Autism Service Dogs

Okay, I'll admit it: while I use clicker training with Glindy, deep in my soul I'm not a whole-hearted convert. I still believe that there are times that corrections are warranted, and I'm product enough of our punishment-based society that I still harbor the occasional suspicion that reward-based training will fail me at some critical moment. However, I had an experience this weekend that served to reinforce my belief in positive-reinforcement training.

As I've no doubt mentioned before, one of the bad habits that Glindy has always had is arousal-whining. Whenever she's anxious or excited, she whines like a puppy. It's not a demand bark, and she's not in pain, although strangers who don't know her the way I do have occasionally asked "Why is she crying?" It's just her way of expressing too much pent-up emotion; it is most definitely annoying, though.

We were day-tripping to Carnelian Bay to provide some Asperger's Syndrome advocacy to a group of parents and school-aged children; that's something one associate of mine chooses to call being a "self-narrating zoo exhibit," but which I prefer to call providing hope and insight. Anyway, it was a long drive through unfamiliar terrain, and Glindy started her "Ooh, ooh! Something strange is going on!" whining almost right away.

An hour of ineffective shushing, useless muzzle-gripping, and unproductive "look" commands was enough to convince me that I needed a different strategy on the way home. I'd tried the cued silences, the corrective touches, and incompatible behaviors; now it was time to give pure shaping a chance.

On the way back, I propped a treat bag filled with Grizzly NuTreats on the flat surface just in front of my gear-shift, and kept an iClick in my left hand as I drove along the mountain roads. Every time Glindy was quiet for even a fraction of a second, I'd click and treat.

Of course, in the beginning, I made all the usual mistakes that I warn other people against: being afraid to dole out a lot of treats at the start; putting her on too thin of a reinforcement schedule at first; being afraid to click if she wasn't quiet long enough; stretching the time between clicks past her breaking point; missing clickable opportunities; and of course, occasionally clicking just as she started to whine again.

Nevertheless, Glindy and I made the most of that hour to refine our individual techniques. After about 15 minutes of click/treat, she started to get the idea--or maybe my timing just improved. Either way, I started to up the ante.

First I stretched the time between clicks. Then I dropped the time requirement, and only clicked for quiet downs in the back seat no matter how short. Then I started lengthening the time again, and eventually worked up to a three-minute fixed-ratio schedule.

By the time we got home, Glindy was lying quietly in the back seat, and hadn't whined for more than a split-second in well over half an hour. I'm sure we'll have to repeat the process again many times in the future before it's second nature to her, but I just knew by the end of that ride that Glindy had figured out that lying quietly in the back was a good way to make salmon pieces appear like manna from heaven, and that for whatever reason I was no longer moved to do unpleasant things like grabbing her muzzle for no reason at all (from a canine perspective).

Even if we're still reliant on treats at this point, and even though I'm not convinced that I can rely on this behavior in higher-stress environments, the important thing is that I got the behavior that I wanted with minimal fuss. The greatest value, of course, is that I elicited a desirable behavior while strengthening my bond with my dog.

I'm still a product of a punishment-based society, but it's training sessions like this that encourage me to have more faith in the clicker. In short, this time the clicker reinforced me.

My dogs are putting on weight again. *sigh* Feeding three dogs properly can be harder than you think.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that everybody eats something a little different. Spencer will eat anything, but Glindy won't eat vegetables (even pureed baby food) and Benny won't eat frozen raw products such as Nature's Variety or Farmore.

In addition, because of Spencer's bilious vomiting syndrome and Benny's acidifying diet requirements, I have to feed twice a day. That means that I can't make the dogs skip meals when they are going to get larger RMBs that day. Glindy sometimes ends up with an extra half-pound if I'm feeding her something large like a lamb shank, or Benny ends up with double his daily ration if I'm giving chicken wings.

And to make it even more complicated, if I feed something small that can be apportioned more accurately, Spencer swoops in for second helpings. On days when I feed lamb riblets, for example, Spencer and Benny each get one riblet, and Glindy gets three or four. But if Spencer finishes his before Glindy does, he wanders over to her pile of food and steals an extra riblet from her while she's munching another piece.

So, I'm often forced to stand guard over Glindy's food to keep Spencer away, or prevent the other dogs from licking Benny's bowl after he finishes his medicated food. Every once in a while, though, I turn my back at the wrong moment, and it all goes out the window.

