someone I met at a seminar (thank you!) Are these dogs playing or fighting? If you feel sure you know.. how? What is it that caused you to decide?

…

I just arrived in Atlanta, and am about to settle in, go over my seminar for tomorrow and then watch some foolish movie that does nothing but entertain me and put me to sleep.

But I wanted to write about a magazine that I just can’t get enough of–Scientific American Mind. If you are interested in behavior, both your own and your dog’s, this is a fascinating magazine. It’s true it helps to be fascinated by behavior and the brain (I guess that’s obvious), and that to some it will be far afield from canine behavior.. but that’s what I love about behavior… it is such an eclectic field.

Here are just some of the pages I have marked for further review (and future blogs, articles or book sections….) in the Oct/Nov issue:

p 10: Researchers at the Zhejiang University in China found that honeybees, who have been famous for years because of the ‘waggle dance’ they do in the hive to direct other workers to food, actually learn much of the dance. Many have assumed that ‘bee brains’ were only capable of dancing because of innate ‘hard wiring,’ but bees with different dances from different countries (almost like an accent or a dialect of the same language) were able to learn the other’s dance when they were raised together. How does this relate to your dog? Well… the issue of what is innate and what is learned is still controversial, and how interesting it is to learn that bees with a tiny swelling of neural tissue that can barely be called a brain, can still learn…

p 11: Magpies look at predators with thier left eye (thus stimulating the right side of their brain) and at something interesting but not dangerous with their right eye (stimulating the left side of their brain.) That is especially interesting to dog owners (honest)… did you see the research that found that dog’s wag their tail more to one direction to friends (right) and in another direction (left) to an aggressive dog? I’ll write more about that research soon, but it suggests that many animals have lateralized brains, not just humans with expanded cognition (which some have argued.) I’d love to see more research looking at lateralization and canine behavior. (Did you know that most dogs are ‘left pawed’ but ones who are ambidexterous (holding down a Kong with either paw) have a higher incidence of separation anxiety, just as people who are ambidexterous have a higher incidence of generalized anxiety?)

p15: People who can’t seem to heal from the loss of a loved one (and of course, I’m thinking dog here) react more strongly to reminders of the loved one in the area of their brain called the nucleus accumbens. It’s the area associated with reward, and the anticipation of something good. They don’t understand yet exactly what is going on, but it is interesting that they’ve found a different physiological reaction in people who are still grieving than people who have healed from a loss.

There is also a great article about memory and its fluidity (we pretty much make it up as we go) and the power of the unconscious.. very relevant when people start arguing that only humans are conscious (now there’s a can of worms!)

And oh yes, there’s more. There’s an ad for a new book of conversations bewteeen the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman. Ekman is the psychologist who did so much work on the facial expression of emotion in people all over the world and was gracious enough to let me use some of his photographs in For the Love of a Dog. I can’t wait to get this book……it should be fascinating. The comparison of the expression of fear, anger and happiness on the faces of people and dogs is truly amazing…

Meanwhile, here’s a little fall from the farm, just to remind me of home while I”m working in my hotel room….

I have read your excellent comments with great interest, thank you all so much for writing. I do agree that in many ways it is far too simplistic to sort the world into two groups as I did in my earlier post. I suspect that it’s easy to oversimplify when you are frustrated, and truth be told, I was feeling a bit frustrated when I wrote last week. Part of that stemmed from recently hearing what I believe has been meant as a compliment to Calling All Pets. Several times I’ve heard people say that Calling All Pets is a good show for Wisconsin Public Radio because “it brings in people who wouldn’t normally listen to pubic radio.” This presupposes that the show’s listeners are different than most listeners of public radio. Does that mean that most people who listen to public radio are not that interested in pets and animal behavior…? I have to say, in fourteen years of doing the show, I’ve heard hundreds and hundreds of people comment on the show, and never once has anyone said “You know, I never listened to public radio before, but now that I’ve listened to your show, I”ll start!” That is what got me thinking about the word ‘pets’ and how ambivalent we are about it (and them) as a society.

Speaking about how we categorize the animals we live with, I love Jeff’s comments about the three perspectives that the dog food company grouped people into: 1) dog as dog, 2) dog as part of the family and 3) dog AS family.  Of course, as many of you so appropriately pointed out, there are vast continuums within those 3 categories, but I like the way this grouping gets you thinking about where you place your own animals. (And oh yes, yes, it is so true that “Just a….” can be applied to any group, whether it be cats or rats or gerbils.  You can find earlier writings that talk about children as “just children”… sigh.)

