My wife and I have always loved hiking, and both of us feel that the experience is enhanced even more by having our Goldens along with us.
Because we're out there to have fun, I tend to resist using the occasion of a hike to do training, but over time, I've come to feel that attitude is a mistake. I now think a dog can learn some poor habits under that attitude — for example, learning that the recall is optional — and I've now reconciled myself to the idea that some rules should always be in effect.
On a hike just yesterday, I noticed another example of not maintaining that concept. I realized for the first time that both Lumi and Laddie frequently drop the dummies they've been retrieving, playing tug with, and carrying around. They drop them to sniff, to eliminate, to explore, to pick up some alternative toy, and so forth.
I've always seen them doing such things, but yesterday for the first time that they exhibit a similar lackadaisical attitude about their returns in event situations. "I need to relive myself," the dog thinks, or "Hmm, this looks like an interesting bit of shrubbery to nose around in." So they drop their bird and off they go. Then, maybe they remember the bird and pick it back up again, or maybe it has now somehow become passé or distasteful.
So yesterday I came up with a new rule. Every time either dog put his or her training dummy down for an instant, I immediately called, "Pick it up." If the dog ignored me, I rushed to the side, gestured to the dummy, and again said "pick it up", as many times as necessary. The dog could do anything else — engage me in a game of tug, watch me throw the dummy and run to retrieve it, trot along carrying it, engage in any other activity without dropping it, or give it to me to carry — any other option except drop it.
I'm hoping that as that rule becomes consistently ingrained during future walks, a time will come when neither dog ever needs to be reminded again. At that point, I'll have a usable cue for a test if it's needed — "pick it up" — or better still, the training will carry over to event conditions as well.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
-P as -R: The Assisted Walk Out
This post is not primarily about practical training, but is rather about learning theory. Understanding it may, however, help with practical matters such as consistency and timing.
In behavioral analysis, the -P quadrant is traditionally described as follows: When a rewarding stimulus is removed (that's the minus-sign) as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to decline (that's the P for punish).
Meanwhile, -R is described as: When an aversive stimulus is removed (again, the minus-sign) as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to increase (that's the R for reinforce).
Neither of those definitions is found much in practice, either in the lab or in practical training.
Instead, the most common form of -P is this: When an object that represents an opportunity for reinforcement is removed as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to decline.
And the most common form of -R is this: When an aversive stimulus is avoided as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to increase.
As a 2Q trainer, I choose not to use -R in my training, just as I choose not to use +P. Those are the two quadrants that use aversive stimuli.
I try to use +R as much as possible, saving -P for tune-ups. Even though -P does not use an aversive stimulus the way -R and +P do, the use of -P tends to be demotivating. Another way of saying that is that using -P is itself aversive to the subject, even though no aversive stimulus is used.
What I've described above is a fairly traditional view of the behavioral quadrants described. But now I'd like to describe something new, something that I, at least, have never seen described before: the use of -P as -R.
The idea is that, since removing the opportunity for reinforcement is unpleasant for the dog, you can strengthen an alternative, desired behavior by letting the dog learn that she can avoid losing the opportunity for reinforcement by performing that desired behavior. Thus -P, a procedure for punishing an undesirable behavior, becomes avoidance conditioning as a way of reinforcing the desired behavior.
Here's a practical example. I've begun using a procedure I call the Assisted Walk Out (AWO) as a way of training Lumi and Laddie not to dawdle on their pick-ups and re-entries into water on land-water-land retrieves. Because the AWO involves removing the opportunity for reinforcement (the assistant picks up the duck, preventing the dog from being able to derive pleasure from completing the retrieve), the AWO functions as -P.
But if the dog learns that a particular cue will result in an AWO if the dog does not perform the desired response, and as a result the dog's response improves as a way of avoiding the AWO, then what is really occurring is avoidance conditioning, just as in -R.
In fact, although the AWO is -P, no specific behavior is being punished. That is, it doesn't matter whether the dog performs undesirable behavior A, B, or C, the outcome will be the same, the AWO. Only if the dog performs the cued behavior is the AWO avoided. Causing a single behavior to increase, while causing a variety of alternative behaviors to decline, is also typical of reinforcement, both -R and +R.
So is the AWO actually -R after all? The answer is no. The procedure involves no aversive stimulus. It is removal of opportunity for reinforcement, one of the classical forms of -P. But in this case it functions as -R, because the dog experiences avoidance conditioning.
Again, -P is typically used to cause a specific behavior, such as barking, to decline. But the AWO uses -P to cause a specific alternative behavior to increase.
As a final note, one of the reasons that -R is the most powerful of the four operant conditioning quadrants is that when the dog learns a behavior that enables her to avoid an aversive stimulus, she is reinforced every time the dog performs that behavior and successfully avoids the aversive. That is, -R continues to work even when the dog does not experience the aversive. In fact, in practice, the desired behavior can continue to get stronger over a period of time when the aversive stimulus is not occurring.
Hopefully, the AWO will function in a similar way with Lumi and Laddie, reinforcing the desired behavior not only when the AWO occurs, but also continuing to reinforce the desired behavior every time the dog performs the desired behavior and avoids the AWO.
In behavioral analysis, the -P quadrant is traditionally described as follows: When a rewarding stimulus is removed (that's the minus-sign) as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to decline (that's the P for punish).
Meanwhile, -R is described as: When an aversive stimulus is removed (again, the minus-sign) as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to increase (that's the R for reinforce).
Neither of those definitions is found much in practice, either in the lab or in practical training.
Instead, the most common form of -P is this: When an object that represents an opportunity for reinforcement is removed as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to decline.
And the most common form of -R is this: When an aversive stimulus is avoided as the outcome for a behavior, the behavior tends to increase.
As a 2Q trainer, I choose not to use -R in my training, just as I choose not to use +P. Those are the two quadrants that use aversive stimuli.
I try to use +R as much as possible, saving -P for tune-ups. Even though -P does not use an aversive stimulus the way -R and +P do, the use of -P tends to be demotivating. Another way of saying that is that using -P is itself aversive to the subject, even though no aversive stimulus is used.
What I've described above is a fairly traditional view of the behavioral quadrants described. But now I'd like to describe something new, something that I, at least, have never seen described before: the use of -P as -R.