And day by day, the dogs just keep putting on more weight. Argh!

I just blogged about some pet stairs. I made some comments about tread height and depth, but wanted to fill in some hard numbers for all the folks at home.

I whipped out my measuring tape, and came up with the following measurements:

• PetStairz
• • Total Height: 26 inches
  • Total Depth: 34 inches
  • Tread Height: 3.5 inches
  • Tread Depth: 6 inches
  • Tread Width: 16.5 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 10 pounds
• HelpYourPets
• • Total Height: 25 inches
  • Total Depth: 32 inches
  • Tread Height: 6 inches
  • Tread Depth: 9 inches
  • Tread Width: 16 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 45 pounds

So, as you can see, the PetStairz offer a slightly higher rise with a gentler slope, but each step is definitely more shallow--which only makes sense, if you stop and think about it.

Hopefully, a few real-world numbers will help others who may be trying to decide between the two products. Or, you could just do what I typically do: buy both, and leave the decision to your dog. *grin*

I recently bought a new bed which is 29 inches high. Poor little Spencer had trouble getting up on the old bed, which was a lot lower, so there was no way he would be able to get up on the new one without help.

So, I recently bought two sets of doggy stairs to help. They're very different in design, but both are good options for people who may need something similar.

The first set I got was the Heavy Duty Four Step from HelpYourPets.com. It's 26 inches tall, and built to support 200 pounds. Another nice feature of this product is that you can get them built with lidded storage, so that you can put stuff inside and out of the way. If you hate giving up floor space to a large set of stairs like this, that's a really nice option!

The second set I got was the Six Step Foam with Shearling Cover from PetStairz. What's nice about this product is that it's a bit taller than the other one at 27 inches (and the cover itself seems to add another half inch), and much lighter since it's made of foam rather than plywood. Also, with more steps to cover roughly the same vertical distance, I think this set might be easier for dogs with stubby legs to climb because of the smaller tread height--but be aware that the tread depth is smaller, too, which may be a problem for some dogs. The manufacturer didn't provide me with a weight limit, but said the high-density foam would certainly support Glindy's 65 pound frame without damage.

It's also worth noting that the PetStairz are cheaper, and free shipping is included in the price. Because of their heavier weight, shipping costs might be a factor when considering the HelpYourPets units--especially the larger models.

Personally, I like the foam PetStairz better because they're lighter, softer, and the cover is removable. I threw my back out lugging the heavy duty wooden steps upstairs the other day, and have stubbed my toe on the hard wood more than once in the middle of the night. And of course, the carpet is tacked onto the wooden frame, so one has to clean them the same way you do real stairs, rather than just tossing a removable cover into the washing machine.

However, Spencer seems to like the the model from HelpYourPets a little better, even though he has to leap higher to reach each step. I think it's because he likes to get both sets of legs on the same step before attempting the next one, and the deeper tread depth of this unit seems to suit him a bit better.

It's hard to say whether one product is really better than the other. A lot of it probably depends on your needs, and those of your dog. I'd recommend both products without hesitation, though, as they are both great products with excellent customer service behind them.

One final note about the HelpYourPets stairs: my first set of stairs arrived with shipping damage. If you order the unit with lids, make sure you check inside the stairs for cracked or split wood, as the heaviness of the stairs tends to get the package thumped around and dropped a lot in transit. However, I received excellent customer service from the HelpYourPets folks, and they sent a replacement out to me right away. The second unit arrived in good shape, so it was probably a one-off thing. Despite the initial problem, I've been happy with the product, and really pleased with their responsiveness.

Last Thursday I had another session with Amber over at Dog Training by P.J. I was really pleased with the session.

First of all, we scheduled this session at the center, rather than out in a park. While small, the training space is very nice. Like many modern training facilities, it's a small warehouse-type space with smooth-finished concrete floors, well-spaced rings for leash tie-offs set into the wall, and some decoration (mostly for the customer's sensibilities) to liven the place up a bit.

We scheduled the session for mid-morning, so that Glindy and I would have the place to ourselves. This allowed us to train in a quiet environment that was as non-distracting as possible.

We worked on a number of different things, including watch, behind, and gun-dog heel. The watch was quite difficult, as there were some barking dogs next door to the training facility, and Glindy keep going on alert every time she heard one of them. Of course, this was the point: to work Glindy in a mildly-distracting environment that wouldn't set her up for failure.