One of the continuums that I find especially interesting are people who would be categorized as “dog as dog” people… those who have working animals on farms or ranches.  I have spent a lot of time with farmers and ranchers who have working dogs and horses, who ostensibly will tell you that their relationship with their animals is mostly that of utility. And yet, nothing can choke up a cowboy quicker than losing a dog he worked with for ten years, and a great horse who became one of his best friends.  Perhaps that’s one of the most interesting part of our complicated relationship with our ‘pets’.. that they can assume so many roles: family members, colleagues, and best friends too. This, of course, includes the knowledge that family members don’t always get along, colleagues can drive you crazy and best friends can betray you… our relationships with dogs and other pets isn’t always smooth, but it sure is interesting.

Speaking of interesting, I just talked to Temple Grandin (author of Animals in Translation) and she has a new book coming out soon, titled Animals Make Us Human.  I have a review copy and can’t wait to read it… It’s coming out in January. I’ll keep you posted.

Back on the farm.. here’s some photos from the clearing out the 5 huge elm trees that died a few years ago, and have been threatening to fall on my power lines. A bunch of wonderful folks came out, chain saws a’blazing, and we cut and hauled and ran branches through the rented chipper for 6 hours.  Tired, but what a wonderful day to work outside. Poor Will didn’t get much work that day… but  if I can get my work done before dark, he will tonight!

I was working on my new book, coming out from Dogwise in early November, and found a section that relates, I suspect, to the cancellation of my radio show, Calling All Pets. The book, coming out from Dogwise, (Tales of Two Species) is a collection of my columns from Bark magazine. One of them is titled “Pet Peeves.” In it I write about our country’s ambivalent feelings about our pets. On the one hand, many of us love them, treat them like family and can’t imagine life without them. They are as important to our well-being as is literature, music and art. (For some of us, I’d add food, water and oxygen.) And yet, look at how often we hear people say, demeaningly, that an animal is “just a pet.” Here’s an excerpt from the essay:

“Just a pet.” How many times have you heard someone say that? Perhaps it was a conformation breeder who observed, “This pup doesn’t have a good top line, so he should be sold as just a pet.” You’ve probably read the phrase in articles about how much we love our companion animals: “It is remarkable how much money the American public spends just on pets.” And companion animal owners use it—ask any veterinarian, who too often hears: “We just adore our little Cocker Spaniel, she’s the greatest joy of our lives, but we can’t afford to spay her because she’s just a pet.”

Part of the problem, I suspect, is the derivation of the word “pet.” It began as a reference to a spoiled, over-indulged child and only recently has been used to describe the dogs and the cats sharing our homes. “Spoiled and over-indulged” are not words designed to engender respect or importance, now are they? It seems that the American psyche is highly ambivalent about our companion animals… either acknowledging how much they add to our lives, or dismissing them as trivial things, something akin to children’s toys. Nice to have around, but not really important. I wrote about this at length in the afterward to For the Love of a Dog–trying to explain why those of us who love dogs so much are not neurotic or socially challenged, at least not any more than the rest of the country. One of my favorite books about the bond between people and dogs is Pack of Two, by the late (and amazing) writer, Carolyn Knapp. It is a beautiful, beautiful book, and if you haven’t read it, go get a copy right now. I deeply regret that she died, tragically, before she was able to grace us with more of her writings (and, selfishly, before I was able to meet her).

I am curious what others have found. Do you also wonder sometimes if the world sorts into two groups? Group one includes those whose love for animals informs each and every day of their lives (in this case I mean companion animals, but there’s much to say in later writings about the importance of our connection to wild animals and an understanding of their behavior). Group 2 includes people who can take them or leave them, being indifferent to pets at best and those who love them, or at worst demeaning the bond between people and animals as an example of social ineptitude. Of course, I’m oversimplifying, but I’m curious what others experience.. do you often feel like you have to justify your love for your dogs, cats, horses? (ferrets, cockatiels, rats, etc…)

Meanwhile, it’s a gorgeous fall day here. My digital camera broke this morning, or I’d show you more pictures of Will working the lamb flock. I am busting out of my britches with pride for him… he is blossoming every day into a wonderful working stock dog. This morning the biggest ram lamb (probably 100+ pounds) turned to face Will down, ducking his head and threatening Will with a charge. Will held his ground (they were face to face, about a foot between their eyes) and stayed cool (I was saying ‘Stea-a-a-a-a-a-dy’ in my lowest and most soothing of voices) and the lamb finally turned and went where Will told him to. A few months ago Will would have exploded at the lamb, not biting but charging forward. That was okay for a young dog; the dog has to win in situations like that (sheep are not stupid, they learn very fast if they can beat a dog) even if the process isn’t elegant. However, it’s much better to keep things calm and quiet. A year ago Will would’ve backed up and the ram lamb would’ve won unless I came in to help (which I would if necessary.) Will just recently turned two, and it is a beautiful thing to watch him grow up and learn to control his emotions, and take charge when he needs to.