The idea is that, since removing the opportunity for reinforcement is unpleasant for the dog, you can strengthen an alternative, desired behavior by letting the dog learn that she can avoid losing the opportunity for reinforcement by performing that desired behavior. Thus -P, a procedure for punishing an undesirable behavior, becomes avoidance conditioning as a way of reinforcing the desired behavior.
Here's a practical example. I've begun using a procedure I call the Assisted Walk Out (AWO) as a way of training Lumi and Laddie not to dawdle on their pick-ups and re-entries into water on land-water-land retrieves. Because the AWO involves removing the opportunity for reinforcement (the assistant picks up the duck, preventing the dog from being able to derive pleasure from completing the retrieve), the AWO functions as -P.
But if the dog learns that a particular cue will result in an AWO if the dog does not perform the desired response, and as a result the dog's response improves as a way of avoiding the AWO, then what is really occurring is avoidance conditioning, just as in -R.
In fact, although the AWO is -P, no specific behavior is being punished. That is, it doesn't matter whether the dog performs undesirable behavior A, B, or C, the outcome will be the same, the AWO. Only if the dog performs the cued behavior is the AWO avoided. Causing a single behavior to increase, while causing a variety of alternative behaviors to decline, is also typical of reinforcement, both -R and +R.
So is the AWO actually -R after all? The answer is no. The procedure involves no aversive stimulus. It is removal of opportunity for reinforcement, one of the classical forms of -P. But in this case it functions as -R, because the dog experiences avoidance conditioning.
Again, -P is typically used to cause a specific behavior, such as barking, to decline. But the AWO uses -P to cause a specific alternative behavior to increase.
As a final note, one of the reasons that -R is the most powerful of the four operant conditioning quadrants is that when the dog learns a behavior that enables her to avoid an aversive stimulus, she is reinforced every time the dog performs that behavior and successfully avoids the aversive. That is, -R continues to work even when the dog does not experience the aversive. In fact, in practice, the desired behavior can continue to get stronger over a period of time when the aversive stimulus is not occurring.
Hopefully, the AWO will function in a similar way with Lumi and Laddie, reinforcing the desired behavior not only when the AWO occurs, but also continuing to reinforce the desired behavior every time the dog performs the desired behavior and avoids the AWO.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Whistle Sit and Casting
[The following email was my reply to a question I received in private correspondence, asking what to do if the dog does not sit facing the handler on a whistle sit. The writer was concerned that if, for example, you cue "Back" to a dog that's facing east instead of toward the handler to the south, the dog will spin 180° and run west instead of going north as the handler intends. I took the opportunity to address some related topics at the same time. Perhaps I'll have time to convert this to an essay in the future. See Alice Woodyard's reply at end of the post.]
Thanks for writing. I'm no expert, but I'll tell you my opinions.
First, in my experience, "Back" does not teach the dog to make a 180 degree turn. Rather, it drives the dog straight away from you, which my dogs, at least, seem to consider fun. If they don't have the bird, it's much easier to get a good "Back" response than a come-in.
In fact, "Back" is so deeply ingrained in advanced handling dogs that I and other trainers I've seen do not use the verbal cue for angle-backs, relying instead on a silent visual cue if possible. It's not unusual to see a trainer use a visual angle-back cue in combination with a verbal "Back" only to see the dog spin around and continue straight away from the handler, taking the dog further off line, essentially following the verbal cue and ignoring the visual one. The dog had a reason for going that direction, and when you call "Back", the dog seems to take that as confirmation she was going the correct direction.
On the subject of casting a dog who is not sitting straight, I would say that the only immediate practical problem is that you won't be able to cast the dog both directions. If the dog is skewed right, for example, it will be difficult to spin her to the left. However, if you plan to send her straight back, on an angle-back to the right, or on a straight right "Over", I think she'll probably go the way you cue. She'll interpret the cues relative to the direction she sees you, not relative to the position she's sitting in.
That said, I'm not comfortable casting my dogs when they're not sitting straight, and I've noticed that other trainers often aren't either. In my case, this isn't really because I don't think the dog will go the correct direction. Rather, it's because the dog has two modes -- hunt versus handling. As a rule, hunt is for marks, handling is for blinds. The dog needs to have a clear sense of which mode she is in, because handling mode ruins marks in those case where a confident hunt is required, and of course hunting mode prevents the dog from responding to handling cues. When the dog sits skewed, I think she has one foot in each mode, sort of responding to the whistle but on the verge of switching to hunt mode.
I don't think it's good for her to be in that mental no-man's-land. I think it's confusing and might lead to frustration (for the dog as well as for the handler). I want her to have as clear a sense as possible as to which mode she's in. On the one hand, when she lines up for a mark, I want her to be totally in hunt mode, though I may in rare cases need to blow my whistle and switch her to handling mode. On the other hand, when she lines up for a blind, I like a nice, driving send-out on "Back", but above all, I need her to be in handling mode from the moment I blow the first whistle.
When the dog sits crooked, I typically wait a little while before cueing anything. That's because I believe the dog is poised to break, and I don't want her anticipating my next cue and guessing wrong. In addition, there's a behaviorist's reason for not casting immediately. The cast is a reinforcer, and if you cast instantly when the dog sits askew, you're "clicking" the dog for that incorrect response to your whistle. So there are really two good reasons to pause for a few seconds: to give the dog a moment to calm down, and to avoid reinforcing the incorrect sit.
Next, I give a come-in cue. For me, this is multiple tweets, optionally with both arms pointing straight down. Don't say "here" in this situation, because the judge is liable to interpret that as you picking up the dog, and your test will then be over. Another reason for not saying "here" is that, while the come-in whistle hopefully means to the dog, "Come in till I stop you with another whistle", "here" means, "Come all the way to me, I won't be stopping you on the way in."
As the dog begins the come-in, she straightens out, and then I immediately blow another whistle sit (one tweet). The dog may show some confusion, but once she sits (this time straight, typically), I immediately cast her toward the blind. This rewards her for sitting, and also rewards her for the entire chain of coming in and then sitting, making it easier to straighten her out this way over time. Because you did not reward the skewed sit, and consistently straightened her out before casting her to the bird, she'll hopefully become more likely to sit straight on future whistle sits in order to get herself cast toward the bird sooner.
