Year: 2012

A Story Like the Wind and A Far-Off Place

Pam Hogle Barkshelf , ,

A Story Like the Wind is not strictly a dog book, but, since one of the central characters is a magnificent Rhodesian ridgeback, Hintza, the book belongs on this barkshelf. A Far-Off Place is the sequel

A Story Like the Wind is beautifully written and evokes a long-gone era in southern Africa. Francois is growing up in a remote part of the bush, the only “European” child for miles around. His parents have unconventional views of the white man’s role in Africa, and their large, successful farm is a collaborative effort where the African workers are also part-owners; they are also family to Francois. A typical coming-of-age narrative, the book builds to a shocking, and rather abrupt, end. Throughout, Hintza plays a key role, often protecting Francois, always the first to notice anything unusual or dangerous, and always a loyal and loving companion. Francois and Hintza have similar romantic taste as well, both developing crushes on the same girl!

It’s a slow read, loaded with elegant descriptive detail, but worth the effort.

A Far-Off Place continues the tale, with Hintza playing a crucial role. The communication between Francois and Hintza is even more remarkable in the sequel. They share such an intimate connection that they expertly read each other’s body language; in addition, Francios speaks to Hintza in complex sentences, using a combination of African languages. Their understanding of each other is nuanced and sophisticated, evidence of a close bond.

How can I be sure that my pet’s food is safe?

Pam Hogle Ask The Thinking Dog

Far too often these days, I hear about pet food being recalled by its manufacturer. Sometimes it is because of contaminants in the food or the packaging. The latest, an East Coast recall from a U.S. pet food producer — Diamond Pet Foods — is for a salmonella outbreak linked to dry foods from its South Carolina plant.

How can we be sure that our dogs (and cats and other pets) are eating food that is not only healthful and nutritious but safe?

Debate rages about what a dog’s diet should contain. Raw or cooked? Homemade or packaged? Is kibble ever OK? One blog is too short to wade into that debate; all I will say is that every dog is an individual and every family’s needs are different. Consider how much time, effort, and money you are prepared to invest in feeding your pets; do your research; and choose the best options for your family and your pets.

However, if you (like most pet owners) choose to go the commercial food routs, there are ways to choose better quality and safer foods. While the latest recall belies the opinion that U.S.-made foods are safe, I still prefer food manufactured here over foods from, say, China. But that is only a tiny first step.

Pet-advice websites abound, many with advice on choosing a quality food; one example is the Dog Food Advisor. And, an excellent source of information and evaluations is the Whole Dog Journal. Each year, WDJ publishes a comprehensive review of dry and canned dog foods. They interview the manufacturers, trace the sources of the ingredients, and evaluate dozens of foods. To see their results, you must either subscribe or purchase the issue with the results — the dry food list is usually in the February issue. (I do not see that as a drawback; the magazine is high-quality and informative, year-round.)

When choosing my dogs’ food, I look for identifiable, quality sources of protein, and minimal fillers and potential allergens, such as corn. I choose foods that are produced by small companies that do not sell in supermarkets and pet super-stores, hoping that smaller firms keep a closer eye on quality. I supplement with fish oil, glucosamine, and lots of home-cooked additions. But each dog’s needs are different; I do not recommend specific brands since there is not a single best choice for all dogs, and I believe that a variety of high-quality foods is the best approach to balanced eating — for ourselves and our dogs.

The blog Mindful Leadership features a three-part post on choosing pet food. Check it out! Be sure to read all three posts.

Is Your Pooch a Couch Potato?

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , , , ,
No couch potatoes here!

I remember coming home one evening long ago to find not only my dog, Timo, on the sofa watching TV but Buddy and Daisy, my mom’s two dogs, up there as well. Even better — whoever had pawed the remote to turn on the TV had somehow hit the right button to bring up Animal Planet — a favorite of the humans in the household as well.

The people at DogTV think those three were onto something. Developed in Israel (where the three dogs described above lived), this first cable channel directed at dogs, rather than just being about them, says it offers “the right company” for dogs who are home alone. Or, presumably, those having a dogs’ night in with their buddies.

DogTV’s website promises that, with its 24-hour-a-day programming, our furry friends “should never again feel alone.” According to the website, the content was developed to meet specific attributes of canine vision and it “supports their natural behavior patterns.”

