Sam and Me

The window to our bedroom was open even though it was a cool April morning.   Sam our 60-pound, black mixed breed dog, heard the delivery truck maneuvering up the gravel driveway long before Ed or I did.   Always alert Sam barked.  It was his rapid fire, high pitched bark, BARK, BARK, BARK.   My stomach tightened as it always did when someone arrived at the house.   It was 2011 and I had become a certified dog trainer two years earlier.  Little did I know that on that morning circumstances would soon unfold leaving me to question my career, and Sam’s future in our household.

I had been thinking about getting another dog for months.  Our last dog had passed in February 2003, and I was missing canine companionship.  My sights were set on a medium size mixed breed dog.   On a warm spring day in 2004, I walked down to the village convenience store to look at the ads in a couple of local papers. Perhaps I would find a dog for sale or even free?   Maybe someone was looking to re- home a dog they could no longer keep?   While glancing through the papers, I mentioned to the clerk working behind the counter, may desire to get a dog.  “Susie would like to find a new home for Sammie,” the clerk informed me.   “Really, I didn’t know she wanted to get rid of Sam,” I replied.   “Yeah, she thinks he is too much to handle, I’ll see if she’s in the back and you two can talk about it.”

When we moved to our home in Montgomery Vermont, my husband, Ed and I became acquainted with Susie.  She owned the “mom and pop” local gas station, and convenience store within walking distance from my house.  I stopped in regularly to pick up milk, snacks or fill up my car with gas.  Often when I stopped, I would see Sam at the store, visiting with customers, or laying back behind the check- out counter.   He was a puppy at the time not more than three or four months old.  Sam seemed happy at the store and I was a little surprised when I heard Susie was looking to re-home him.   Several months later after we brought Sam to live with us, I began to question whether I should do the same.

I could tell what Sam was thinking by looking in his eyes.  They were dark, and alert, sometimes questioning, and often mistrusting.  His mother was a lab mix and his father a collie.  Sam had attributes of both breeds.  He was almost entirely black like his mom.  His fur was not short like a lab, and not long like a collie, a nice blend of both.  Sam’s ears showed the most confusion over his mixed bloodlines, they wanted to point straight up in the air, but the ends simply couldn’t, flopping down but only at the very ends.   When he arrived to live with us, I felt like an experienced dog owner having had three dogs at one time, losing the last one only two years earlier.  Soon I realized that my dog owning experience was no match for Sam.

One of Sam’s most redeeming qualities was his tenacious loyalty, which he bestowed on Ed and me without question. He learned things very quickly with an inquisitive tilt of his head anytime he was in learning mode.   Sam was a playful, friendly puppy when we adopted him at six months of age.   Unfortunately, several months later he began to show aggressive behavior to people he would encounter for the first time.   Ed and I owned a retail business during this period.  As his previous owner Susie had done, we brought Sam to the store with us.  This worked well for about two months and then suddenly one day Sam lunged, and jumped at one of our customers, clearly intending to bite him.   From that time on Sam was either crated while at the store or left at home.  Another concerning behavior was Sam’s propensity to chase cars, trucks, motorcycles, anything that moved even a bicycle, or jogger, triggered Sam.  The moment he saw something move he was gone, there was absolutely no reasoning with him until the moving object either left him in the dust or he caught the object and did or tried to do what instinct told him,  bite!!!   

 Now on this April morning, a stranger was arriving at the house.  Sam began his frantic barking and lunging at the window.” Don’t let Sam out, the oil man is coming”, Ed said.  As if I didn’t know this with all the barking Sam was doing.   “I’ll go get the checkbook so we can pay him”, Ed added as he walked into his office.

The barking continued as I lured Sam away from the window.  Why I thought it was a good time to practice the obedience training I had been working on with Sam is something I’ll ponder into my next life.  “Sit” I told Sam, “Stay” He’s doing it, I thought to myself.  What a good dog.   Without looking at me or Sam, and with check in hand, Ed opens the door to the front porch.   In a nanosecond Sam darts past me and runs out the door, leveling a bite to the delivery man’s arm.  Blood is dripping and I hear the man utter, “Jesus Christ”.    I hadn’t kept Sam far enough away from the door.  I hadn’t even put him on his leash.  He made the decision to run out, and I had done nothing to prevent it.  

