Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Travel hell, Spa heaven. That pretty much wraps it up. I'm writing this on our last day at . You need to know that I have absolutely no objectivity at all about this place: They gave Jim and me 3 days lodging, food and great spa services in exchange for my giving three talks during their special program for dog lovers. That said, it's really not possible to do much but rave about the place. It's gorgeous, the food is great, the staff couldn't be nicer AND they allow dogs even when it's  not a special week for dog lovers. Yes, there's a down side: The price. This is one of those "If you have to ask . . . " places, but what would we expect of the spa rated the # 1 spa in the country by Conde Nast?

I say, tell a loved one that you deserve it, save your pennies (and twenty dollar bills) and come in November when they'll have another special week for dogs.  Special it is, and special we needed after what can only be described as an absurd example of just how bad it can be trying to deal with a company who has outsourced their customer service. I won't bore you with all the details, but the summary is: Our flights from O'Hare to Austin were canceled for both Thursday and Friday. Thursday's cancellations are understandable after a monster storm on Tuesday night, but what followed was not.  I spent a total of over two and a half hours on Thursday afternoon (in three sessions) talking to 7 United reps, all of whom were barely intelligible because they simply didn't speak English. Neither did they seem to know much about how to rebook a flight. We got here only because we found flights through Delta by ourselves, and drove 5 hours to Minneapolis to fly from there (we could have flown but by the time United finally figured out how to get the seats, about an hour later, the seats were taken). I have to admit that by the time I was talking to the 7th person, somewhere around minute 140, I was so steamed that when asked to spell my name (finally to book the ticket to Austin the next day) I said:

"M, as in Mad. Really Mad."

" C, as in Can't believe I'm STILL trying to get this settled."

Etc.

The staff at Lake Austin Spa were graciously grateful that Jim and I worked so hard to get here, and by the time we got here it would have been churlish to stay grumpy because we had trouble traveling. After all,  this storm caused so many people so many serious problems, and a little travel trouble faded away pretty fast once we settled in.

Here are some of the lucky dogs and lucky owners who got to participate in the Spa's special dog days. Ivy, Sophia, Libby, Bichon, Romeo and Jasmine seemed to be having a great time, but maybe not as much fun as I had with them.

It's gorgeous here, even though they had ice and snow the day before we came (yup, that's snow on the far bank.)

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: This is what's waiting for us at home. And as wonderful as it is here, it'll be great to get home. Here's hoping it goes a bit more smoothly . . .

My last post started a good discussion about the use of the term "counter conditioning," (and its use in treating Separation Anxiety) and one of the comments in particular reminded me that the term is often used differently by different people. For years I've always specified "counter classical conditioning" when talking about treatment for SA, for example, when one links something that elicits a positive emotion (like food) with something that elicits a negative one (like fear). But I noticed I've started being lazy and using the term "counter conditioning" when I mean counter classical conditioning. I suspect that's because I don't tend to use the term "counter operant conditioning." Rather, I talk about "training an incompatible behavior" which is basically the same thing.

So, to be clear, Classical Conditioning has nothing to do with training a particular behavior. It is a way of linking and emotion with a stimulus (bell = feel good like you do when you smell food, or "Her getting her keys makes me happy cuz when she does I'll get LIVER!). Operant Conditioning is about reinforcing a behavior ("If I sit and stay I'll get LIVER!).

Regretably, none of this fixes the messy methods in the study I talked about in the last post, in which dogs were given  (among other things) food when the owner was about to leave and food when they returned. That's just about the opposite of anything I'd suggest–the whole idea is to make "leaving good" and "coming home boring." But still, it's important to know what we're all talking about when we're talking, hey?

MEANWHILE, back on the farm, there's a lot of conditioning, both operant and classical going on. 18 inches of snow + 40 mile an hour winds + 10 degrees below zero Farenheit elicit a range of emotions, from awe to fear to the peace that comes when there's just not a darn thing you can do but settle in, stop worrying about whether you'll make it out (you won't), and accept that you're but a tiny little speck in the universe. But the sheep need feeding, and Willie and I shouldered our way to the barn (well, he "shouldered,"  I "kneed"). Until Jim shoveled a path for them to their hay feeders this morning, I fed them inside the barn because the drifts were so high they couldn't get out.

Here's Spot and Truffles looking over one of the drifts after the snow stopped (and yes, it really was that high).

And, with fears you are absolutely sick to death of "Willie and Flying Disc and Snow," here's another one. It gives you a good idea of the snow depth in an area in which there was no drifting.

We're supposed to fly out tonight for Austin, so cross your paws. We have to fly through O'Hare, not the smoothest of airports in the best of times (understatement alert). It's been closed for 2 days so it's going to be crazy anyway, AND this is prime time for Green Bay Packer fans to fly from the Midwest to Texas. I'm sure we'll make it for my first speech at Lake Austin Spa tomorrow night, but it'd be nice if we could manage some "spa-ness" beforehand. Meanwhile, I know many in the U.S. are struggling with ice (much, much worse than snow) and a lack of power. Stay warm and safe, I hope things improve soon.