Since most dogs who are left home all day while their humans are at work or school snooze the hours away on the sofa, I suppose it is not a huge leap to claim that providing TV for them does support that natural behavior pattern …

Setting my skepticism aside and remembering how Timo, Buddy, and Daisy enjoyed their Animal Planet viewing, I decided to test out the sample content on Jana. The results of my statistically insignificant survey (sample size of one) are not terribly promising. Jana does not appear to aspire to couch potato-hood; she watched the “Stimulation” sample for about 3 seconds before her eyes and attention wandered. She ignored the “Relaxation” sample completely.

And it’s not that she’s simply more of an intellectual. Jana’s most strident reaction — indignant, vocal rejection — came in response to the “Exposure” sample, essentially doggy PBS. Described by DogTV as “using the most advanced veterinary science, special sounds and visuals help comfort and habituate dogs by exposing them to different day-to-day stimuli,” the sample on the website features a person telling her dog to sit as she answers the door (this made-for-TV dog is not only willing to sit, he doesn’t even bark at the doorbell or the guy at the door), people and traffic on a busy street, a baby in a car with a siren audible outside the car, small children playing. Jana, of course, barked at all of these as she turned tail and flounced away.

Tuning in a dog-centered channel when you leave your furry friends at home might do little more than make you feel better. A young, healthy dog would  much prefer a game of Frisbee or a run in a park to watching some other dog on TV have all the fun. And even an older or less energetic dog would prefer to get out and sniff the grass herself. And any dog would rather spend quality time with her humans than sit around on the sofa — TV or no TV.

On the other hand, dogs have been shown to be more relaxed in kennels and shelters if there is background music playing. The only problem is getting them all to agree on a radio station!

How do I get all that fur off of my sofa?

Pam Hogle Ask The Thinking Dog , , , ,

I suppose that not letting the dog on the sofa is not an option at this point?

Since I, too, love to cuddle with my dog on the sofa (and she loves even more to curl up on the sofa without me), I will share a tip I read in The Bark magazine — rubber gloves. No kidding. Rub the sofa with your rubber-gloved hands. You’ll only feel silly for a few seconds. Once you see how much hair comes off, and how easily, you will either be appalled at the amount of hair on your furniture or delighted with your newly clean sofa. I just vacuum up the hair tufts as I produce them. Easy!

Play Dates for Your Dog

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , , ,

Does your dog have friends or do you just assume that all dogs like each other?

I met my (human) friend at the dog beach last week, and her cheerful, playful golden bounded over, wearing a huge smile as she ran up to say hi to Jana. They’ve played together many times at dog beaches around the Bay Area (tough life, I know) and they are clearly friends.

But, while 9-year-old Christina and 8-year-old Jana are BFFs, there are other dogs we see regularly with whom Jana is cordial, but distant. Remember being forced to play with your mom’s friends’ kids? It’s the same with canines — our dogs and our friends’ dogs don’t always hit it off.

It might seem obvious. Not all dogs like each other or enjoy hanging out together. We certainly don’t instantly bond with every human we meet. Some become friends. Many do not.

But when some people take their dogs to dog parks or dog beaches, they somehow assume that everyone there will play nicely together. Similarly, they get irked when their dog seems to take an instant dislike to another dog they meet on a walk or in a training class.

Just like our parents, we want our dogs to be polite and friendly all the time. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work out that way. When some dogs take an instant dislike to another, they lunge, bark, or even attack the other dog, for no reason that we hapless humans can see.

I’ve spent a lot of time in dog parks lately doing observation research with my students. What we’ve noticed is that most of the dogs there don’t play with each other. They run, play with their humans, chase balls, roll in the grass, and sniff things. Often, they are sniffed or given a play bow from another, more social dog, and politely and appropriately decline the invitation to play. Sometimes, dogs chase each other a few times, and sometimes the “play” chase turns into something closer to bullying.

Those of us who take our dogs to dog parks for exercise need to be involved. It is no more acceptable to spend dog-park time involved in a long cellphone conversation than it would be for the mother of a 2-year-old human child to do that while her child ran unobserved at the playground. A dog park, fenced or not, is not an opportunity to take a break from your dog.