But still, really, Wll’s primary value to me is as a companion dog. I guess that means, when it comes down to it, Will is ‘just a pet.‘ Like Lassie, he adds love and light and joy into my life every day. What a gift.

Here are some photos from the last few days. The first shows Willie moving the lambs a few days ago into the orchard pasture (from which they escaped, got in with the ewe flock and probably bred their mothers. sigh.)

This is Lassie digging in the grass (a favorite activity for her) behind part of a huge dead elm clump that had to come down. Cutting it up into firewood and making the rest into wood chips for the garden will take up most of this coming Sunday.

The last photo is of a Katydid.  (who I originally identified as a Snowy Tree Cricket until graciously corrected by a reader! Whoops….) As common as Field Crickets and Katydids are here in Wisconsin, Snowy Tree Crickets are also common, and can tell you the temperature (no kidding). Just count the number of their chirps in 13 seconds (okay, I’ll admit, you often have to record them and slow it down to count!) and add 40, and you’ve go the temp in F. This photo was from a long courtship between a male and a female, all on the side of the house.

Oh, what a joy to be home in fall on the farm. It may have rained much of the weekend, but that’s okay, we needed the moisture. In spite of the rain I got to spend much of Sunday out in the country with Willie, Lassie and weekend visitor Brody (the Cavalier) out in the hills collecting wild apples.  Five huge buckets full. Yum yum. Yum for us… I made applesauce much of Sunday afternoon (thanks to friend Harriet who leant me her Foley  Food Mill; now that’s a handy item) while the dogs slept. Yum for the sheep: the ewe flock got to crunch away on juicy apples that I tossed into their feeders.  The lamb flock is separate (I don’t castrate the ram lambs, so the boys are now old enough to breed their mommas. Not a great idea!) and has access to lots of wild apples on their own, so everyone at lots of apples yesterday.

Sheep ADORE apples, they crunch into them as if eating candy. I love feeding them this food that comes free and wild every year in southern  Wisconsin. What a time of bounty. I’d include a photo I took of red ripe apples, but I don’t have it here at work. I’ll bring it in tomorrow.

But back to dogs… isn’t it wonderful when your dogs have had plenty of exercise and sleep soundly in the house while you putter at something in the kitchen? I remember a few years ago Jim and I were spoiled by our hosts when we went to Montana for me to do a seminar. (Our hosts were Nancy Tanner and the Galloping Dog Agility & Flyball Club in Bozeman. What wonderful folks… visit them at www.gallopingdog.com) The day before the seminar, we were taken on a 12 mile horseback ride into the mountains. What a joy. I used to ride a lot, so it was like going home for me. (Jim had never ridden, what an introduction! He was amazing, I have to say. And so was his wonderfully reliable horse.) I bring this trip up because two dogs accompanied us on the ride, running helter skelter, back and forth for the entire ride. They easily  must have run over twenty miles.  I swear, they were barely tired at the end of the trip.  Oh, if only our dogs could have exercise like that every day! Okay, maybe that wouldn’t be good for a pug, but think of all those retrievers and herding dogs bred to work who don’t have that much to do. What a wonderful feeling it is for those of us who own them to see our dogs sleeping soundly after a good, long session of healthy exercise. Ummmm. Part of why Karen London and I wrote Play Together, Stay Together is to help people find ways to exercise their dogs for their sake, as well as for their dogs. I have included a photo of Mr. Will enjoying one of his toys. It always lifts my heart to watch dogs playing.

Meanwhile,  Willie slept for a couple of hours, and then ran his tail off searching the high pasture for the lamb flock in the evening so that we could bring them down for their grain. He came home happy to gobble up his dinner and rest again, while we sat down to a dinner from fresh, local and ogranic sources. Yumm. I do love fall!

Applesauce, anyone?

Home. Ummmm, feels so good. Even though the trip was wonderful in so many ways, it is SO good to be home. As I wrote earlier, I greatly enjoyed presenting a seminar in Sweden—the people were so kind and interesting, and our vacation in the fjord country of Norway was heavenly. (see the photos attached). And yet… Dorothy was right. There’s no place like home.