Ed grabs Sam and throws him back inside, slamming the door.  Seconds late, while my mind is swirling and my heart is racing, I hear Ed say, “I’m really sorry, take this money for any medical treatment you need.”  A $100.00 dollar bill lands in the man’s hand. Tears streamed down my face; how could I have been so careless?   I sour taste rises from the pit of my stomach, moving to the back of my throat.  My stomach is tighter than any fist I could ever make.  The feeling of shame is doing its best to drown me.    As I look at Sam, I notice his wild-eyed stare, his panting and shaking, all clear indicators that I failed him.

Ed and I counted our blessings that there were no ramifications from Sam’s bite to the delivery man.  The thought that the oil company may no longer deliver to us, or worse yet, expensive medical bills, or a lawsuit were all thoughts that loomed in our minds for months after the incident.   As time went by hearing nothing, we relaxed.  If I was honest with myself, I knew that dodging one bullet wasn’t going to cut it.  Owning Sam was a liability, and I knew every time he showed aggression was a setback for him and for me.   

The winter of 2009 was for me a time of discontentment.  My sister had died in October 2008 at the age of 46.  She was my only sibling and I struggled to understand why I had become an only child.  That September I turned 50 and in December Ed and I decided to sell our retail business.  Change was everywhere, and with it came trepidation.   Ed wanted to retire.  I knew I was too young for that but had no idea what to do with my life.  I spent hours that winter gazing out the window watching snow fall and asking the universe for direction.  Sam was my constant companion during this time.  I loved taking him with me when I snowshoed or cross-country skied but the joy we experienced together was tainted by fear that we might meet a stranger.  Encountering people in public places or people arriving to our home unexpectedly, or strangers of any kind triggered aggression in Sam.   Ed stopped taking him anywhere, but I still believed he would get use to people if he saw them more often.  Who was right?  What was best for Sam?

Over the years I had visited the small public library in my town to check out books, but on this day, I was at the library sitting in front of a computer.   I had little to no experience with google, websites, emails or other nuances inherent with computer technology.   I resisted getting a home computer, which is way I was now in the library struggling to obtain information which might help me find a new career. There are four computers available for use in the library.  Two were occupied by male patrons and like me they were staring at their screens.  I thought about asking one of them for help, but decided they looked very entrenched in what they were doing.  Besides I didn’t want to appear too ignorant.  But I couldn’t stare at the screen all day.   “Can you show me how to get information about dog training?”  I asked the librarian.  She looked me up and down as if I had just appeared from under a rock.  “Do a google search,” she replied. The perplexed look on my face must have told her I didn’t know how to do that.   “What specifically are you trying to find out about dog training?”   “Oh, I just want to know if there are any trainers in Vermont and maybe programs that train people to be dog trainers”, I responded.   She told me to type into the google search area, “dog trainers in Vermont”.  “If you need any more help, I’ll be over here at my desk”, she said walking to her desk at the other side of the room.    

During the winter of 2009 I contemplated new career opportunities.   I felt strongly that I needed to do something that made me feel good about myself, as well as something that mattered to the world more than selling beer and cigarettes.   I continued to think about Sam’s behavior and wondered how I could help him overcome his fears.   Maybe a new career working with dogs would help us both.   Was there any money to be made in dog training?  How legitimate a career is it, do people hire dog trainers?    I will never forget that visit to the library.   The google search proved most helpful.  As I typed into the search bar, “dog training in Vermont”, a message immediately appeared on the screen.  Canine Dimensions-Dog Training Franchise available in Vermont.  The words flashed across the screen and continued flashing as I quickly jotted down the contact information.   Seeing the message was a sign for me.  At that moment I knew the universe was working in my favor. 