We can go to dog parks with friends whose dogs are really our dogs’ friends — or set up play dates at our homes. Or, we can go to the dog park with the plan of engaging with our dog while we’re there — to walk with the dog, or maybe toss a ball. What we need to avoid is just assuming that all the dogs will play together and get enough exercise while we ignore them. As many dog experts will tell you, the more engaged the humans are at the dog park, the fewer unpleasant incidents you’ll see.

The same goes for walks. Even on-leash dogs can hurt each other. If your dog is reactive to other dogs, consider working with a trainer to improve his socialization and help him learn to behave more calmly. If your dog seems to attract hostility from other dogs, ask their owners not to let their dogs approach. Meanwhile, work at building up your dog’s confidence and social skills with dogs you know are friendly.

But the bottom line is, we’re our dogs’ protectors and advocates. Don’t throw your dog to the (domesticated) wolves at dog parks or in the neighborhood, and don’t let your dog become the bully, either.

Check out these doggy buddies: Dog Guides Blind Dog

Clothes Make the Dog

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , ,

For as long as I have worked with service dogs in training, I have known that putting a service dog cape or harness on a dog sends a clear signal: “ Now, you are working!” With many dogs, the working dog and the off-duty dog behave so differently they could be two different dogs. Wylie is an extreme example — on harness, he will work past distractions. He still notices cats, for example, but his strong work ethic keeps him focused on the job at paw. But take off his harness and he is all-dog — party dog. We call him the frat boy. All he wants to do is play. And, maybe, if we’d let him, drink beer.

Wearing his harness, Wylie is all business

Last week, The New York Times gave me an explanation for this phenomenon: enclothed cognition. The study’s authors say that we think not only with our brains but also with our bodies. It’s long been known that our clothing affects other people’s perceptions of us; now researchers are learning that how people dress affects the way that they see themselves and the way that they think and behave.

The study cited by the NYT found that people who put on a “doctor’s” lab coat were better able to notice subtle incongruities or differences in images they saw. For example, they noticed that the word “red” was colored green, or they found more differences in very similar photos. Those wearing the “doctor’s” coat did better than test subjects who merely saw the coat, better than subjects who wore the coat but were told it belonged to an artist, and better than a control group who had no white coat presented in any way.

“Enclothed” cognition is an extension of embodied cognition. Just as washing hands has been shown to be associated with ideas of moral purity and people who carry large clipboards feel important, dressing in certain clothing awakens specific associations in our minds — and these associations affect our behavior.

It’s not much of a leap to recognize that dogs are affected in a similar way.

Off duty and ready to party

Putting on a cape signals to a Pet Partner dog that it’s time to go on a therapy dog visit, and putting a cape on a service dog says that playtime is over. Some dogs even have better leash manners with their capes on. When two working service dogs, who also happen to be pals, meet while on duty, they might greet each other warmly and with a wag of the tail, but they will quickly settle back into their calm, unobtrusive working roles. Take those same two dogs on a walk together, or watch them at one of their homes when neither is on duty, and you will see very different dogs and a much higher level of energy!

Just as some people quickly exchange work clothes — and professional persona — for comfy yoga pants and an informal attitude as soon as they get home, some dogs, like Wylie, demonstrate a wide gap between “all business” and “let’s get this party started.” And there are dogs (and people) who clearly know that something special is expected of them when they are dressed for work but who maintain a consistent personality, on duty or off. Each dog’s different degree of “enclothed” cognition helps us respect the truth that all who live with and love working dogs quickly learn: a service dog partner is not a robot, but an individual who makes voluntary choices to do her job. The study’s authors wonder whether the effects of a person’s daily work uniform eventually wear off — or become habit. Do the clothes, in the end, define the dog?

Can dogs be allergic to cats?

Pam Hogle Ask The Thinking Dog

Dogs can be allergic to anything we can be allergic to — presumably even to us!

Fortunately — and despite what your dog might tell you — dog allergies to cats are very rare.

And all that That itching and scratching when he’s around the cat? He’s nervous or stressed. (Maybe because he hasn’t been very nice to the cat and is worried that the cat will seek revenge.)

Many dogs are allergic to certain foods or certain plants, however.