I wonder how many dog lovers are as ambivalent as I. I love to travel. I love seeing new places, eating new food, learning about new cultures, eating new food, seeing the world from new perspectives, eating new food. Did I mention eating new food? (If you go to southern Sweden, you really, really want to try Äggakaka. It’s an eggy, creamy, quichey, omelettey thing, covered with Ligonberry sauce. Yummy)

And yet, as much as I love to travel, it’s so hard to leave my dogs. I think that’s especially true now that Lassie is so old, but maybe not. I just hate leaving them, period. We had some of the world’s finest house sitters (thank you Jim and Sheryl!) so it wasn’t so much that I was worried about the dogs, but it was just so hard to leave them. Okay, so I was worried. Just a little.

Am I the only one who gets teary eyed as the car drives away from the house on the way to the airport

There’s a lesson here for all of us interested in training dogs. My quandry over enjoying travel and wanting to be home is a perfect example of how “positive reinforcement” is defined by the receiver. If you told me I could have an all-expense paid trip to Spain or Paris two weeks from now I’d turn it down. Right now all I want to do is to be home on the farm, with Lassie, Willie, and Sushi the cat. I want to watch the sheep eat apples from our wild apple trees, and savor and process the bounty of local, organic produce from the CSA down the road. As much as I enjoyed the trip, more travel right now would be punishment, not positive reinforcement.

What a good reminder that “positive reinforcement” is always, by definition, decided by the receiver, not by the ‘giver.’ This is easy to forget, especially for novice trainers, and so it deserves discussion in any dog training class or private session. For example, the owner may feel good praising and petting their dog if he came when called away from a play session, but it might be the last thing the dog wanted at that moment. (Getting petted while cuddling on the couch is a far cry from getting pets in the middle of romping at the dog park with one’s buddies. Do you want your sweetie to rub your neck when you’re in the middle of a tennis match?) At seminars sometimes I’ll praise and pet a dog for giving up a toy, and ask the audience to grade my “reinforcement.” If I sound happy and exuberant, I’ll get straight “A’s” from the crowd. But then, I’ll ask them to watch the dog’s face and praise as pet as before. This time they’ll notice, that while I was happy-talking up a storm, the dog turned his head away from the petting (I was doing on the top of his head in that pat-pat kind of way that most dogs don’t like) and didn’t look happy at all. I may have sounded good, but I was actually punishing the dog, not reinforcing him. Food for thought.

Meanwhile, here’s some of the reinforcing part of of travel… staying in the astoundingly beautiful village of Flam, Norway.

I’m a little behind today, because yet again I stayed up too late watching the Olympics.  Addicting, aren’t they? And I’m not even that interested in sports… I was the girl who stood in right field in enforced elementary school softball games saying “Please don’t hit the ball to me, please don’t hit the ball to me.” But I can’t resist the drama of watching other people turning purposeless games into lifetime commitments and prime time excitement for the rest of us.

How fitting that today our new booklet about playing with our dogs just arrived from the printer.  I co-wrote it with Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Karen London, and there is nothing like writing about how to play (and how not to play) with your dog to get you thinking about WHY we play with our dogs, HOW we play and all the ways that play can enhance our relationship with dogs and at the same time, cause terrible trouble. I hesitate to bring up the play booklet now, it seems a bit self serving, but this has been such a big part of my life for so many months that it’s hard not to write about it.

Here’s what seems crazy: as vitally important as it feels to encourage people to use play more to train their dog, I think one of my favorite parts of the book is the section on how NOT to play with your dog. That seems so negative, and yet, I’ve seen so many problems created by inappropriate play.  It’s so easy for members of two different species to confuse one another. For example, research shows that one way people try to get their dog to play is to pat the ground–which in my experience is a great way to lie down when asked, because it seems to effective at getting them to do so!. Lots of people push their dogs away with their hands when the dogs jump up, and yet to dogs, the people are telling the dog they want to play.

Most importantly, twenty years of working with serious problems in dogs has shown me how often people aren’t aware that their dog is becoming overly aroused during play. Being out of emotional control is a problem in our species too (”I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out”)–you’d think we’d know to watch for it in dogs.  Ironically, while over arousal is a potential problem in play, you can use play to teach your dog to calm down on cue using play.

The possible best, and the potential worst of our interactions with dogs–that’s play in a nut shell.  And now, although I really think I should write more, I just can’t resist going home to go play with my dogs…

Will and I playing one of his favorite games.

He has even taught me how to toss things with a small degree of accuracy. Will wonders never cease?