A study came out recently in Applied Animal  Behavior Science that suggests that Counter Conditioning (CC)  is not an effective way to treat Separation Anxiety. Since I've been advising the use of this method for many years, my ears pricked up in hopes I'd learn something important about how better to treat this serious behavioral problem.  The study, by Butler, Sargisson & Eliffe, concluded that Desensitizing (DS) was the successful element in the treatment of SA in the 8 dogs in the study, while CC and "behavioral advice" was not.

We got the article, and I read through it carefully. And then I read it again. And yup, one more time. And then I emailed some of my colleagues and asked "Am I crazy?" I thought I might be losing my mind because try as I might, I could not match the design or results of the study to match the conclusions.

Here's what's going on: The study found 8 dogs who were destructive or problem barkers when left alone, and only when left alone. They did a good job of singling out dogs who truly suffered from some form of what they call "Separation-related problem behaviors." (I suspect they don't use the term "anxiety" because they don't want to presume what's going on the the dog's mind. I'll save that for another discussion!) The authors then instructed the owners to use what they called DS and CC, but there's the rub: Although they define DS correctly as the"gradual and progressive introduction of the stimulus eliciting the phobia," they define CC as a situation in which a "behavior incompatible with anxiety is explicitly trained when the anxiety-provoking stimulus is introduced. "Whoa, that's not even close to how CC is defined. CC isn't about training anything, it's about pairing a very low intensity of a stimulus that evokes fear with a high intensity stimulus that evokes a positive emotion. For example, a dog afraid of strangers would be CC'd by having a visitor stand outside the door (low intensity because they don't enter the house) and toss pieces of chicken (high intensity). Over time, and lots of repetitions, the dog's emotional response to the food becomes attached to the visitor as well.

In the study, the owners were asked to do both CC and DS at the same time, except their "DS" involved leaving the dog for a short period of time (beginning with 5 minutes) with food which makes it more like CC. At the same time, they were to pair behavior associated with leaving with food AND were told to give the dogs food when they returned, which has nothing to do with CC'g an owner's absence. Say what? Argh, I am much happier being a cheer leader than a critic, but this methodology is so mixed up I can't imagine what the results would tell us. Moreover, their conclusion that DS works and "CC" doesn't is based on the fact that, even though all dogs improved, 2 of the owners didn't do any CC, and their dogs didn't do any worse than the others. They even added that 2 others of the group didn't follow CC instructions, so 4 of the 8 owners didn't actually do what they authors defined as CC, and that wasn't even CC to begin with. But then, DS wasn't really DS either. Oh my.

Here's the good news: Nicole Wilde has a new book out on Separation Anxiety, Don't Leave Me, and it's a good one. It's much longer than my booklet, the 38 page , which was written primarily for trainers and behaviorists to give to clients to supplement their instructions. Don't Leave Me is 150 pages long, and does a good job of defining the problem and suggesting a variety of treatment methods. I have some minor quibbles: I don't agree that exercise is helpful for most cases of SA (even though it's generally a wonderful thing) and I suggest spending more time CCing the first phases of leaving (ie, get keys, give chicken), but overall this is a great addition to either a trainer's resources or a good book for people whose dogs suffer when they are left alone. I like her attention to a broad range of perspectives, from DS to CC to Dog Appeasing Pheromone, Body Wraps and music designed to calm a nervous dog.

Question for trainers and behaviorists: We are thinking of offering a package of one of Nicole's books with 10 of my booklets, the idea being the book would be in the trainer's library and the booklet go to clients. Think that's a good idea? We're all ears.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Well, it's our turn now. We're expecting 10-20 inches of snow in the next few days. It's snowing like crazy right now, so it looks like the predictions are accurate. Darn, I had just gotten back to working sheep again, after a two week hiatus due to a bad cold and extra cold weather. Oh well, I'll be in Texas this weekend anyway (if we can fly out of here, all paws crossed!) being forced to speak at the in between lying in lounge chairs and getting a massage. Poor Jim is forced to come too, poor baby.

So we'll miss a weekend in the snow, but Willie loves it because it means he is allowed to jump for an aerial frisbee, the snow cushioning the impact on his shoulder when he lands. Here's my absolute all-time favorite frisbee photo of Willie, taken NOT by me but by my great assistant, Katie Martz and then tinkered with by me with my new-found Aperature skills. (To the person who inquired, yes, I am loving Aperature, although I still am not close to an expert at using it yet.) This picture made it easy!

I'm reading a book titled Becoming Animal by a "cultural ecologist and environmental philosopher" David  Abram.  My amazing sister (, a break-your-heart brilliant poet and writer herself) sent it to me for Christmas and it has had a profound effect on me all week long.