I returned home immediately after learning about the franchise opportunity.  Ed was watching something on TV, and I burst into the room filled with hope and excitement.  “I think I found what I want to do, I said.    What are you talking about, you seem really excited, Ed replied?    “There’s a dog training franchise available for sale in Vermont, I have the phone number to call.   I think I should call the number and talk to them about this.  Let’s both get on the phone and ask whoever owns the franchise some questions.”   Ed was always more levelheaded than I and certainly less emotional when making business decisions.   That night after dinner we put a list of questions together and phoned the owner of Canine Dimensions the next afternoon.   Ed was concerned that with Vermont’s small population I wouldn’t be able to earn enough money running the franchise.   My heart was ruling the situation and I already saw myself training dogs.   We both asked questions, received answers, and the decision was made in a few days that I would become a Canine Dimensions dog trainer contingent on passing three weeks of training which would happen in early September. 

As I had hoped, becoming a dog trainer gave me a career I loved and felt passionate about.  What I learned during training and put into use with clients ultimately benefited Sam.   I became a more confident handler. Sam was bright and learned things quickly.  Within months of working with him based on my newfound knowledge, I had him walking next to me off leash, healing on leash, no longer lunging at cars, people, or other moving things.  He performed basic obedience commands, such as sit, down, come and stay with a reasonable level of distraction.  Training had taught me that there is no 100% cure for aggression and that I would need to learn to anticipate Sam’s behavior given what he experienced in his environment.   Most of the time I was able to do that.  I completed my training in September 2009 and until Sam’s death in 2016 he still reacted when people arrived at our home.  However, training had given me the skills to introduce him to a new person and when done properly he showed no aggression.   A level of comfort I hadn’t known in years made its way back into my life.   Unfortunately, on that April morning, two years into my dog training career, when Sam bit the oil delivery man, I neglected to manage his behavior. 

 Over the past ten years I have discovered much about the human/dog relationship.  Both dogs and people need to understand their place in this world.  Rules and boundaries aid with this understanding.  Like people, canines want and need a family structure.  A dog’s pack mentality evolved from their wolf cousins, is an innate part of their being.  Teaching a dog to obey the basic commands, sit, down, come and stay offers him the opportunity to learn, listen, and focus. Children enjoy play and so do dogs. In fact, play is essential to the well-being of dogs.  Engaging a dog’s play drive by chasing a ball or playing a game of tug instinctively bonds the canine to the person who engages with him.   I found all these skills of great benefit when working with Sam.  Discoveries about myself surfaced as well.  I realized that training other people’s dogs puts me at a distance, an emotional distance that I don’t have when working with my own.   Because I’m a dog trainer I expect my own dogs to be flawless.  I still remind myself each day that this is an unrealistic expectation which does a disservice to my dogs and myself.

  The memories of that April morning in 2011 will always haunt me.  The poor judgement I made allowing Sam to run out the door and level a bite to a stranger activated a sense of failure within me.  Not only did I know better professionally, failure one, but as a responsible dog owner I should always have my dog under control, failure number two.   I teach my clients that there is always an element of unpredictably with dogs and therefore they should maintain control, always.   There is no doubt I failed that obligation thoroughly that spring morning.   But despite his imperfections, Sam was my dog, and deep within I knew I needed him to teach me lessons I had yet to learn.  

  Over time, working with client dogs helped me hone my training skills and realize that there are countless dogs like Sam living with people who need help understanding and managing canine behaviors.    One client’s dog I particularly remember was a German Shepherd named Roscoe.  Like Sam, Roscoe had fear based aggression.  He would bark, and lunge at visitors when they entered the home.   A successful dog training outcome depends on follow through from owners.  I provide a training blueprint; the owner must take the instructions and build a relationship with their dog.   As I tell every client, “I have no magic wand, it’s up to you to put in the work.  It’s a matter of consistency.”