We eventually managed to get Glindy up to about 3-4 seconds on the watch, but about halfway through the hour-long session she began to get really frustrated. She began throwing behaviors, and kept breaking behaviors she had down pat to redirect her arousal at me in the form of jumping up, frustration whining, and an occasional bark.

That's okay, though. Part of dog training is understanding that you often take one step back for every two steps forward. Also, dogs have their off-days, too; they aren't machines. Amber thinks I'm a bit too lenient with Glindy--and I admit that it is sometimes true--but in some cases you just can't push a dog farther than she's ready to go at the time.

However, one behavior we worked on pretty successfully was the wave. Glindy has some experience with nose-targeting, and is also pretty paw-oriented. Since we'd already worked on introducing the wave with Robin, it really only took Amber a few minutes to get Glindy to reliably wave. Of course, Glindy's still not on verbal cue, and won't respond at a distance yet, but we've definitely got her to understand the target behavior. The rest is just consistent practice. *sigh*

So, thanks to Amber, Glindy and I are continuing to improve some of our basic behaviors, and are well on our way to adding an OCD-mitigating doggy wave to our repertoire. We're meeting again this week, and the work will continue.

I'm kicking around the idea of teaching Glindy a new public access behavior. Glindy has an unfortunate tendency to sprawl near my chair in restaurants that don't provide enough room under the table, or behind me in line when we're long queues at the grocery store. I'd really like her to be in a safer spot where she'll less likely to get her tail stomped on.

My idea is to teach her to lay on my toes, preferably nestled between my feet and the central column of a dining table, or between me and the checkout counter at the store. The idea was inspired by the rude woman on a recent airplane ride who decided Glindy would make a great foot-warmer for her nasty, sandaled feet.

I try to evaluate ideas on their merits, regardless of the source. So, my training plan for this task is as follows:

1. Use Glindy's hand-targeting to lure her sideways in front of my feet.
2. Put her in a down-stay on my toes or just in front of them.
3. Repeat about 10-20 times, until she knows what the sequence will be.
4. Precede the behavior chain with a verbal cue such as "toes" and the pseudo-ASL sign of a downward-sweeping F. (I made this one up, as I couldn't find a real ASL sign for "toe.")
5. Reinforcing a stay in this position.

We'll work on it, and see how "toes" goes.

Last night was another successful evening as a group-lesson trainer. AS will always interfere with my ability to make social adjustments on-the-fly with other people, but there are moments of brilliance when I feel really good about my ability to distill complex ideas into something palatable to other people.

Last night had a few such moments. One of the most interesting ones was when I was explaining to Robin why I thought a number of the students were having trouble with mastering the lessons.

"It's all about timing," I said. "Timing is the second-most important skill for reinforcement training of any kind. Here, let me prove it to you. What's two plus two?"

Robin hesitated only a fraction of a second, clearly trying to figure out what I was up to, but promptly replied with "Four."

I didn't respond immediately. I just gazed at her steadily for about five seconds or so, deliberately letting the silence drag on. "Right?" she asked, clearly trying to fill the uncomfortable pause.

I let this pregnant moment drag on another few seconds, until the it was stretched to its breaking point. "You're right," I said. "It's four. So, do you feel rewarded?"

She grinned and laughed, having gotten my point immediately. The demonstration had made a very visceral impact with her, as I think it would with most people.

Clearly, there's a window of opportunity when using praise or other reinforcers for training. If you wait too long, anxiety and uncertainty creep in, and the subject is left twisting in the wind.

Some books I've read put the maximum effective window at about 30 seconds when using a conditioned bridging stimulus such as a clicker, but I'd guess that this window is actually a lot smaller for the average non-clicker trainer, and even smaller yet for those who use aversive training methods.

Explaining the importance of timing, both in marking an event and in delivering the reward, is a hard lesson to teach the average student. Most people can't deal in abstracts; human examples with gut-level, emotional reactions are probably much more accessible. In the long run, teaching the average person on an emotional level, rather than an intellectual one, might be more effective.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Sometimes the old aphorisms are true.

Even after posting my last entry about LDS Leather, I still decided to give them a try because I really wanted a couple of their service dog clip-on patches to go with my new Har-Vest. Boy, was it a big mistake to give LDS Leather another chance!