This is not a book for many people. As a matter of fact, when I started it I was a bit put off. The Introduction seemed a bit wordy and ponderous, and I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy it. But by the time I became lost in the first chapter I was enrolled. Abram is asking us to get back into contact with our physicality, our relation to the earth and all that is around us. He does so slowly, gently, asking of the reader what he asks of us as inhabitants of the earth–to slow down and notice that shadows are not two-dimensional outlines on the ground, but three-dimensional structures that affect everything within them; that it is not just us that is feeling the grass under our feet, but that our footsteps include the grass sensing our feet upon it.

Reading this book feels like meditating, and as such it's not something you can skim through. It is the absolute opposite of the kind of page turning book that I call a "popcorn book." These are the books I like to read on planes, books that allow my mind to seal off itself from the chaos of not being anywhere, except on route from one place to another. But this is the kind of book to savor, to sink into and read slowly, tasting the words and feeling its message. After reading the first chapter I swear the woods looked different when I walked up the hill that evening. Somehow we felt more connected, the trees and I, and the black and white of winter looked less empty, no longer forlorn and colorless but waiting with slow quiet breaths, pausing patiently for the next phase of the year.

Here's an excerpt, from the chapter about shadows:

To step into the shadow of this mountain is to step directly under the mountain's influence, letting it untangle your senses as the rhythm of your breath adjusts to its breathing, to the style of its weather. To step into its shadow is to become apart, if only for this moment, of the mountain's life. Just as shadows are not flat shapes projected upon the ground (but rather dense and voluminous spaces), neither are they measurable quantities, mere consequences of sunlight and its interruptions. Shadows are qualitative attributes of the bodies that secrete them. � To find oneself in the shadow of a mountain is to abruptly find oneself exposed to the private life of the mountain, to feel its huge and manifold influence on the local world that lies beneath it, to enter the gravitational power of its intelligence, a sagacity no longer dissolved in the dazzling radiance of the sun.

If you like that paragraph, you'll like the book. Fair warning.

The book's theme of connecting with our animal nature and physicality reminds me–how could it not?–of the way our dogs keep us connected to nature. As I said in :

...there's something that I get from my connection to her (Tulip) that I can't get from my human friends. I'm not even sure what it is, but it's deep and primal and good. It has something to do with sharing the planet with other living things. We humans are in such a strange position–we are still animals whose behavior reflects that of our ancestors, yet we are unique–unlike any other animal on earth� Perhaps dogs help us remember the depth of our roots, reminding us–the animals at the other end of the leash–that we may be special, but we are not alone. No wonder we call them our best friends.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about whether you see your dog helping to keep you connected to the rest of nature, and how that manifests.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm. Willie and I are playing with "Pony" a lot, Sushi is so sick of the cold weather that she is actually trying to get Willie to play with her (Willie, who appears to categorize Sushi the cat as some kind of miniature, deformed sheep, was shocked.), and Jim and I have loaded Mac's new PhotoShop equivalent, Aperature, onto our computers and are climbing up the learning curve. We have another training session this Sunday at the Apple Store. So far, we're a having a great time, except, of course, when things don't make sense and then, well, we're not. I have a long way to go to use it well, but meanwhile, here are a couple of shots.

Usually I'd like to take close ups of birds, but I loved the way this Cardinal contrasts with the greys and browns of the landscape in winter.

Here's one of my favorite ewes, Spot. She is at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, and often hangs back for the food, so I always go out of my way to make sure she has a seat at the dinner table.

I mentioned "The Model-Rival Method" earlier when talking about training dogs to associate words with objects, and I thought it'd be fun to illustrate what I was talking about. The video at the bottom of the post is an example of this method, famously used by Dr. Irene Pepperberg to train Alex the African Grey Parrot to label a large number of objects, materials, colors, etc. It was originated by the European scientist Todt, in contrast to the "Skinner Box" kind of training in which a parrot got a food treat from a mechanized box for vocalizing something similar to the sounds being played by loud speaker. Using that method, American behaviorists had concluded that parrots "can't be taught language," but Todt noted that it had little relationship to how our own children learn language. He criticized such a model as being a less than conclusive test of the cognitive abilities of parrots and suggested what he called the "Model-Rival" method. Dr. Pepperberg was intrigued by his argument, and set up training sessions using this method.

The training included 2 people and Alex, with one person being the 'trainer' and one being the 'model' as well as the 'rival.' I'll describe a sample session as including Irene, Alex the parrot and a woman named Julie (I made that name up.) The term model is used to describe the technique because one person models what they want to parrot to do. In Alex's case, the goal is to get him to say the word. For example, Irene would hold up an object and say  "Julie, what's this?" and Julie would answer "Crayon." Irene then handed the object to Julie, who got to handle and play with it (thus, the human trainee is also a rival of Alex's, because they got to play with the object but Alex did not.)

Last year I tried using a standard operant conditioning paradigm with Willie to teach him to label objects, putting down 2 toys and clicking and treating if he went over and nosed the 'correct' one. Willie not only was NOT able to make the distinction between the sounds I was making and the 2 objects, he became so stressed (presumably) about  not knowing what he was supposed to do, he shut down. I quit after a few weeks because we were getting nowhere and Willie looked too miserable to continue. He seemed to want very much to get the game, but he couldn't figure it out.