Roscoe’s owners followed my advice, did the work and saw the results.  I taught them the proper way to introduce Roscoe to a new person.  They repeated the greeting exercise many, many times.   Roscoe’s mom and dad took on the role of true leaders and Roscoe was happy to follow.  In a matter of two months they reported to me a marked improvement in Roscoe’s behavior.   Success such is this, helped to bolster my confidence and refuel my spirit.   I had allowed what I thought were Sam’s shortcomings to define who I was as a trainer.  Each new dog training case reminded me there is no flawlessness, only tiny increments of success.  

And yes, success can be sweet.  Recently, I received an email from a client after I did a ten day training program with her Goldendoodle, Oakley.  In part the email reads, “I wanted to let you know that Oakley is doing well.  Everywhere we go people comment on how well behaved she is….I just wanted to thank you again for what you did.  It’s hard to think she was ever anything other than perfect but I have the torn jackets and a few scars to prove otherwise…. I’m so grateful.”    Receiving a testimonial like this makes it all worthwhile.    I’m so thankful I didn’t give up on Sam or myself.

So here is the story, at last on paper.  For many years shame and blame wouldn’t allow me to think about the “April bite”.   But life has a way of healing wounds, because without healing it’s impossible to move forward.  Often, we need something or someone outside of ourselves to point us in the direction of forgiveness.   I needed to forgive myself, and a canine mutt named Sam showed me the way.  He was a true teacher.  I learned from him the importance of loyalty, attentiveness and living in the present moment.  But the most important lesson Sam taught me is that we are all imperfect creatures.  I worked with Sam to help him overcome his imperfections and we had some success.  He gave me his all, and for that I’m thankful.   Striving to be better is an admirable trait.  Reaching perfection is impossible, and like Sam I’m alright with that.

 

Maryanne Wood, CDBA
April 27, 2020

   

  

To Click or not to Click...

Could the widely held assumptions about the advantages of clicker training be wrong? 

For years I've been trying to convince my clicker training colleagues that a) there is no scientific evidence supporting the assumption that dogs learn faster with a clicker than with verbal markers or food alone; and that b) the use of the clicker needlessly complicates the training process for clients who are already frustrated with their dogs' behaviors, so adding clicker-skills into our training protocols does more harm than good.  

Their counter to argument "a" is that scientific studies have shown that there is a highly efficacious relationship between the clicking sound and the amygdala, a structure in the limbic system of the brain. "Science has proved that dogs trained with clickers learn faster" is the common refrain.   Yet when I ask where I can find these studies, I am presented with studies about  dogs in Skinner boxes (observation chambers where the handlers are not visible to the animals), or horses being led into a trailer, or dolphins being trained in captivity. 

Their counter to argument "b" is often condescending and dismissive, e.g. "Find clients who really care about their dogs and they will be willing to learn how to use clickers." That response misses the point. If the clicker is not any better than using a simple verbal marker, why use it?  In my view a verbal marker is far superior, because it encourages the dog to watch and listen to ME, instead of to a neutral sound.  After all, isn't the whole point of dog training to enhance communication between the dog and the owner? 

The debate usually stalls at this point. I'm not a scientist, I'm just a guy who trains dogs. Perhaps they regard me as a hopeless relic from the past, unwilling or unable to modernize my approach. 

But wait - it seems that there are recent scientific studies which may support my position:

The following is reprinted with permission from the SPRING 2020 issue of the Chronicle of the Dog, the official publication for the Association of Professional Dog Trainers:

Some of you may have been at the 2019 APDT conference and attended a talk by Dr. Clive Wynne discussing recent research on

dogs. One of the studies he mentioned suggested that training using a clicker showed no benefit over training without a clicker..

Many trainers in the dog training community have strong feelings about clickers, so a study that cast doubt on the clicker's
effectiveness generated intense reactions. For many, the idea that clickers might not be as useful as previously thought was very
difficult to swallow. It may be tempting to simply discount the study since it doesn't fit with what we "already know." But this was
research done under Dr. Wynne's guidance, and Dr. Wynne is a fine scientist who knows how to design an experiment, so ignoring his
research is not a practical choice.