Through a Dog’s Eyes

Pam Hogle Barkshelf , ,

Through a Dog’s Eyes is the title of both a book and a companion DVD, which features a documentary about the placement of service dogs, focusing on twin boys with cerebral palsy. The book is written by the founder and director of the service dog organization that placed the dogs; the book describes several closely bonded human-dog teams. The author, Jennifer Arnold, does a wonderful job of weaving delightful anecdotes into her book and drawing lessons about dogs from them. Though it is not a training manual, Arnold does describe some common dog behavior problems — from the dog’s perspective. She does so in a helpful and dog-friendly way that will help owners see why the traditional methods of “correcting” these behaviors don’t work.

Arnold’s view of dogs might be astounding to some readers, however: Arnold states, for example, that dogs demonstrate “theory of mind,” providing several examples. In this, she’s willing to go farther toward recognizing dogs as thinking decision makers than most dogs experts. Even so, I don’t think she goes far enough. She clings to a common but, I think, incorrect view of dogs that dismisses the idea that dogs can “know better,” that is, that a dog can make “the right” choice, even if it goes against his training, instinct, or even self-interest. She cites as one example dogs who take food from counter-tops, stating that “nothing that hunts for a living will leave available food untouched unless they are not hungry, and even then they may take what’s available.” This not only echoes the familiar, if incorrect and outdated, view of “dogs as wolves” (after all, how many domestic dogs hunt for a living?) — it’s simply not true.

Dogs can be taught not to take what’s not theirs; all of the dogs I have trained have learned that lesson in early puppyhood.

Another area where I hesitantly venture to disagree with Arnold is that I think she over-idealizes dogs, sometimes making them sound too much like the “good wives” described in 1950s marriage manuals: eager to please, living only to serve, selfless, and heroic. I do not mean to detract from dogs’ many good qualities — I find dogs to be the most interesting and pleasant companions around — but I have certainly encountered in all dogs individual preferences and agendas that don’t always mesh with the ideas of the humans around them. Their individuality and complexity is what makes them interesting to be with, and I think that painting them broadly as helpful and eager to do our bidding shortchanges them.

Arnold and her organization (Canine Assistants, a top service dog organization located in Georgia) are strongly opposed to the use of force in training and she presents her viewpoint articulately. Since she and I studied with the same mentor (Bonnie Bergin), we advocate nearly identical approaches to educating dogs. Arnold strongly emphasizes the bond between the human and the dog in her methods of raising and educating dogs, and this comes across strongly in her book.

Overall, the book is a fun and heartwarming read and will give readers not only a new appreciation for the wonderful abilities of dogs but a great insight into the ways service dogs transform people’s lives as well.

Dog Sense

Pam Hogle Barkshelf ,

Dog Sense begins with an excellent discussion on the evolution of the dog as a domestic companion to humans and a thorough description of canine and wolf social structure. Along the way, the author, John Bradshaw, thoroughly dissects  and discredits force-based and behavioral training approaches as well as effectively demolishing the myths that “dogs are cute wolves” and that humans must establish dominance over dogs. But many readers are likely to be turned off by the heavy, overly scientific tone.

Although the subtitle of Dog Sense is “How the new science of dog behavior can make you a better friend to your pet,” it is misleading. Dog Sense will teach you a lot about where dogs came from and about their social structure, but it really won’t teach you much about how to enhance your friendship with your dog. Despite the marketing copy (and the subtitle), there is little about the dog-human relationship other than a convincing (if obvious) statement that force-based training could damage that relationship.

While Bradshaw provides an excellent discussion of association, habituation, and sensitization and emphasizes the need for early, positive socialization, he fails to connect these ideas with how to best teach dogs. In fact, he denies that dogs can build associations from previous experiences or even remember those experiences (key elements of learning) — even though he provides several examples that show that they do display those skills.

Again contradicting the marketing copy, the book does not present a dog’s perspective. Instead, Bradshaw falls into the familiar anthropocentric habit of denying that dogs can feel complex emotions because they lack spoken language, going so far as to state that it is “unethical (his emphasis) to make” the assumption that dogs experience the same array of emotions that we do. His anthropocentric bias is humorously illustrated in Bradshaw’s comment that dogs never evolved the ability to see colors because it wasn’t necessary: the example he provides is that carnivorous wolves wouldn’t have needed the ability to choose the ripest berries. Wolves are opportunistic omnivores who do, indeed, eat berries. More to the point, though, neither dogs nor wolves need to rely on sight to choose ripe berries; they simply follow their far more sensitive noses to the choicest of fruits, as many a domestic dog has been known to do.