Let me add another point, where I wrote "once she sits, I immediately cast her." This is one area that I think 2Q and 4Q trainers need to think somewhat differently. 4Q trainers, as usual, are at the advantage. It would really be better not to cast immediately for several reasons. A delay gives the dog a chance to gather herself mentally and physically, get her attention on you, coil for the cast. Most importantly, it discourages "auto-casting", where the dog releases herself from the sit, often heading in the wrong direction. Those are reasons why a 4Q trainer will typically not use an immediate cast after a whistle sit.
But a 2Q trainer doesn't have the ecollar to reinforce the whistle sit. For a 2Q dog, the only reason to sit is to get to the bird. The longer you delay your cast, the less valuable the reward is, and the less you're adding to your dog's reinforcement history for sitting on the whistle. Therefore, if you watch me handling my dogs, you'll see that I tend to cast much earlier than the good 4Q trainers. They probably think this is inexperience on my part, since it's also a typical beginner mistake, but I'm doing it intentionally, to "click" the dog for sitting. Fortunately, my dogs are pretty good handling dogs, so I can afford not following the role-model of good 4Q trainers in this particular detail.
Sorry for the long answer. I hope somewhere in there you found something helpful.
LL&L
[Alice Woodyard, one of my mentors, reviewed the above correspondence and sent the following feedback:]
That is a good answer, I think. I want to make one comment. The technique of using a quick toot toot to straighten a sit should ONLY be used in training. It is very dangerous to use it at a test/trial (event) because a number of judges (not all, but more than a trivial number) will interpret it as "correcting" or "training" or "intimidation" or "not making progress to the bird" and will DQ you for it, or at least warn you (you'll be lucky to get only warned).
If you are mentoring [someone], be sure to tell her what is okay for training but not at the event.
Personally I think the dogs learn to adjust for their own crooked sit, once they are in the field (not the yard), and, as you say, "Back" is defined with reference to the handler, not the dog's spine.
Therefore I think straightening a sit is sort of worthless aerobics for both, and I don't personally recommend it.
Thanks for writing. I'm no expert, but I'll tell you my opinions.
First, in my experience, "Back" does not teach the dog to make a 180 degree turn. Rather, it drives the dog straight away from you, which my dogs, at least, seem to consider fun. If they don't have the bird, it's much easier to get a good "Back" response than a come-in.
In fact, "Back" is so deeply ingrained in advanced handling dogs that I and other trainers I've seen do not use the verbal cue for angle-backs, relying instead on a silent visual cue if possible. It's not unusual to see a trainer use a visual angle-back cue in combination with a verbal "Back" only to see the dog spin around and continue straight away from the handler, taking the dog further off line, essentially following the verbal cue and ignoring the visual one. The dog had a reason for going that direction, and when you call "Back", the dog seems to take that as confirmation she was going the correct direction.
On the subject of casting a dog who is not sitting straight, I would say that the only immediate practical problem is that you won't be able to cast the dog both directions. If the dog is skewed right, for example, it will be difficult to spin her to the left. However, if you plan to send her straight back, on an angle-back to the right, or on a straight right "Over", I think she'll probably go the way you cue. She'll interpret the cues relative to the direction she sees you, not relative to the position she's sitting in.
That said, I'm not comfortable casting my dogs when they're not sitting straight, and I've noticed that other trainers often aren't either. In my case, this isn't really because I don't think the dog will go the correct direction. Rather, it's because the dog has two modes -- hunt versus handling. As a rule, hunt is for marks, handling is for blinds. The dog needs to have a clear sense of which mode she is in, because handling mode ruins marks in those case where a confident hunt is required, and of course hunting mode prevents the dog from responding to handling cues. When the dog sits skewed, I think she has one foot in each mode, sort of responding to the whistle but on the verge of switching to hunt mode.
I don't think it's good for her to be in that mental no-man's-land. I think it's confusing and might lead to frustration (for the dog as well as for the handler). I want her to have as clear a sense as possible as to which mode she's in. On the one hand, when she lines up for a mark, I want her to be totally in hunt mode, though I may in rare cases need to blow my whistle and switch her to handling mode. On the other hand, when she lines up for a blind, I like a nice, driving send-out on "Back", but above all, I need her to be in handling mode from the moment I blow the first whistle.
When the dog sits crooked, I typically wait a little while before cueing anything. That's because I believe the dog is poised to break, and I don't want her anticipating my next cue and guessing wrong. In addition, there's a behaviorist's reason for not casting immediately. The cast is a reinforcer, and if you cast instantly when the dog sits askew, you're "clicking" the dog for that incorrect response to your whistle. So there are really two good reasons to pause for a few seconds: to give the dog a moment to calm down, and to avoid reinforcing the incorrect sit.
Next, I give a come-in cue. For me, this is multiple tweets, optionally with both arms pointing straight down. Don't say "here" in this situation, because the judge is liable to interpret that as you picking up the dog, and your test will then be over. Another reason for not saying "here" is that, while the come-in whistle hopefully means to the dog, "Come in till I stop you with another whistle", "here" means, "Come all the way to me, I won't be stopping you on the way in."
As the dog begins the come-in, she straightens out, and then I immediately blow another whistle sit (one tweet). The dog may show some confusion, but once she sits (this time straight, typically), I immediately cast her toward the blind. This rewards her for sitting, and also rewards her for the entire chain of coming in and then sitting, making it easier to straighten her out this way over time. Because you did not reward the skewed sit, and consistently straightened her out before casting her to the bird, she'll hopefully become more likely to sit straight on future whistle sits in order to get herself cast toward the bird sooner.
Let me add another point, where I wrote "once she sits, I immediately cast her." This is one area that I think 2Q and 4Q trainers need to think somewhat differently. 4Q trainers, as usual, are at the advantage. It would really be better not to cast immediately for several reasons. A delay gives the dog a chance to gather herself mentally and physically, get her attention on you, coil for the cast. Most importantly, it discourages "auto-casting", where the dog releases herself from the sit, often heading in the wrong direction. Those are reasons why a 4Q trainer will typically not use an immediate cast after a whistle sit.
But a 2Q trainer doesn't have the ecollar to reinforce the whistle sit. For a 2Q dog, the only reason to sit is to get to the bird. The longer you delay your cast, the less valuable the reward is, and the less you're adding to your dog's reinforcement history for sitting on the whistle. Therefore, if you watch me handling my dogs, you'll see that I tend to cast much earlier than the good 4Q trainers. They probably think this is inexperience on my part, since it's also a typical beginner mistake, but I'm doing it intentionally, to "click" the dog for sitting. Fortunately, my dogs are pretty good handling dogs, so I can afford not following the role-model of good 4Q trainers in this particular detail.