The results of the clicker study from Dr. Wynne's lab were surprising to both of us, and we wound up discussing Dr. Wynne's talk-
and this research, of course-quite a bit while still at the conference. We came away from the conference committed to finding out
more. Unfortunately, Dr. Wynne's study is not yet published, but fortunately, Dr. Spaulding is great at hunting up research on specific
topics, so she was able to come up with several other research papers that described similar results. We've also learned of at least one
more study addressing the same topic that is pending publication and also shows the same type of results.

Why ask "obvious" research questions?
Recent studies on clicker training are an example of scientists
in labs studying things we already "know" to be true based
on observation. For those of us working with dogs on a daily
basis, it may sometimes seem silly that researchers devote time
and resources to such obvious issues. And indeed, much of the
research that comes out supports what we are already doing.
So, why bother asking research questions about well-established
practices and beliefs?

There are a few reasons. First, it's beneficial to have solid empirical

data behind the decisions and recommendations we are making.
This allows us to be more confident in our choices, as well as to get
buy in from clients and potential referral sources. And that, in turn,
allows us to be more successful at our jobs and help more people

and dogs. Second, what we think we know is not always correct.

Given all of the above, we like to ask a few questions:

1.   What do recent studies in dogs tell us about the use of the
clicker and other markers?

2. What about research in other species?

3. What do these results mean to us as dog trainers?

Whatever you feel about the results, these recent studies on the
use of what we will call "deliberate markers" are a great example
of how important it can be to ask "obvious" research questions.
We humans are very good at "knowing" things without having
any evidence to support our assumptions. One of the purposes
of science is to keep us honest, as it were-to help us make sure
we are making choices based on actual data, not gut feelings.
Sometimes it is hard to accept scientific results that don't mesh
with our belief system, but in the end, the data are what we really
need to rely on. So please don't just turn the page and move on
to the next article in this publication if you are uncomfortable
with this topic! Take the time to explore what's going on before
making any judgments.

The willingness to change our opinion is exactly what makes
science so powerful. Author Marilynne Robinson put it very
eloquently in a recent interview on the podcast On Being:

"[Science 's] genius is self-criticism. When found that the universe
is accelerating and accelerating in its rate of acceleration. . . this is

not supposed to be true and the moment [scientists]}ind out that all
major assumptions have been overthrown, there's rejoicing in the

scientific community. . .And that is the authority of science for me. "

What do the studies on the use of the clicker actually say? Today,
we will take a look at two studies on clicker training that came
out in the last few years. They both looked directly at the impacts
of using a clicker compared to using no marker (food only), and
in one of the two studies they also looked at the use of a verbal
marker. Neither study found any benefit to using a clicker.

The more recent study was conducted by Feng and colleagues
(2018)' They had a sample size of 45 dogs, which is a good-sized
lab study when it comes to dogs. Dogs were recruited from the
local area and included various breeds and a relatively even
balance of males and females. None of the dogs had experience
with clicker training or extensive training of any kind. The
beauty of this study is they recruited people interested in a free
introductory dog training course. Although this still creates
some bias (compared to the general dog-owning population), the
sample is likely much less biased than in studies that recruit dogs
from an already registered list of study volunteers.

The more recent study was conducted by Feng and colleagues

(2018)' They had a sample size of 45 dogs, which is a good-sized
lab study when it comes to dogs. Dogs were recruited from the
local area and included various breeds and a relatively even
balance of males and females. None of the dogs had experience
with clicker training or extensive training of any kind. The
beauty of this study is they recruited people interested in a free
introductory dog training course. Although this still creates
some bias (compared to the general dog-owning population), the
sample is likely much less biased than in studies that recruit dogs
from an already registered list of study volunteers.

",..there is no empirical evidence to
date that clicker training facilitates
learning in dogs, So does this mean
we should all throw out our clickers?
Probably not. All the research really
tells us is that training with food
alone and training with a clicker both
work about equally well. Neither
technique has an advantage, based
on the research so far. It's probably
still early to make dramatic changes
in how we are already training. So
if you use a clicker, fee! free to keep
using it! If you don't use a clicker, feel
free to stick with food only!"