After reading about Chaser and his 1022 labels for objects (see my post on January 11th, 2011) I decided to try to teach Willie the names of objects in a more natural way. For about a week Jim and I used the word Scorch for his scorpion toy (a favorite, and still, amazingly, in perfect shape after how many years?). We'd toss it around, hold it up, saying Scorch as often as seemed possible. But after awhile I started thinking about the Model-Rival system, and have starting giving it a try. I'd love to tell you, after about 10 days of training, that Willie has it down pat, but he doesn't, at least not once we added in a second name for a second toy. After about 5 days he would reliably go get the scorpion when we said Scorch 100% of the time, even if there were several other toys around , but once we added in a second toy his response fell apart. That's not surprising, and that's what we're working on now, understanding that Scorch means scorpion, but Pony means the stuffed pony. You can see where we are in the video below (in which Willie boy is extremely distracted by a parked car outside and the camera especially).

By the way, out of curiosity I checked online and there is a published paper that compares the model-rival method and operant conditioning method for training domestic dogs that came out in 2003 in Applied Animal Behavior Science (by McKinley and Young). There are some pretty significant issues with the methods: they ask the dog to label any of 3 red objects as "socks" and any of the 3 yellow objects as "cross." I'd then argue that the test is not about labeling an 'object' but a color (and red is not a color dogs see well). That's a very different exercise than matching a word to an object, but granted their intent was to compare the efficacy of training methods, not so much what was being trained. Their conclusion was that the model-rival method was as effective as operant conditioning, and their conclusion is that this is a method that might be used more in dog training. The sample was small and I think there are some confounding factors, but still, very interesting stuff.

Note: You'll notice that once I introduce Pony I say this is a "test" but then switch to saying this is "training." I'm trying to use the same kind of method we'd use with a child, so once Willie doesn't do what is expected (and doesn't 'pass the test'), I help him to do the right thing. And I'll talk later about another issue, the potential that I, or anyone, could be inadvertently cuing their dog to the correct object�., but for now, my objective was to illustrate Willie's progress and demonstrate the Model-Rival Method.

As is often the case with all of us, my agenda for today changed after a phone call that got my attention. A reporter for CNN called, and asked what I thought about an article that just came out in Emerging Infectious Diseases (the journal of the Center for Disease Control). Titled "Zoonoses in the Bedroom," the article by B.B. Chomel and B. Sun provides a list of anecdotes and a few studies that link sleeping with pet dogs and cats with serious diseases. The same connection is made with kissing pets, and being licked by them.  They conclude by saying that "Our review suggests that persons, especially young children or immunocompromised persons, should be discouraged from sharing their bed with their pets or regularly kissing their pets. Any area licked by a pet, especially for young children or immunocompromised persons or an open wound, should be immediately washed with soap and water."

Before I write any more, I should mention that a 100 pound dog just finished slathering my face with her saliva as her and her owner left the office for their weekend at home together. When I return home, I will let Willie kiss my face, will kiss him back repeatedly, and will later lay down on the rug with him, cuddling like spoons, while Jim and I watch the next installment of Castle.

But I can be objective about this issue, and I'm addressing it here today because I think it's an important one. The press is all over this new study from the CDC, (see an article in the ) and I'm concerned that some parents and pet owners will over react. Most of the cases mentioned are simply stories of people who became ill and who also were licked by or who slept with their pets. That's called a correlation, not proof of a cause. And some of the cases mentioned are, uh, a tad out of the range of common sense, like the child who came down with the plague after sleeping with a flea-infested cat in the middle of an outbreak of bubonic plague in New Mexico in 1974. Perhaps the headline should read: "Don't sleep with a flea-infested cat in the middle of an outbreak of bubonic plague! Especially if you live in New Mexico and it's still 1974!"

Overall, a careful reading of the study suggests that it is heavy on anecdote and a bit light on rigorous research. For example: "In 1985, a case of meningitis caused by P. multiocida in a 60-year old housewife living in the United Kingdom was reported. She admitted to regularly kissing the family dog." Did she also admit to kissing the family husband? The family children? The gardener? (No wait, sorry, that's a different issue.) However, there are studies in the article that do suggest that in some cases, admittedly rare, there is a link between disease and close contact with pets. it is important for pet lovers to acknowledge that there can be risks associated with living with, and loving, our companion animals.

But there is an important point to be made here, that I stressed when I spoke with a woman named Madison Parks who will be writing an article on CNN.com sometime today. And that is that that ALL social interactions with ALL animals include a host of costs and benefits. Those risks need to be understood, and then we each need to find a way to create the best balance we can, depending upon our health and our own personal needs. Dogs and cats, birds, horses, pet rats, etc etc, can bite, can cause injuries indirectly (by tripping, for example), can create health problems related to allergies (see me raising my hand here), and act as vectors for pathogens that can cause serious health problems. Companion animals, on the other hand, have been shown in rigorous studies to boost our immune system, decrease allergies in children raised with a pet in the household, increase oxytocin levels which leads to decreased heart rates, blood pressure and levels of cortisol in the body. Those physiological changes are not minor; they can act to increase health and life span in a significant way.