Sorry for the long answer. I hope somewhere in there you found something helpful.
LL&L
[Alice Woodyard, one of my mentors, reviewed the above correspondence and sent the following feedback:]
That is a good answer, I think. I want to make one comment. The technique of using a quick toot toot to straighten a sit should ONLY be used in training. It is very dangerous to use it at a test/trial (event) because a number of judges (not all, but more than a trivial number) will interpret it as "correcting" or "training" or "intimidation" or "not making progress to the bird" and will DQ you for it, or at least warn you (you'll be lucky to get only warned).
If you are mentoring [someone], be sure to tell her what is okay for training but not at the event.
Personally I think the dogs learn to adjust for their own crooked sit, once they are in the field (not the yard), and, as you say, "Back" is defined with reference to the handler, not the dog's spine.
Therefore I think straightening a sit is sort of worthless aerobics for both, and I don't personally recommend it.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Do Dogs "Think"?
[From a post to PositiveGunDogs on October 22, 2009]
On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:03 PM, another poster wrote:
I'm going to assume that by "thinking" you mean that dogs perform conscious reasoning. If so, first of all, I don't think there's any way to determine whether dogs do that or not, and secondly, my own observations suggest that they do very little of it.
I see too many situations where something should be obvious to a dog but the dog's behavior tells me that it isn't obvious. A common example is awareness of lines (such as a leash or rope) attached to the dog's collar. A dog without line experience often acts as though she has no idea that the line can prevent her from moving beyond the length of that line, and also often seems unaware that she cannot go on one side of an object while the handler attached to the other end of the line goes on the other.
Dogs, of course, can learn those things, but it doesn't seem to me that they learn by means of a reasoning process. Instead, they just begin to learn that particular stimuli in particular contexts combined with particular decisions on the dog's part have particular outcomes. Dogs are extremely good at that kind of learning. It COULD involve reasoning, but it does not need to, and my experience suggests that it does not. I say that because if you change the stimuli or contexts in ways that should not interfere with the reasoning process -- for example, go to a different location -- often the dog will no longer behave according to previous experience and will have to go thru the learning process again. It takes time for the dog to learn which elements of the context and stimuli make a difference in the outcome and which do not, though eventually they do learn some of that, and we call that "generalizing". Dogs are notoriously bad at generalizing. To me, that's because they're not incorporating reasoning into the process, they're just collecting data points.
An analogy might be a blind person learning about walking thru doors with a sighted assistant. As first, he might think he can get out ahead of the assistant, but thru experience of walking into doors, he eventually learns that he needs to wait until he feels the assistant moving forward, or hears the assistant say "It's OK to continue without me." To the assistant, it may appear that the guy can now see because he doesn't walk into doors any more, but the truth is, the blind guy still has no idea whether a door is front of him or not. He's just acting as though he can see because experience tells him what stimuli and contexts have desirable outcomes when he walks forward.
We are often mystified about how a dog could possibly not "understand" some cue. I think the mystery goes away if we stop thinking that it's a rational process and start realizing that the dog is just unconsciously sorting out how the current context and stimuli compare to her previous experiences. One little change in the context or stimuli -- a new scent, a change in wind direction, some internal sensation such as hunger -- might make it impossible for her to recognize this as a "similar" situation to one she has experience with, while our rational abilities tell us that that scent, wind direction, or internal sensation has nothing to do with the cue we're giving her and the behavior we're asking for.
I don't think I can prove to you, or to myself, that dogs don't "think". But I also don't think I can prove that they do.
LL&L
On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:03 PM, another poster wrote:
Thinking is always ongoing with animals as we all know.Hi, [name]. I'm afraid I'm on the other side of this statement from both you and Alice [this refers to Alice Woodyard, who also replied to the same person I'm replying to].
I'm going to assume that by "thinking" you mean that dogs perform conscious reasoning. If so, first of all, I don't think there's any way to determine whether dogs do that or not, and secondly, my own observations suggest that they do very little of it.
I see too many situations where something should be obvious to a dog but the dog's behavior tells me that it isn't obvious. A common example is awareness of lines (such as a leash or rope) attached to the dog's collar. A dog without line experience often acts as though she has no idea that the line can prevent her from moving beyond the length of that line, and also often seems unaware that she cannot go on one side of an object while the handler attached to the other end of the line goes on the other.
Dogs, of course, can learn those things, but it doesn't seem to me that they learn by means of a reasoning process. Instead, they just begin to learn that particular stimuli in particular contexts combined with particular decisions on the dog's part have particular outcomes. Dogs are extremely good at that kind of learning. It COULD involve reasoning, but it does not need to, and my experience suggests that it does not. I say that because if you change the stimuli or contexts in ways that should not interfere with the reasoning process -- for example, go to a different location -- often the dog will no longer behave according to previous experience and will have to go thru the learning process again. It takes time for the dog to learn which elements of the context and stimuli make a difference in the outcome and which do not, though eventually they do learn some of that, and we call that "generalizing". Dogs are notoriously bad at generalizing. To me, that's because they're not incorporating reasoning into the process, they're just collecting data points.
An analogy might be a blind person learning about walking thru doors with a sighted assistant. As first, he might think he can get out ahead of the assistant, but thru experience of walking into doors, he eventually learns that he needs to wait until he feels the assistant moving forward, or hears the assistant say "It's OK to continue without me." To the assistant, it may appear that the guy can now see because he doesn't walk into doors any more, but the truth is, the blind guy still has no idea whether a door is front of him or not. He's just acting as though he can see because experience tells him what stimuli and contexts have desirable outcomes when he walks forward.
We are often mystified about how a dog could possibly not "understand" some cue. I think the mystery goes away if we stop thinking that it's a rational process and start realizing that the dog is just unconsciously sorting out how the current context and stimuli compare to her previous experiences. One little change in the context or stimuli -- a new scent, a change in wind direction, some internal sensation such as hunger -- might make it impossible for her to recognize this as a "similar" situation to one she has experience with, while our rational abilities tell us that that scent, wind direction, or internal sensation has nothing to do with the cue we're giving her and the behavior we're asking for.