The dogs were divided into three groups: clicker + food, food

only, and a waiting list control. This means the control group
was told that they were on a "waiting list" and were not officially
involved in the experiment yet. The humans went through a

reaction time test in the lab prior to beginning training. The dogs
went through some baseline testing to help establish a starting

point for their responsiveness to commands and their impulsivity.

After that, training sessions were conducted at each owner's
home. The training sessions were conducted by the study's first
author (Feng). The dogs were trained to perform a series of tricks:
nose target to a hand, nose target to an object, spin in a circle,
chin rest on the ground, play dead, and station on a mat.

The study found no significant differences between the two

training groups in a variety of measures (including performance

Neither technique has an advantage, based on the research so far.
doesn't seem likely that it would be a factor in the results as they           It's probably still early to make dramatic changes in how we are
relate to efficacy of the clicker.                                                                    already training. So if you use a clicker, feel free to keep using it! If

you don't use a clicker, feel free to stick with food only!
The Chiandetti et al. (2016) article was similar to the Feng study
in that it looked at the difference between groups trained with               But what about the idea that the clicker hooks directly
a clicker + food as well as food only. However, they also added              into the amygdala?
a third experimental group - dogs tested with a verbal marker               Some of you may be aware of a hypothesis that proposes that the
("bravo") + food. Again, the dogs had no history of clicker training      clicker is more effective than a verbal marker because it reaches
or extensive training with any other method. They were pet dogs          the amygdala faster than many other types of stimuli. While this
recruited specifically for participation in this study.                                 hypothesis may be correct, it is only an idea, and we were not

able to locate any evidence in support of this hypothesis. Karen
The dogs learned a novel behavior (opening a bread box-type                 Pryor, one of the two developers of this hypothesis, has made
apparatus) and the training was done by one of two trainers with          the following statement about it: "That is the hypothesis, based
experience in using primary and secondary reinforcers. Training           on various previously unconnected bodies of research; it is not
was done at the dogs' homes. This research also looked at the                 data or evidence."* Until we have more evidence on this point,
ability of the dogs to generalize the learned behavior to a similar,          we cannot be sure whether or not the hypothesis is valid. *If
but different, behavior (opening different types of boxes).                       you would like to see Karen Pryor's quote in context, please visit

https://www.clickertraining.com/node/226 .

The researchers measured how long it took the dog to produce the
first behavior, and how many attempts it took to reach the first              It's also important to note that a lot of behavior research takes
behavior. They also measured the length of time and number of            place in the lab, using operant conditioning chambers (a.k.a.,
attempts to reach criterion.* Finally, they recorded how quickly            "Skinner boxes," though that is not the preferred term). In an
the dog learned to generalize to open two other types of boxes.              operant conditioning chamber, the handler is usually not visible
Once again, this study found no difference between the groups. *         to the animal, but in the recent research on dogs, the dogs
Note the researchers are not very clear on what "first behavior" and       could see the handler. This raises the question of whether the
"reach criterion" mean, so we cannot explain exactly what they had      dogs being studied are picking up on other human behaviors.

If the dogs are picking up on something that the handlers are doing
and using that as a marker, that could make a huge difference to
the salience of the clicker or verbal marker. Putting this another
way, the research may simply indicate that the dogs are picking up
on non-deliberate/unintentional/"natural" markers, and therefore
not giving attention to the deliberate/intentional markers used in
the training (the clicker or verbal marker). Research in which the
trainer is not visible to the dog could help sort that point out. One
can also imagine research in which the two conditions-trainer
visible and trainer hidden-are tested. It's also worth noting that
in one study on horses (McCall & Burgin, 2002) the handler was
invisible to the horse, and they still found no benefit to using a
secondary reinforcer.