But as I said earlier, ALL social interactions come with risks. If I wanted to be safer, I would get rid of my dog, cat and sheep, kick Jim out of bed and live in a sterile bubble, isolated from allergens and viral particles. But then, I'd either go crazy or shoot myself, so that doesn't really sound so safe after all. Yes, of course, those especially whose health is compromised need to be especially careful about social interactions with their pets, but didn't we already know that? We also need to be careful about stairs, bedroom slippers (a common cause of injury), falling off ladders, and, in my case yesterday, slamming my arthritic wrist into the corner of a table while enthusiastically illustrating to my UW class the flexibility of the human shoulder joint.  I'm a tad concerned that the article, and the press about it, will cause healthy people to worry needlessly, and worse, will cause some parents to get rid of a beloved pet and take it to a shelter while their child's heart is broken.

Okay, you know I'm going to ask: do you sleep with, cuddle with your dog? Do you let him/her kiss you?

Madison Magazine: Here's the good news. Madison Magazine just came out with a feature story on me and â€� most importantly, I do NOT have to die of shame about the photo on the cover. Remember when I mentioned that I'd just finished a studio photo shoot and how uncomfortable I am in that context? Well, the photo is okayâ€� of course I don't look like I want to (who ever does?) but at least I am not cringing and hey, Willie looks great!  . The article is lovely, beautifully written,  I am grateful to them for the time and attention. The only thing I'd change if I could is that Jim is never mentioned and he's such an important part of my life. (Not to mention Willie's. Willie worships the ground Jim walks on. I do too, but don't ever tell him.) But I can mention Jim when I do a live web chat for Madison Magazine on February 2nd. Send in your questions before then to Katie Vaughn at [email protected] and I'll get to as many as I can.

And here's a photo of me and my two-legged guy. I call him and Willie "my guys" and "da boys" and if the two of them could ever get out of the house to play pool together, I expect they would. This is me and Jim in New Zealand, looking like cooked lobsters after being in the sun all day.

Here's one of the photos from the Madison magazine article, taken from the web so it's not as crisp as it should be, but I couldn't resist. It was taken by professional photographer, , who was an absolute joy to work with. He'd taken a class at Dog's Best Friend and was unrelentingly thoughtful and courteous to Willie. I love the simplicity and clean look in this shot.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: It was 16 below this morning at 7 am when I thought to look at the thermometer. Temperature is such a relative thing: that's cold for here, but I know that's not news in Fairbanks, Alaska. Little white guy seemed fine, he wasn't shivering at all, but he was a happy boy to get his grain. We won't be doing much outside this weekend beside exercising Willie and doing the chores. I've a bit of a cold and the weather is a tad below my comfort zone. But Jim and I going to play with our thousands of photographs. We both just got Mac's version of PhotoShop, Aperature. Heaven help us. I only have over 7,500 photos to organize, and Jim has as many or more. Oh my.

We've been told (and I've repeated in my books ) that it takes about 21 to 28 days to learn a new habit. That doesn't sound like too long a time, but the research also found that people tend to drop out a new behavior after about 2 weeks if they don't go out of their way to keep going. But a new study from psychologist Phillippa Lally of University College London found it took an average of 9.5 weeks to get students to incorporate a new habit into their daily lives. Two and a half months � oh my, that's a serious chunk of time. Good for us to remember when we are working with our dogs. There's little question in my mind that one of the most common mistakes we make with our dogs is to get a good behavior started, and then stop reinforcing it too soon.

Of course, we have to be careful to about making assumptions from human research to canine behavior. Indeed, we have to be careful about generalizing the results of one study on college students (96 of them, asking them to form a new healthy habit like drinking a glass of water before eating lunch) to the rest of human behavior at all. This happens far too often: many psych studies are done on college students, who are at a unique age and stage in life. How much of their behavior is similar to that of someone in their 60's?  And what about the habit one is trying to form? Surely that makes a difference.  (Question: I wonder how it was determined that a habit was "formed?" I haven't seen the original study yet, will look it up.)

Prediction: Teach Trish to form a new habit of eating dark chocolate after every meal because it is good for her. Time required for habit to form? One day. Good Trisha. Food for thought (sorry.)

By the way, speaking of learning new things, Willie is making huge progress learning to associate the word "Scorch" with his scorpion toy. His responses are not 100%, but they are becoming impressively consistent. I'll write my next post at the end of the week about the method we are using (and explain the "model-rival" method of training word associations.)