I don't think I can prove to you, or to myself, that dogs don't "think". But I also don't think I can prove that they do.
LL&L
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Breaking and Creeping
[For now, this article is in the form of private correspondence with someone who wrote to me. In the future, hopefully I'll convert it to essay format. I've changed the names.]
I have the feeling (might be wrong) that you're thinking of using the AWO (or WO) for breaking. I've gone down that route, I no longer think it's the right way to do it. The problem with it is that even if the dog doesn't get the bird, she still gets the chase, and the chase is enormously self-reinforcing. True, not getting the bird is frustrating, and eventually that frustration may overpower the pleasure of the chase, but it's a slow route.
Here's what I suggest instead:
* Get a tab for Fido's yard collar. A "tab" is just a very short lead that snaps to the collar's loop like any other lead. I buy my tabs from Lion Country, then tie an extra knot at the knotted end to shorten it to about 9". I don't want the tab ever to get caught in my dog's feet, of course.
* It's important that Fido begin wearing the collar and tab from now on whenever training, especially if you are NOT working on breaking that session. You want Fido to become so habituated to the equipment that he doesn't associate it with the break-training (below) when that is in progress. What you do NOT want is for Fido to associate the collar/tab with not breaking, since of course he won't wear that equipment in a test. If he learns that the only time he can't break is when he's wearing the equipment, the training won't help you in a test.
* From now on, whenever running Fido on a mark where there is the remotest possibility he will creep or break, hold the end of the tab while calling for the throw with your other hand. The fact that you are holding the tab needs to be imperceptible to Fido, again because you don't want him learning that the only time he can't break is when he feels or otherwise senses that you are holding his tab. So keep your hand behind his head, and keep the tab nice and loose, but hold on tight.
* Ask someone to act as "line judge" and have that person call a number or "dog" after all the birds are down. Ask the "judge" to wait a few extra seconds before calling. If possible, sometimes have male and sometimes female "line judges".
* If you're not already doing it, add substantial and irregular delays after the "line judge" releases your dog, before you call "Fido". The old timers say, "Smoke a cigarette." That's an exaggeration, but it gives you the idea. You don't want Fido learning to anticipate your release. If he does, like any athlete experiencing "anticipation response", he will begin jumping the gun.
* Finally, call "Fido". For Hunt Tests, I don't think there's any reason to say it loudly. I know that some Field Trial handlers use a louder voice for longer marks, but we don't run those long marks in Hunt Tests.
* As Fido launches, simply let the knot from the tab slip from your hand, imperceptibly to Fido.
* If at any time Fido attempts to creep or launch too early, he won't be able to because you're holding the knot. His movement will take up the slack in the tack and he'll be immobilized. Fortunately, dogs do not seem to experience this as "Someone is holding me by the tab on my collar." Instead they experience it as, "Hmm, for some reason, I don't seem to be able to move forward. Guess I might as well wait until my handler calls my name."
The above procedure will gradually create a habit of not creeping or breaking. It's gentle and effective, and has the added advantage of not taking extra time for your turn. Simply continue using this procedure until you're absolutely certain that there's no need to hold the tab any more. Then, a time will come that you'll feel there's also no need for the dog to even where the collar/tab any more. My dogs train completely naked. :0)
Since you've gotten thru Senior, I guess honoring isn't a problem for your dogs. If you'd like some additional thoughts on using a similar approach to train the dog not to break when honoring, please let me know.
Best of luck!
LL&L
I have the feeling (might be wrong) that you're thinking of using the AWO (or WO) for breaking. I've gone down that route, I no longer think it's the right way to do it. The problem with it is that even if the dog doesn't get the bird, she still gets the chase, and the chase is enormously self-reinforcing. True, not getting the bird is frustrating, and eventually that frustration may overpower the pleasure of the chase, but it's a slow route.
Here's what I suggest instead:
* Get a tab for Fido's yard collar. A "tab" is just a very short lead that snaps to the collar's loop like any other lead. I buy my tabs from Lion Country, then tie an extra knot at the knotted end to shorten it to about 9". I don't want the tab ever to get caught in my dog's feet, of course.
* It's important that Fido begin wearing the collar and tab from now on whenever training, especially if you are NOT working on breaking that session. You want Fido to become so habituated to the equipment that he doesn't associate it with the break-training (below) when that is in progress. What you do NOT want is for Fido to associate the collar/tab with not breaking, since of course he won't wear that equipment in a test. If he learns that the only time he can't break is when he's wearing the equipment, the training won't help you in a test.
* From now on, whenever running Fido on a mark where there is the remotest possibility he will creep or break, hold the end of the tab while calling for the throw with your other hand. The fact that you are holding the tab needs to be imperceptible to Fido, again because you don't want him learning that the only time he can't break is when he feels or otherwise senses that you are holding his tab. So keep your hand behind his head, and keep the tab nice and loose, but hold on tight.
* Ask someone to act as "line judge" and have that person call a number or "dog" after all the birds are down. Ask the "judge" to wait a few extra seconds before calling. If possible, sometimes have male and sometimes female "line judges".
* If you're not already doing it, add substantial and irregular delays after the "line judge" releases your dog, before you call "Fido". The old timers say, "Smoke a cigarette." That's an exaggeration, but it gives you the idea. You don't want Fido learning to anticipate your release. If he does, like any athlete experiencing "anticipation response", he will begin jumping the gun.
* Finally, call "Fido". For Hunt Tests, I don't think there's any reason to say it loudly. I know that some Field Trial handlers use a louder voice for longer marks, but we don't run those long marks in Hunt Tests.
* As Fido launches, simply let the knot from the tab slip from your hand, imperceptibly to Fido.
* If at any time Fido attempts to creep or launch too early, he won't be able to because you're holding the knot. His movement will take up the slack in the tack and he'll be immobilized. Fortunately, dogs do not seem to experience this as "Someone is holding me by the tab on my collar." Instead they experience it as, "Hmm, for some reason, I don't seem to be able to move forward. Guess I might as well wait until my handler calls my name."
The above procedure will gradually create a habit of not creeping or breaking. It's gentle and effective, and has the added advantage of not taking extra time for your turn. Simply continue using this procedure until you're absolutely certain that there's no need to hold the tab any more. Then, a time will come that you'll feel there's also no need for the dog to even where the collar/tab any more. My dogs train completely naked. :0)
Since you've gotten thru Senior, I guess honoring isn't a problem for your dogs. If you'd like some additional thoughts on using a similar approach to train the dog not to break when honoring, please let me know.
