Hazel & Koda: Two Dogs, Two Conversations
“Minnow!” began as the family’s word for something wonderful, not as a formal recall cue. One day Hazel took off after someone, and Abigail called it. Hazel stopped partway through the pursuit, looked back, heard “minnow” again, and returned.
For Hazel, that turn of the head mattered. She could become so focused on a target that the rest of the world seemed to shrink away. In this moment, she noticed something compelling and still found her way back into conversation with Abigail. That small choice captured what Abigail and Terrence were learning with two very different dogs: the same household could require two very different kinds of support.
Two dogs, two different conversations
Hazel and Koda live with Abigail and Terrence in Hayward, near a creek and wooded areas full of interesting things to investigate. Hazel is the more independent dog. At a dog park she might choose her own project over staying close to the humans, and a gopher can be a very persuasive project. Abigail and Terrence have joked that two or three touches from Hazel can feel like an accomplishment, while affection from a stranger can feel genuinely noteworthy.
Koda, who is part Husky, is much more socially drawn to people. Close proximity to other dogs, especially around valued people or resources, could change her behavior quickly. Growling, lunging, snapping, and intense vocalization were all possible, and one incident involving a familiar dog and a bone had been frightening.
Hazel carried a different safety concern. She could lock onto cats, birds, people, or other targets with intense focus and become difficult to reach. She had pursued things into the wooded areas near home and once came dangerously close to the street in front of an Amazon truck. Abigail and Terrence wanted to recognize what each dog showed them early enough to choose support that fit that dog.
Seeing the shift early
We used the Green, Yellow, Orange, Red framework as a shorthand for changing arousal and availability, then focused on the specific behaviors Abigail and Terrence could see. With Hazel, they watched her ears, mouth, eyes, body, check-ins, and ability to turn away from a target. With Koda, they watched what changed as another dog approached a valued person or resource. Eating, orienting, moving away, and responding to something familiar all helped them judge how much room each dog still had.
Virtual work made those details easier to study in real life. Abigail and Terrence could position a camera at home, send video from walks, and review the moment before the obvious behavior. Their observations became more precise, and the differences between the dogs became increasingly useful.
Helping Hazel make her world bigger
Target lock became a useful way to understand Hazel. When something captured her attention, her world could narrow until very little space remained for Abigail or Terrence. Even the family’s parakeets could draw her into intense fixation, which told us that disengagement deserved as much attention as a traditional recall.
They practiced the earlier pieces: Hazel noticing something, looking back, checking in, and discovering that turning away from an interesting target could also be worthwhile. Exercises included attention to the handler, impulse-control work, Look at That / Look at Me, one-two-three, the helicopter exercise, and reinforcement for voluntary check-ins. With Hazel, even the reward sometimes became another object of fixation, so the criteria could be tiny. An eye flick toward Abigail could be enough to mark and reinforce.
Those same skills supported everyday transitions such as putting on a harness, opening the front door, getting out of the car, entering the dog park, or approaching something exciting. The “minnow” moment later showed the skill in a situation that mattered: Hazel interrupted the chase long enough to look back, and Abigail knew how to continue the conversation.
Reading Koda with more precision
Koda’s behavior asked for a different interpretation. Abigail initially described her as protective or jealous, especially around her people. As we looked more closely at the contexts, human attention itself appeared to function as a valued resource. Koda could happily seek affection from another person, then growl or snap when that person’s own dog returned and wanted access to the same interaction.
Video helped us see a more detailed sequence: changing body language, rising arousal, mixed social motivation, and increasing guarding behavior as another dog moved closer. Abigail began using the earlier signs to make decisions sooner. Hackles, tension, or a shift in attention could prompt her to create space or call Koda away while Koda could still move with her.
Our work on Koda’s guarding was relatively brief, roughly one or two sessions focused specifically on it. The useful change was Abigail and Terrence’s growing ability to recognize the pattern, anticipate situations where it might appear, and arrange those situations with more clarity.
Supporting two dogs as individuals
Life with two dogs meant Hazel’s and Koda’s needs sometimes affected each other. Food was one example. Hazel could push Koda away from food or other valuable resources, and Koda eventually showed hesitation even when eating separately. Abigail and Terrence created more predictable meals, separated resources, and reduced opportunities for competition so both dogs had clearer expectations.
Freedom created another difference. Koda had more reliable skills, while Hazel’s prey drive and recall meant she still benefited from a long line in situations where Koda could have more freedom. Abigail and Terrence learned to make those decisions dog by dog. Hazel could practice graduated freedom on a long line while they continued building check-ins and disengagement, and Koda could receive support around the social and resource contexts that mattered most to her.
The dogs lived in the same family, but useful support did not need to look identical. Abigail and Terrence became better at asking what this dog, in this moment, was communicating and what would help her next.
Training the people who live there
Abigail and Terrence worked with me on a pay-as-you-go basis for roughly four or five sessions spread across a few months. The work happened in their house, on their walks, and in the places where their real challenges occurred. They practiced between calls, brought back what they observed, and adapted when daily life produced a new variation.
Their language changed as their observation improved. They could talk about target lock, guarding, check-ins, reinforcement value, environmental setup, and whether a dog was still available to learn. More importantly, their decisions became more individualized. They knew when Hazel needed help disengaging, when Koda needed more space around a valued interaction, and when the two dogs needed different arrangements in the same situation.
Progress looked like daily life
The changes accumulated through ordinary moments. Neighborhood reactivity decreased. Leash walks improved. Hazel showed that she could sometimes disengage from something compelling and reconnect. Abigail and Terrence became quicker at anticipating the contexts that could make Koda’s guarding more likely.
By the time regular sessions tapered off, they had a framework they could keep using when the next unusual situation appeared. Hazel naturally supplied one, when the family experimented with safer freedom and then discovered a gopher, mole, or rat in the front yard. Of course she did. Hazel remained the independent little hunter who could become deeply invested in a fascinating discovery, while Koda remained the vocal, people-loving part-Husky whose access to valued people and resources sometimes needed thoughtful support.
One household, two dogs
Hazel and Koda brought very different patterns to the work. Hazel could disappear into the environment through intense focus. Koda could become increasingly uncomfortable when another dog entered a valued social or resource context. Abigail and Terrence learned to recognize those differences early and choose their response accordingly.
Sometimes that meant distance, food, a check-in, a long line, separated resources, or calling Koda away before guarding intensified. Occasionally it meant standing in Hayward and yelling “Minnow!” Hazel heard Abigail, interrupted the pursuit, turned her head, and made another choice. Abigail recognized the moment and knew what to do next.
That is the larger win in their story. Abigail and Terrence learned to see two individual dogs more clearly, then shape daily life around what each one communicated. Hazel and Koda kept their very different personalities, and their people gained more ways to support each of them well.