However, if it turns out that clickers are more effective if the trainer
is extremely careful not to give any additional markers, we need
to ask ourselves how valuable this information is to those of us
working with pet dogs. Is it reasonable to expect the average pet
owner to avoid any unintentional markers? Is it even possible for
professionals or sports dog trainers to do this? Think of Clever
Hans, whose handler was completely unaware of the signals his
horse was noticing. It's a very interesting research question and
probably one that's worth exploring.

There is also one other, very important point. "Clicker training"
means much more than  just using a clicker. Many people who
call themselves "clicker trainers" rarely use a clicker (though
they generally use other types of deliberate markers). What all
clicker trainers have in common, though, is a dedication to a few
basic principles. These include setting the animal up for success,
using positive reinforcement, shaping behavior using successive
approximations, splitting behavior into fine "slices" (rather than
lumping), and adjusting training based on feedback from the
animal ("the dog is always right"). All of these practices are
important; the clicker itself is  just one small part of the picture'
perhaps it is one,or several-of these practices that creates an
advantage over other forms of positive reinforcement training  All

of these things are testable!

More research is needed!
As they say, there is no need to throw out the baby with the
bathwater! More research is needed to sort out what exactly is going
on, including what specific aspects of the overall clicker training
approach may be beneficial. For now, keep an open mind and
o serve your own clients and training. Is the clicker benefiting you'
or  just the philosophy that goes with using the clicker? We don't
knw the answer to this question, but we're interested in learning
more. And in the meantime, we're keeping an eye out for more
studies on this topic! As we accumulate more data in this area, we
will have a much better indication of whether or not we need to

change our current practices.

Regardless of where the evidence takes us, it's almost certain

that we will end up in a place where we know more about how

dogs learn and which exact practices are most beneficial when
it comes to training new behaviors. This is why research on
"known" questions is so important - behavior is almost always
more complicated than we think! By testing the methods we
are currently using in the field, we will learn more about how
dogs learn and how we can integrate different methods into our
training in a way that maximizes quality of life for both the dogs
and their people!

Kristina Spaulding has a doctorate in
biopsychology and is a Certijied Applied
Am'mal Behaviorist.  She currently conducts
private behavior work in Upstate New York.
Dr. Span|ding is a member of the Fear Free
Speakers Bureau.   She teaches on|inc classes on
Learning  Theory through the Association of
Professional Dog Trainers and is a member of the APDT Education
Committee.

Irith Bloom, CPDT-KSA, CDBC, KPA
CTP, VSPDT, CBATI, is a member of the
faculty at Victoria Stilwell Dog Traim'ng
Academy and DogBiz's Dog Walking Academy
and speaks at conferences and seminars
regularly.   She has been published both online
and in print. She volunteers with NESR,

Annenberg PetSpace, and the LA County 2020 HPHF Coah'tion.
Irith is the owner of Ibe Sophisticated Dog, LLC, apet traim'ng
company based in Los Angeles.

References
Feng, L.C., Hodgens, N.H., Woodhead, J.K., Howell, T.J., and P'C'
Benett (2018) Is clicker training (Clicker + food) better than food-only
training for novice companion dogs and their owners? Applied Animal

Behaviour  Science, 204, 81-93.

McCall, C.A. and S.E. Burgin (2002) Equine utilization of secondary
reinforcement during response extinction and acquisition' APPlied
Animal Behaviour Science, 78(2-4), 253-562'

Smith, S.M. and ES. Davies (2008) Clicker increases resistance to
extinction but does no decrease training time of a simple operant task
in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Applies Animal Behaviour Science'

110(3-4), 318-329.

Tippett, K. (host). (2019, November 21 ) On Being with Krista
Ti ett [audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://onbeing.org/Programs/
marilynne-robinson-marcelo-gleiser-the-mystery-we-are/

Williams, J.L., Friend, T.H., Nevin, C.H. and G. Archer (2004) The
efficacy of a secondary reinforcer (clicker) during acquisition and
extinction of an operant task in horses. Applied Animal Behaviour

Science, 88(3-4), 331-341.ver training without a clicker'