Best of luck!
LL&L
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Assisted Walk Out (AWO)
I am now ready to reveal what may be the single most important secret for training the 2Q retriever.
Do 4Q trainers -- that is, virtually all retriever trainers, the ones who use ecollars, heeling sticks, choke and pinch collars, ear and toe pinches, etc. -- know about this secret? Yes and no. If you were to tell the typical experienced retriever trainer the secret, they'd say, "Well sure, I coulda told you that." But they do not use the secret I'm about to describe, because they don't need it. If you're lucky enough to get to join their group, none of them will tell you the secret in advance. And if you try to put the method into play while training with them, it will annoy them, possibly to the extent that they will not allow you to use the technique during group training, because it takes far more time than the methods that 4Q trainers employ.
I've given the secret a name: the Assisted Walk Out (AWO). It's related to the Walk Out (WO), which I've described several times in the past (it's the solo version of the AWO). In addition, another poster on this list (my apologies, I've forgotten that person's name), described this exact method for training the whistle sit (WS).
Indeed, the AWO is an invaluable method for training the WS. I haven't used the AWO for the WS, I've gotten by with the unassisted WO, and my dogs are doing OK with it, so you can get by with the WO for the WS if you have no choice.
However, I've come to the conclusion that a 2Q trainer can NOT get by without the AWO for land-water-land (LWL) retrieves, at least for some dogs, at least for harsh conditions such as cold water.
So here is a description of the Assisted Walk Out: When the dog is out in the field and does not perform correctly, have an assistant pick up the bird (or whatever retrieval article you're using). Then you as the handler, call out "sit", walk out to the dog (slow is OK, slow is even preferred), gently slip on the dog's lead, and silently walk the dog (again, slow is fine) back to the start line. Do not use this opportunity for training heeling, sitting, recall, or any other behavior. During the entire procedure, you're negatively punishing a particular behavior, whatever behavior the dog was doing when you stopped her. Don't dilute the lesson with some other lesson, just walk out, slip on her lead, and gently, quietly, walk her back to the start line. Then with all the joy and enthusiasm in the world, run the dog on the same retrieve again. That's it. That's the AWO.
Why does the AWO work? You may not need this information, but knowing it may help you to understand the crucial element of the AWO (and the WO): The dog must not complete the retrieve after an undesired behavior. The reason is that for a field-bred retriever (and probably many other dogs, such as Border Collies), the opportunity to complete the retrieve is of enormous value. Therefore, losing it is so undesirable that the dog will forego other pleasures if they learn that doing so results in losing that opportunity. You see, completing the retrieve is not the only thing of value out there in the field, and it is subtle enough that the young or naive field-bred retriever may not yet have discovered how valuable it is. (The AWO is a good example of what I call "discovery" training.) Because it is not the only thing of value, the dog will also be engage in other behaviors that are ALSO of value: licking or eating the bird, exploring nearby territory for frogs, etc. But the dog is only doing those things because she (or he) believes that when she has finished doing them, she will ultimately get to complete the retrieve.
As a result, if you do not use the AWO, but instead allow those other behaviors to continue while repeatedly calling the dog, your recall, if sufficiently well trained, will eventually succeed in bringing the dog back. That will give the illusion that you're on the right track, and that all you need to do is continue practicing until eventually the dog discovers that it's more fun to come straight back than it is to do those other things first, and then come back.
But in my experience, the opposite will happen. What you are actually doing is REINFORCING the undesired behaviors with your recall. Remember that a cue that has been well-trained with a high value reward ITSELF acts as a reinforcer. So let's say the dog licks the bird, and you, not wanting the dog to do that, call the dog. The dog picks up the bird and brings it to you. "Whew," you think, "disaster averted. At least the dog never put her paw on the dog and started to eat it." But here's what the dog experienced: "I licked the bird and something GOOD happened, I was REWARDED: Daddy used one of my favorite rewards -- my recall cue -- to REWARD me for licking the bird."
And here's something even worse that might happen next. As the insight hits you that you need to stop calling the dog when she licks the bird, you try it that way. Boom, you've just invoked Mr. Extinction Burst. "Oh," thinks the dog's behavioral instincts, "licking didn't work to get that recall reward? OK, let's try a more vigorous version of it. Let's try chewing the bird, or even breasting it." Congratulations, you are brilliantly if inadvertently shaping a really disastrous pick-up and return pattern. Be like me. Keep it up for a couple of years before you figure out what's going on. :0)
Finally, this may be the worst of all: Because the AWO (and it's poor cousin, the WO) are so difficult to arrange for, it is easy to let the occasional exception occur. Boom again, now you've just invoked Mr. Ratio. The best way to improve a behavior's persistence is to put it on a ratio of intermittent reinforcement. "Oh," thinks the dog's behavior instincts this time, "I only get rewarded for this behavior every few times. OK, I won't worry about it when I try it and nothing good comes of it. I'll just keep trying, and EVENTUALLY it will work for me." Dogs can build up tolerance for dozens, even hundreds, of unreinforced behaviors if you are go about the "training" the right way. It's easy: Just let the dog OCCASIONALLY complete the retrieve after performing some undesired behavior. This, of course, is why you must put the AWO on a zero-tolerance schedule.
The most mysterious part of the AWO, the part that makes it difficult to believe in and therefore difficult to execute, is understanding how important it is to the dog to be able to complete the retrieve. After all, the dog is acting as though completing the retrieve has no value at all. How can depriving the dog of the retrieve make any difference, when she doesn't seem to care about it anyway? To convince yourself that completing the retrieve really is valuable, all you have to do is to trust me and start using the AWO. When it works, and the undesired behaviors stop occurring, and the dog starts picking up the bird and coming straight back to you, then you will realize why it worked. If you start using the AWO early enough in the dog's training, you may be able to prevent any bad habits from ever forming, and have a dog who never shows the symptoms that my dogs do. I dearly hope that's the case and that I, too, will share in that benefit with my next puppy.