Despite a too-common reliance on old myths and a too-anthropocentric focus, there is much solid information in Dog Sense and it is a valuable addition to any dog professional’s library, especially for those who seek a detailed analysis of the science of the evolution, domestication, and social history of dogs.

Your Dog Is Your Mirror

Pam Hogle Barkshelf ,

The marketing and jacket copy for Your Dog Is Your Mirror, by Kevin Behan talk about the human-dog connection and tout the author’s rejection of the dominance-focused training model he learned from his father. They also swoon over the author’s amazing insights. Sadly, the book does not live up to its marketing.

While Behan says he has rejected a dominance-focused force training approach (except for Schutzhund training), he does not propose an alternate method of training or address training methodology much at all. The bulk of the book is given over to a novel and bizarre theory that Behan devised at the age of 23, having (according to him) read and rejected everything that biology and behavioral science — and his father, a leading dog trainer of the time — had to say about dog behavior and training. One morning, as he was letting the dogs his father boarded out of their kennels, he had the epiphany that “None of the dogs were entertaining any intention whatsoever, even though many looked as if they had the specific intent and goal of getting outside, and some appeared to understand what I expected of them … I now knew there was no intention in anything a dog might do.”

Instead, he posits, everything a dog does is a reflection of the owner’s emotions, both present and past, conscious and unconscious, and in fact, could be a reaction to any experience the owner has ever had. He even explains away the idea that a dog could ever feel aggression toward him (or anyone), stating instead that “when a dog went to bite me, I could see that the dog didn’t intend to hurt me, dominate me, or defend himself or his territory … there was something positive about me the dog was attracted to. The dog had no goal: he was simply attracted to me with a force of desire that for some reason was blocked, hence the aggression.” He does not, however, tell readers what he might have been feeling that could have triggered the dog’s behavior.

Behan rejects any notion that a dog can form intentions or even think. In fact, he utterly rejects the idea of dogs as individuals. Therefore, the canine perspective is completely absent from this book; Behan simply denies that it exists. A dog is “not an individuated consciousness, endowed with her own will that’s empowered by personal volition and informed by a self-contained sense of self or ego,” he writes. He adds that no animals can think, claiming instead that their entire consciousness is formed by something he calls a “networked intelligence,” defined as “a higher faculty of intelligence that in animal consciousness completely supersedes the brain.” Bizarrely, that would appear to rule out instinct, too, as a driver of canine behavior. Behan explains any dog’s behavior, no matter how complex, as a function of what its owner is feeling

Despite having worked with, in his own estimation, several thousand dogs, Behan provides few examples to illustrate his theories. The anecdotes he does give are “as told to him” by training clients, not behaviors he personally witnessed. Nonetheless, he feels confident enough in his theories to determine that one client’s dog reportedly habitually left a bit of food in his bowl because the dog’s owner always leaves some food on her plate; the dog is connecting with whatever emotional issue causes the owner to do so. Another client’s dog is aggressive toward children because, Behan discovers, the owner feels lasting pain and guilt over having “not been there” for her daughters when they were young, many years earlier.

Much of the book is a sort of memoir and retelling of his “discoveries” about dog consciousness; there is also considerable psycho-analysis of the humans who own the dogs he trains. The book does not address multiple-dog households where each dog has a very different personality and behaviors, nor does it explain how to apply Behan’s theory to dogs who live and interact with multiple humans. There is no index and no references, making it hard to find specific information.

While I agree with the author that emotion is a primary driver of dog (as well as human) behavior, I strongly disagree that it is the dog owner’s emotion that is solely responsible for the dog’s behavior. I also completely reject any notion of dogs that denies their considerable cognitive abilities, including thinking and planning and, yes, forming intentions. Dogs are separate beings from us, not merely empty vessels that reflect the worst of our emotional pasts back to us. They are brilliant and intuitive beings who deserve to be loved and valued for the individuals they are. Regarding them as our “mirrors” — as extensions of ourselves — is arrogant and egocentric and a terrible disservice to all dogs.