I placed an order for two patches on August 1st. When I processed the order online, I noticed that they were mistakenly charging me Oklahoma sales tax (I live in Nevada), and put in the order notes that they needed to manually correct this.

A day later, I received an invoice, still showing the wrong total, followed by an email saying (in part):

In order to fill your order, we must be provided the phone number associated with the credit card used for payment of the order. Your issuing bank suggested that we not fill the order until a proper phone number is provided.

This sounded fishy to me, since I have an unlisted number and don't provide it to anyone on a routine basis. This has never been an issue before with either my bank or reliable vendors, so I sent back the following response:

My issuing bank does not HAVE my telephone number; it's unlisted. I've been successfully performing such transactions without giving out my unlisted number for many, many years. The problem is more likely to be with your merchant account or payment processor.

If it is *your* company's policy that is preventing the transaction, that's a different conversation. However, if it truly *is* the bank, please provide me with the transaction number at issue, and I will raise the roof with them directly. This has never happened before, and I can absolutely guarantee that if it *is* my bank, it will never happen again after I speak with them.

I look forward to some further illumination on the issue from you.

As you can see, I was willing to assume that there was a legitimate problem processing the transaction, and was more than willing to help LDS Leather resolve them. I even let them know that, if they were trying to enforce some internal policy, that this wasn't the right way to go about it. However, they weren't done yanking my chain.

In response to my reasonable email, I get this back from "Karen" at LDS Leather:

I spoke with your issuing bank. We view your entering a phone number such as 999-999-9999 as intentionally providing inaccurate information to a merchant you wish to accept financial risk on your behalf. It is clear that you do not wish to provide either email or phone contact information. We do not wish to provide services under such circumstances. Both your issuing bank and our processing company vigorously support our level of security.

So, despite that fact that we're clearly communicating using a working email address, she states that I won't provide an email address. She's still going on about my unwillingness to provide a cagey and unresponsive vendor with a telephone number that I don't provide to anyone, and asserting that it's my bank that's raising the fuss instead of owning up to it herself. One should also note that she made a point of not providing me with the authorization number for the transaction that she claims was declined by my bank, which I'd specifically asked for; I thought that was highly suspicious under the circumstances.

So of course I immediately called my bank. I had them look up the transaction, which they said had already been approved for payment several days ago. So, not only had LDS Leather lied to me about there being a problem, they had already processed my payment and were now refusing to send me the patches I'd paid (and overpaid!) for unless I coughed up my unlisted telephone number.

I don't know what Karen could possibly have been thinking. Did she really believe I couldn't simply call my credit card company to find out the truth? This seems remarkably naive. What could she possibly gain by trying to mislead me about the source of the problem? I was mystified, and more than a little angry.

I wrote another email, setting out my expectations at this point.

*I* just spoke with my issuing bank. They tell me that they authorized a payment of $31.03 to you on August 2, with authorization number [redacted]. So, not only did you overcharge me by improperly collecting sales tax, you have told me something patently untrue: that a transaction has been declined when you have in fact already sent it through and received approval.

Because I'm a reasonable person, I will give you a choice:

- You may complete my purchase for $28.73, unless you are authorized to collect sales tax for the state of Nevada.

- You may cancel the purchase and refund my money in full.

However, unless we reach an immediate accommodation, I still reserve the right to contact both the Better Business Bureau and your state's Attorney General regarding deceptive business practices. Lying to customers--or potential customers--is never acceptable, and taking money for products you don't intend to deliver is surely actionable.

The fact that *you* don't like the working email address I've provided, or that you don't respect my right to an unlisted telephone number, is quite beside the point. You could have accepted or rejected the purchase based on that, rather than resorting to deceptive and possibly illegal tactics.

I await your response.

After sending the email, I did something I should have done in the first place: I cruised on over to the Oklahoma BBB to see what they had to say about LDS Leather Company. I should have done this before deciding to do business with them, as they clearly have an unsatisfactory record with the bureau at this point in time.

Regardless of what happens next, the whole situation has left a very bad taste in my mouth. This whole experience stands in sharp contrast to the positive experiences I've had with other SD equipment vendors such as SitStay, Har-Vest, and Raspberry Field. I'd definitely recommend these three responsive and responsible businesses over LDS Leather any day.

Sometimes being an advocate, whether for privacy or disability rights, means "taking one for the team." I certainly think I'm doing that now, and hope others can benefit from my experience.