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Willie and I just got back from the barn. I'm still laughing. Sort of. Things got a tad, uh, interesting in the flock. It started when I put a new dog  jacket on little white boy. It's supposed to go below zero and get windy later on this week, and although well-fed lambs are hardy critters, that's getting bit nippy for the little guy. In spite of gobbling up his extra grain and feeding off of mom, he still seems a bit thin compared to the other two (who, granted, look like well-fed ticks). So when Katie asked if I wanted to try Lily's (Willie's Dogo friend) puppy jacket, it seemed like it was worth a try. After all, he'd worn a smaller one earlier, and had done well with it. Now it was too small, so the larger one seemed like it might be a good idea.

I had two concerns. One was that it wouldn't fit. I wasn't so much worried that it would fall off, or not keep in any warmth, but more that somehow it would slip and end up strangling him in some tragic farm accident. Such things happen. I had a ram who got his head stuck in a bucket; he wasn't injured, but he could have been. (Okay, truth in lending here: coming home to find Beavis the obnoxious ram trotting around the barn pen with a black bucket over his head was a highlight of the week.) I had a young lamb manage to hook his lip on the dull end of a plastic bungee hook. I found him snagged like a trout to the pen wall. I still can't figure that one out. I've had sheep with their  heads stuck in an old fence (since replaced). None appeared to be injured, but I doubt they enjoyed it and each time it led to a Lucille Ball-worthy ten minutes of me trying to pull them out. But it can be serious: I have also had a ewe die when she strangled herself on an electric fence that shorted out. So I had reason to be concerned.

Since the larger coat had been worn by a dog last year, I was also concerned that the lamb would be rejected by his mom because he didn't smell right anymore. So I put on the coat while his mom and sister ate grain, and carefully watched how the two moms responded.  They both sniffed white boy, sniffed his new coat, seemed unperturbed, and went back to eating more grain. Great. Smell not a problem. Next question, would it stay on? I let them all out into the main flock and fed them all hay, hanging around to see if the coat stayed on while he fed. At first all the sheep put their heads down and began to chomp on the flakes of hay scattered on the fresh snow.  But suddenly the entire flock took off as if shot, and began running panicked circles around the pen. They ran around like crazed circus animals, around and around they go!, except they looked terrified and no one was clapping. I have never, ever seen my sheep run so fast. Before Willie and I could stop them,  they bolted out of the gate and streamed up the hill into the woods. By this time it was clear they were afraid of little white boy (or the smell of his coat). Even Truffles caught the fever, and the faster she ran away from her lamb, the faster he ran to keep up, bawling his head off. Now they're running into the woods, little white boy scrambling to keep up with his terrified mother, who is running faster than I have ever EVER seen a sheep run.

Super. Now what? They could run themselves into a broken leg in a minute up there, it's steep and slippery and the logs and downed wood are buried in the snow. The lamb could exhaust himself . . . etc etc. Should I send Willie? Tricky: ewes with new lambs are understandably aggressive to dogs and I've kept Willie off them since the lambs have been born; this did not seem like an ideal time to get that sorted out. But there was no way I could get in front of the flock, and I had split seconds to make a decision, so I called to Willie and he and I dashed toward the woods, and luckily, oh so luckily, a ewe without a lamb saw him and turned the flock and ran back into the barn pen, followed, amazingly by Truffles and her panicked lamb. He continued to run after his mom, who continued to run in terrified circles with the rest of the flock until I could manage to run in with a bucket of grain, lure little white boy into the inside of the barn and pull off the offending coat.

If the flock had a Facebook page, it would say:

ATTACKED BY HUGE DOG TONIGHT, BARELY ESCAPED WITH OUR LIVES.

Here's sunrise a few days ago, before the latest 5-6 inches of snow fell. It's good we got the snow, temperatures as low as are expected can be devastating to plants, who need the snow to insulate them from the bitter cold:

Like many of you (great comments!) I've been playing this week with what words Willie defines the same as I. As suspected, most of the words I have used to communicate with him are verbs (to him), and that appears to be his "default" understanding. He HAS learned however, names for living things, me, Jim, Sushi, my other dogs when they were alive, etc. But all his toys are either "toy" or "ball," and as I think about it that's exactly how we used those words for several years. Go "up the hill" and "go to the barn" are effective and impressive cues, but I'd bet a lot of money that he has no idea what I mean by "barn" or "hill." This weekend we're going to work on labeling an object (his scorpion, Scorch, a favorite toy that is miraculously in great shape after 2 years) by holding it, throwing it, handing it to him and repeating its name. We'll even try the "Model-Rival" method that Irene Pepperberg used to teach nouns to Alex, (except Willie won't have to say the word to get it, but Jim or I will!).

Some of the questions that readers have brought up are extremely interesting, for example: how much does breed predisposition matter? What about the first weeks and months of training–how much does our behavior shape how our dogs perceive our words? Why do some dogs have no trouble distinguishing from a large number of objects, and others get frustrated and confused when we try to teach them to do so?