In conclusion, I know all too well how difficult the logistics are to arrange to always have an assistant available when training LWL retrieves. If you absolutely must train alone, then I can only give you the same advice I've belatedly given myself: Apply the same zero-tolerance, no exceptions policy to your use of the unassisted WO as you would if an assistant were available to help you with the AWO. One of the most important and annoying corollaries is that that means, do NOT train in locations where you cannot readily get to the other side of the water if the dog does not perform correctly.
I hope the AWO will be as valuable to you as it has been to me in the short time I've begun using it.
Lindsay, with Lumi & Laddie (Goldens)
Laytonsville, Maryland
Field training blog: http://lumi-laddie-test-series.blogspot.com (see "Archive of Video Blog Entries" in right margin)
YouTube playlists:
-- Lumi: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BC338082E0B890DB
-- Laddie: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9A44913FB240932A
To further explore the frontiers of dog training, join our DogTrek list at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DogTrek
Do 4Q trainers -- that is, virtually all retriever trainers, the ones who use ecollars, heeling sticks, choke and pinch collars, ear and toe pinches, etc. -- know about this secret? Yes and no. If you were to tell the typical experienced retriever trainer the secret, they'd say, "Well sure, I coulda told you that." But they do not use the secret I'm about to describe, because they don't need it. If you're lucky enough to get to join their group, none of them will tell you the secret in advance. And if you try to put the method into play while training with them, it will annoy them, possibly to the extent that they will not allow you to use the technique during group training, because it takes far more time than the methods that 4Q trainers employ.
I've given the secret a name: the Assisted Walk Out (AWO). It's related to the Walk Out (WO), which I've described several times in the past (it's the solo version of the AWO). In addition, another poster on this list (my apologies, I've forgotten that person's name), described this exact method for training the whistle sit (WS).
Indeed, the AWO is an invaluable method for training the WS. I haven't used the AWO for the WS, I've gotten by with the unassisted WO, and my dogs are doing OK with it, so you can get by with the WO for the WS if you have no choice.
However, I've come to the conclusion that a 2Q trainer can NOT get by without the AWO for land-water-land (LWL) retrieves, at least for some dogs, at least for harsh conditions such as cold water.
So here is a description of the Assisted Walk Out: When the dog is out in the field and does not perform correctly, have an assistant pick up the bird (or whatever retrieval article you're using). Then you as the handler, call out "sit", walk out to the dog (slow is OK, slow is even preferred), gently slip on the dog's lead, and silently walk the dog (again, slow is fine) back to the start line. Do not use this opportunity for training heeling, sitting, recall, or any other behavior. During the entire procedure, you're negatively punishing a particular behavior, whatever behavior the dog was doing when you stopped her. Don't dilute the lesson with some other lesson, just walk out, slip on her lead, and gently, quietly, walk her back to the start line. Then with all the joy and enthusiasm in the world, run the dog on the same retrieve again. That's it. That's the AWO.
Why does the AWO work? You may not need this information, but knowing it may help you to understand the crucial element of the AWO (and the WO): The dog must not complete the retrieve after an undesired behavior. The reason is that for a field-bred retriever (and probably many other dogs, such as Border Collies), the opportunity to complete the retrieve is of enormous value. Therefore, losing it is so undesirable that the dog will forego other pleasures if they learn that doing so results in losing that opportunity. You see, completing the retrieve is not the only thing of value out there in the field, and it is subtle enough that the young or naive field-bred retriever may not yet have discovered how valuable it is. (The AWO is a good example of what I call "discovery" training.) Because it is not the only thing of value, the dog will also be engage in other behaviors that are ALSO of value: licking or eating the bird, exploring nearby territory for frogs, etc. But the dog is only doing those things because she (or he) believes that when she has finished doing them, she will ultimately get to complete the retrieve.
As a result, if you do not use the AWO, but instead allow those other behaviors to continue while repeatedly calling the dog, your recall, if sufficiently well trained, will eventually succeed in bringing the dog back. That will give the illusion that you're on the right track, and that all you need to do is continue practicing until eventually the dog discovers that it's more fun to come straight back than it is to do those other things first, and then come back.
But in my experience, the opposite will happen. What you are actually doing is REINFORCING the undesired behaviors with your recall. Remember that a cue that has been well-trained with a high value reward ITSELF acts as a reinforcer. So let's say the dog licks the bird, and you, not wanting the dog to do that, call the dog. The dog picks up the bird and brings it to you. "Whew," you think, "disaster averted. At least the dog never put her paw on the dog and started to eat it." But here's what the dog experienced: "I licked the bird and something GOOD happened, I was REWARDED: Daddy used one of my favorite rewards -- my recall cue -- to REWARD me for licking the bird."
And here's something even worse that might happen next. As the insight hits you that you need to stop calling the dog when she licks the bird, you try it that way. Boom, you've just invoked Mr. Extinction Burst. "Oh," thinks the dog's behavioral instincts, "licking didn't work to get that recall reward? OK, let's try a more vigorous version of it. Let's try chewing the bird, or even breasting it." Congratulations, you are brilliantly if inadvertently shaping a really disastrous pick-up and return pattern. Be like me. Keep it up for a couple of years before you figure out what's going on. :0)
Finally, this may be the worst of all: Because the AWO (and it's poor cousin, the WO) are so difficult to arrange for, it is easy to let the occasional exception occur. Boom again, now you've just invoked Mr. Ratio. The best way to improve a behavior's persistence is to put it on a ratio of intermittent reinforcement. "Oh," thinks the dog's behavior instincts this time, "I only get rewarded for this behavior every few times. OK, I won't worry about it when I try it and nothing good comes of it. I'll just keep trying, and EVENTUALLY it will work for me." Dogs can build up tolerance for dozens, even hundreds, of unreinforced behaviors if you are go about the "training" the right way. It's easy: Just let the dog OCCASIONALLY complete the retrieve after performing some undesired behavior. This, of course, is why you must put the AWO on a zero-tolerance schedule.
The most mysterious part of the AWO, the part that makes it difficult to believe in and therefore difficult to execute, is understanding how important it is to the dog to be able to complete the retrieve. After all, the dog is acting as though completing the retrieve has no value at all. How can depriving the dog of the retrieve make any difference, when she doesn't seem to care about it anyway? To convince yourself that completing the retrieve really is valuable, all you have to do is to trust me and start using the AWO. When it works, and the undesired behaviors stop occurring, and the dog starts picking up the bird and coming straight back to you, then you will realize why it worked. If you start using the AWO early enough in the dog's training, you may be able to prevent any bad habits from ever forming, and have a dog who never shows the symptoms that my dogs do. I dearly hope that's the case and that I, too, will share in that benefit with my next puppy.