Speaking of words, I thought it might be fun to welcome the weekend by sharing some of the words that get sent in as "comments" by people trying to promote their website or blog. Those of us with blogs are used to getting comments generated by people who have no interest in the actual topic, who often don't speak English well, and are sending comments to hundreds or thousands of blogs in order to get Google and other search engines to move their blog/website higher on the page (big companies pay people huge sums of money to manage the sites so that their businesses come up first or second on Google). These "generic" comments result in some amusing responses. I don't post them, needless to say, but some of them make me laugh out loud and I thought it'd be fun to share. I know lots of readers have their own blogs� I've love to read some of your favorites. Here are mine:

Here's a classic, ones like this come in often:

the articles on this post is definitely a single of the most efficient substance that i?ve really are available throughout. I truly like your article, I will are available once more to confirm for new posts.

Another:

Heyy, Sweet send! Love dgo woman athletic. I am going to definatley be coming back again quickly!=)

But here's my absolute favorite of all time (so far, can you beat it?):

Advantageously, the post is really the sweetest on that notable topic. I concur with your conclusions and also will certainly thirstily look forward to your upcoming updates. Saying thanks definitely will not just be enough, for the fantasti c clarity in your writing. I can at once grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates.  Genuine work and also much success in your business dealings!

I thirstily look forward to hearing from you with your examples, and promise to at once grab your rss feed. Just don't let it get around.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Willie and girlfriend Lily had a great run yesterday. Willie was warmed up and ready to play afterward, Lily slept all afternoon. Lily has on booties to protect her toenails, which have been taking a beating in the snow and ice. It definitely slowed her down, enough that rather than just racing (his favorite) Willie picked up a tree branch and played "catch me if you can."

Fun as it is, and as scenic as snow can be, I am always starved for color this time of year, so here's a photo from New Zealand of a magically whimsical and enchanting garden, called in Akaroa, South Island. The artist, Jose Martin, has created a mosaic wonderland. I could have stayed all afternoon�

Move over Rico. Have you heard about the new article out in Beh'l Processes about a BC named Chaser who has not only learned names for 1022 objects, but has shown that she distinguishes between verbs and nouns? There's more to this study, but let me start with the noun/verb issue. This is an especially interesting issue: one of the criticisms about the research on the dog, Rico, was that there was no proof he understood a label given to an object as a noun versus a verb. In other words, if you say "Go get your ball," does your dog understand that "ball" refers to an object, or that the entire string of sounds means "go get something and bring it back".

This is not a idle question. You may recall a post  I wrote about Willie's difficulties discriminating between objects, , in which I described Willie's inability to attach words to different objects. I concluded that he understood the words I used as verbs, and had little or no comprehension of them as labels of objects.

The authors of this study, John Pilley and Alliston Reid, not only taught Chaser to label over a thousand objects, they taught her actions as well as nouns ("nose" meaning touch with your nose, "paw" meaning touch with your paw, etc.) and combined them to test if she distinguished between actions and objects ("paw lamb," "nose lips"). She had no problem with that test, scoring 100% in what she was asked to do.

In a third study, they trained Chaser to label certain objects as belonging to different categories. For example, after teaching her the names of 26 disc-like objects, each of which had a unique name, they subsequently taught her that all 26 objects could also be labeled in a category called "frisbees," whereas all round objects could also be labeled in as "balls." She had no problem with this task either, and it's a particularly interesting one for me. Here's why: a category (or common noun versus a proper one), like "ball" or "frisbee" is an abstract concept. Although there might be a "ball" in your home, the category of ballness–anything that is perfectly round, no matter what it is made of, what it smells like or how big or small it is–can not be picked up, handled, sniffed or licked. It is a concept, an intellectual abstraction that only exists in one's mind. (Other examples of abstract categories are "big versus small," different versus same.")

The ability to form a "mental abstraction" is one definition of "thinking," and "thinking" or using abstract concepts within the mind to inform future behavior is something that science has been hesitant to ascribe to non-human animals. First the data that some animals could understand abstractions came in from other apes, like chimps, then parrots, like Alex, and from marine mammals, and many scientists and philosophers have no problem agreeing that certain mammals and birds are able to form abstractions . . . but  dogs? As we know, dogs are not the most brilliant of problem solvers (a fact for which we should all be grateful; just ask the owner of a parrot.), but I find it fascinating, and important, that we are 1) including dogs in more and more studies and 2) doing the work to find out what really does go on "Inside of a Dog."

So here's the question to all of us: How do our dogs distinguish our spoken words, cues and commands? How many as verbs? How many as nouns? I am sure that Willie now categorizes "Jim, Trisha, Sushi and Sheep" as nouns, but I'm not sure about anything else. Indeed, it took some careful training to change "Where's Jim" from 'run to the window and get excited' –even when Jim is standing beside you � to looking immediately at Jim no matter where he is. I suspect he (Willie, not Jim) may now understand that "toy" is any  object that he is allowed to play with, and "Where's Your�" is a verb that means to go look for a toy. Most of his other cues are all verbs (Sit, Down, Wait, Get Back, Give me Kiss, Come Bye, Look Back, etc etc�.). But now I'm motivated to find out more. This week I'm going to experiment, should be fun. What about your dog? Have you thought about whether your cues are nouns versus verbs?

MEANWHILE, back at the farm: The ewes with lambs are integrated into the flock and the lambs seem to be doing well. Poor little white boy was shivering Saturday morning when it was only 2 degrees F, and we tried to put his dog coat back on but he's grown out of it. But the sun warmed him up and he's getting grain now in the creep feeder, and he looks like he is doing okay. Hans Solo and white boy's sister are fat as ticks, not sure why the little guy doesn't gain as well, but we're working on it.

Willie and I got to work a friend's sheep this Sunday, working on cross driving at a distance, and had a great time. We just got back from working on it in my little pasture; not the same, but still worthwhile. Lordy we love working sheep!

Time to go feed the critters, it's been dark now for quite a while and we're all getting hungry. I'm keeping Willie slim to avoid unnecessary stress on any of his joints� wish someone would restrict my caloric intake. No, I take that back. Never mind. I did not say that.

Here's another photo from our farm sitters, with Willie and the lovely Harper. Willie and Harper got along famously� size matters deeply to Willie, and he and Harper got along great. They didn't play much, but tended to hang out together, just being dogs, probably pondering why we care whether a noise is a sound or a verb, as long as they get some food out of it  . . .

My last post raised the question "when should one start training a dog," and we've had a lively and interesting discussion about it in the comment section. Our conversation has raised, as good conversations often do, another issue that I think deserves attention: How do you define training?

Many comments have said that we are training our dogs the second we bring them home, which closely reflects my perspective. However, others have said that they "don't start training until the dog is older, they just teach them "manners" (which is closer to Kelly's perspective). One commenter said that her dog knew sit, leave it, polite leash walking, etc, but she didn't start "serious training" until the dog was older.  What a perfect example of how we are all define "training" in our own way.

On reflection, I find that I define "training" broadly, inclusive of all of our efforts to influence a dog's behavior. Good training, to me, means all interactions that influence behavior, from actively teaching a dog to sit to managing an environment to prevent behavioral problems from starting. Others define it more narrowly, to mean the point in time in which one starts increasing their expectations of a dog, perhaps putting more pressure on him or her to perform correctly, and if I read between the lines correctly, using punishment if a dog doesn't 'behave.'

It occurs to me while thinking about this that "dog training classes" must carry an equal potential for confusion to the general public. This is not a new perception, look at how many puppy classes are called "puppy socialization" classes.  And note the change from "Obedience classes" to "Training classes" from 20 years ago. (When I began in this field, they were ALL "obedience classes." I remember deciding with my partner, Nancy Rafetto, to call the classes "Family Dog Training  Classes," and how radical that seemed at the time.)

And what then, is a "trained" dog? If we define "training" differently, we must be equally inconsistent about what we expect of a "trained dog."  Perhaps this is a good reminder to think some more about how and when we use specific words. I use the word "training'" often, but also use "teach" frequently, and like the lighter quality that I associate with "teaching" rather than "training." And I suspect that I have a conditioned association to the word "obedience." I hear that term and I think about the dogs in my first "obedience" classes being jerked around on choke chains and hearing people shout NO! in the dogs' faces. And yet . . . I do expect Willie to be obedient when I use certain cues, otherwise he could never be off leash in the country, and I know plenty of people who have nothing but positive associations with that word.

What about you? What does "training" mean to you? Have you changed the way you talk about how you have "trained/taught" your dog? What does "obedience" mean to you?

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: Still cold, will be around zero (F) tonight and windy besides. Most of the snow is gone so Willie and I can't play frisbee, but that means we can work sheep as long as I can keep my fingers warm enough. We'll be going to a friend's farm this weekend to work on cross drives at the edge of his comfort zone (remember my 2011 commitment!). We've been working on it at home, but I don't have enough land with the right characteristics to work him past 80 to 90 yards.

Soon we're going to let the lambs out with the main flock. In order to do that I need to spray Truffles and Dorothy with perfume� they began fighting like Bighorn rams when I tried them back together a few days ago and I'm afraid the lambs will get smished between them. (If you were reading the blog this spring, you'll recall that spritzing them with a strong scent eliminating fighting after they had been shorn.) The lambs need out though, so Dorothy and Truffles are just going to have to work it out. The lambs have been in the barn for 5 weeks now, and they need to get those little legs moving . And I won't mind not having to fill water buckets 3 times a day after smashing out the ice. (The fun part is when the water splashes out onto your face when it's wind chill of 10 below.) But mostly I want to watch those little lambs get to stretch and frolic. As long as they get enough food they'll be fine in the cold, and both moms are giving lots of milk now. I will have to train the rest of the flock to stay outside while I let the momma ewes into a pen to get extra food, but that's easy to do: "if you stay outside, you'll get "extra food" too (just a LOT less!)

Here's Jenna, a young mix (herding?) who is being fostered by a dear friend of mine, and is looking for a new home. She came over to play with Willie and I got this photo of her in the snow, all black and white like life is now, outside of the warm, yellow glow of the barn lights when the evening light fades and the sky and snow turn ocean blue.