In conclusion, I know all too well how difficult the logistics are to arrange to always have an assistant available when training LWL retrieves. If you absolutely must train alone, then I can only give you the same advice I've belatedly given myself: Apply the same zero-tolerance, no exceptions policy to your use of the unassisted WO as you would if an assistant were available to help you with the AWO. One of the most important and annoying corollaries is that that means, do NOT train in locations where you cannot readily get to the other side of the water if the dog does not perform correctly.
I hope the AWO will be as valuable to you as it has been to me in the short time I've begun using it.
Lindsay, with Lumi & Laddie (Goldens)
Laytonsville, Maryland
Field training blog: http://lumi-laddie-test-series.blogspot.com (see "Archive of Video Blog Entries" in right margin)
YouTube playlists:
-- Lumi: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BC338082E0B890DB
-- Laddie: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9A44913FB240932A
To further explore the frontiers of dog training, join our DogTrek list at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DogTrek
Sunday, October 18, 2009
EDF and the 2Q Disadvantage
[For now, this post is a somewhat-edited email exchange. Maybe I'll convert the format to a short essay when I have more time.]
Hi, Gaby. Thanks for the thoughtful note.
I decided I needed some sleep, so it looks like I'll get there about 10:00 AM, maybe even a little later. I hope that's OK.
All dogs (and handlers) experience what Alice (my mentor) calls "Event Discount Factor" (EDF). You have to train to a higher skill level than what the dog will need in a test to have a chance of passing. That doesn't really answer your question, as to what the exact cues are -- for example, I'm sure you're right, duck scent is a huge diversion -- but all those other factors -- people, dogs, the judge's tent, chairs, coolers, the holding blinds in the field, the holding blinds on way to the start line, the decoys, the clipboards, live birds, shotgun poppers, live shotgun fire, waking up in the middle of the nigh to drive to an unfamiliar venue, an article of clothing you only wear to tests, and subtle or not so subtle changes in the handler's behavior, even changes in his scent because of arousal or nervousness -- also tell the dogs "This is different, this is special, this is exciting, this is pressure." Even group training is generally missing many of those factors, so the real solution has to be: Train your dog so far above the test requirements that you can afford EDF. I do think that we should try to bring in as many of those factors as we can as often as we can.
As for yesterday's test, I'm convinced the primary factor was the cold water, plus the fact that my dogs are trained with positive methods. Negative reinforcement is simply more powerful than positive, all experiments show that. My dogs can overcome some adversity based on their pleasure at doing the job right, but they'll never be able to overcome as much adversity as a dog who fears the possible consequences of an shock for refusing to make the effort. Ecollars are particularly valuable for training recall because in fact the dog's first instinct when she feels a nick/burn is to run to the handler. I've heard from several people that it's a lesson the dog never forgets. One reason for this is that every time a dog performs a behavior that successfully avoids a nick/burn, the dog thinks, "Aha, that behavior saved me from getting nicked!" So the ecollar keeps working even when you don't press the button!
I've tried to introduce a parallel concept on the positive side. "Aha, that behavior was FUN!" I think it has been effective, but it wasn't strong enough to get the dogs into ice cold water on the RETURN from a retrieve. Notice that they're willing to go OUT for the bird. That part is so much fun that they'll put up with the adversity. Coming back isn't as much fun, but the water is just as cold.
The only real solution that is see, other than continued practice and training, is to understand that my dogs will never be able to pass all tests. They'll be able to pass those that don't contain too much adversity, but if the test involves strong discomfort, my dogs are not ever going to be reliable on the return. That's my opinion at this point, anyway.
I'm going to go get ready and head for Mt. A. See you soon.
--Lindsay
Hi, Gaby. Thanks for the thoughtful note.
I decided I needed some sleep, so it looks like I'll get there about 10:00 AM, maybe even a little later. I hope that's OK.
All dogs (and handlers) experience what Alice (my mentor) calls "Event Discount Factor" (EDF). You have to train to a higher skill level than what the dog will need in a test to have a chance of passing. That doesn't really answer your question, as to what the exact cues are -- for example, I'm sure you're right, duck scent is a huge diversion -- but all those other factors -- people, dogs, the judge's tent, chairs, coolers, the holding blinds in the field, the holding blinds on way to the start line, the decoys, the clipboards, live birds, shotgun poppers, live shotgun fire, waking up in the middle of the nigh to drive to an unfamiliar venue, an article of clothing you only wear to tests, and subtle or not so subtle changes in the handler's behavior, even changes in his scent because of arousal or nervousness -- also tell the dogs "This is different, this is special, this is exciting, this is pressure." Even group training is generally missing many of those factors, so the real solution has to be: Train your dog so far above the test requirements that you can afford EDF. I do think that we should try to bring in as many of those factors as we can as often as we can.
As for yesterday's test, I'm convinced the primary factor was the cold water, plus the fact that my dogs are trained with positive methods. Negative reinforcement is simply more powerful than positive, all experiments show that. My dogs can overcome some adversity based on their pleasure at doing the job right, but they'll never be able to overcome as much adversity as a dog who fears the possible consequences of an shock for refusing to make the effort. Ecollars are particularly valuable for training recall because in fact the dog's first instinct when she feels a nick/burn is to run to the handler. I've heard from several people that it's a lesson the dog never forgets. One reason for this is that every time a dog performs a behavior that successfully avoids a nick/burn, the dog thinks, "Aha, that behavior saved me from getting nicked!" So the ecollar keeps working even when you don't press the button!
I've tried to introduce a parallel concept on the positive side. "Aha, that behavior was FUN!" I think it has been effective, but it wasn't strong enough to get the dogs into ice cold water on the RETURN from a retrieve. Notice that they're willing to go OUT for the bird. That part is so much fun that they'll put up with the adversity. Coming back isn't as much fun, but the water is just as cold.
The only real solution that is see, other than continued practice and training, is to understand that my dogs will never be able to pass all tests. They'll be able to pass those that don't contain too much adversity, but if the test involves strong discomfort, my dogs are not ever going to be reliable on the return. That's my opinion at this point, anyway.
I'm going to go get ready and head for Mt. A. See you soon.
--Lindsay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
