Being a layperson among those of you =
who=20
specialize in Ethology, Pychology, and any number of other =20
"-ologies", I expected some consensus on just how "intelligence" =
is=20
defined. How naive of me! Instead I find some who seem to =
think it=20
cannot be defined, and others who have rather diverse, and often =
somewhat vague,=20
opinions as to its definition.
The behavior of any sentient being =
is governed=20
largely by that being's level of intelligence, however it may be =
defined. =20
So I am baffled as to how behavioral studies of any kind and for any =
purpose can=20
be meaningfully accomplished without the sound basis of a specific =
definition of=20
mental ability. Or are there no rules applicable to =
this =20
type of research? Each uses his or her subjective measure and=20
methodology? Comparisons become meaningless. Hardly an =
exact=20
science - if indeed this sort of thing would qualify as "science" at=20
all.
I am aware this posting will endear =
me to no=20
one, and will enrage some. If that's what it takes to make =
sense of=20
the matter, so be it. Berate me all you wish - but get together =
and=20
collectively define intelligence, that everyone can read out of the same =
book!
Paul Robinson
--Boundary_(ID_dSXyIbotHsypQkmoWPvE2A)--
From: IN%"joseph.barber@zoo.ox.ac.uk" 13-APR-2000 15:44:09.17
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology"
CC:
Subj: RE: definition of intelligence
Dear Paul,
intelligence is not a unitary measure, and so you will
find no definition for it that suits everyone. I had
the same problem with 'animal welfare'; it took me
three pages to define it, and I still wasn't
convinced!
I also disagree with your statement:
> The behavior of any sentient being is governed >
largely by that being's level of intelligence
animals still behave even if they lack the type of
intelligence that you are seeking a definition for. An
invertebrate that lives its life following its
"hard-wired" genetic program, may not be seen as the
most intelligent animal (i.e., its behaviour is not
flexible enough to solve complex puzzles), but its
behaviour is still interesting, and sometimes highly
complex. That is why people study it without having
any idea of a definition of intelligence, well, that
works for me, anyway. I would say that there is a very
poor correlation between intelligence and the
expression of most behaviour.
All we know for sure is that we are intelligent
because we can sit around all day and wonder just what
intelligence is. Of course, my chickens, mid-way
through stuffing their crops with food, seeing me
thinking about intelligence, probably think I am
actually very dumb.
Joe
=====
Joseph Barber
Zoology Department,
University of Oxford,
South Parks Road,
Oxford, OX1 3PS
Tel: 01865 271217
E-mail: joseph.barber@zoo.ox.ac.uk
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 13-APR-2000 16:51:16.41
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Fw: Definition of Intelligence
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_0KeXtGTcs5XRQNsomxbpHA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Jon Bowen=20
To: Paul Robinson=20
Sent: 13 April 2000 21:56
Subject: Re: Definition of Intelligence
Hi Paul,
I would recommend that you go away and read a bit about how human =
'intelligence' is measured and compared.
It makes for some depressing reading.
The problem is that the term 'intelligence' can be applied as the =
measure of the function of a number of modules of human mental =
performance.
How do we agree on the individual measures and then how do we add them =
up to give an overall score.
Assessment of human intelligence has been fraught with problems, and =
ultimately told us very little of any worth at all.
Then compare 'intelligence' accross species? Why do we need to, and how =
can we make any conclusions when we are so poor at evaluating our own =
intelligence?
The idea that behavioural studies cannot be worthwhile without an =
agreement on intelligence is silly.
Animals may perform complex behaviours as a response to specific =
stimuli, but use very little of what we call intelligence.
The behaviour serves a purpose and needs to be as economical as possible =
in its need fro resources (mental or otherwise).
An animal that achieves its goal using the minimum resources should not =
be looked down upon merely because it has restricted mental performance =
in other areas.
If the expression of intelligence was the only thing that determined our =
level of interest in a subject then we wouldn't have much to look at.
To most of us it is just as interesting to think about how certain =
behaviours came about, their function, how they are motivated and =
mediated.
We don't know enough about how the minds of animals function but this =
has no effect on investigating the rules of behaviour from all sorts of =
other points of view, and come to some useful conclusions
Jon Bowen
--Boundary_(ID_0KeXtGTcs5XRQNsomxbpHA)
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
----- Original Message -----=20
Sent: 13 April 2000 21:56
Subject: Re: Definition of Intelligence
Hi Paul,
I would recommend that you go away and read a bit =
about how=20
human 'intelligence' is measured and compared.
It makes for some depressing reading.
The problem is that the term 'intelligence' can be =
applied as=20
the measure of the function of a number of modules of human mental=20
performance.
How do we agree on the individual measures and then =
how do we=20
add them up to give an overall score.
Assessment of human intelligence has been fraught =
with=20
problems, and ultimately told us very little of any worth at =
all.
Then compare 'intelligence' accross species? Why do =
we need=20
to, and how can we make any conclusions when we are so poor at =
evaluating our=20
own intelligence?
The idea that behavioural studies cannot be =
worthwhile without=20
an agreement on intelligence is silly.
Animals may perform complex behaviours as a response =
to=20
specific stimuli, but use very little of what we call=20
intelligence.
The behaviour serves a purpose and needs to be as =
economical=20
as possible in its need fro resources (mental or =
otherwise).
An animal that achieves its goal using the minimum =
resources=20
should not be looked down upon merely because it has restricted mental=20
performance in other areas.
If the expression of intelligence was the only thing =
that=20
determined our level of interest in a subject then we wouldn't have much =
to look=20
at.
To most of us it is just as interesting to think =
about how=20
certain behaviours came about, their function, how they are motivated =
and=20
mediated.
We don't know enough about how the minds of animals =
function=20
but this has no effect on investigating the rules of behaviour from all =
sorts of=20
other points of view, and come to some useful conclusions
Jon Bowen
--Boundary_(ID_0KeXtGTcs5XRQNsomxbpHA)--
From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 13-APR-2000 16:57:57.25
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Definition of Intelligence
Paul:
As a layperson (your term), you seem to be under the impression that any
science is exact. Unfortunately the more you learn, the more realize that no
science is black and white. The reason this forum was created was to allow
applied ethologists to discuss issues of concern. There would be no need for
discussion if it was exact. My field is veterinary medicine. Many clients
believe that there is only one answer when it comes to dealing with a medical
problem. This is not true. On another forum, a resident asked a group of well
respected veterinary behaviorists to rank 5 medications for the treatment of
a behavior problem that is extremely common. There was no consesus on the
order (no two people agreed- very few even picked the same drug of choice)
even though we have all read the same well accepted research.
There is a concensus on a defintion of intelligence. According to Websters:
it is..."a) the ability to acquire and retain knowledge: mental ability b)
the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation; the
ability to use the faculty of reason in solving probelms, directing conduct,
etc. effectively c) measured success in using the abilities to perform
certain tasks c) generally, any keeness of mind, cleverness shrewdness
etc"... There are at least 4 areas of ethology. The biologist who studies
the animal in its natural environment and in the laboratory (occassionally).
The psychologist who studies in the laboratory (perhaps doing c. from above)
an occassionally outside of the laboratory. The veterinary behaviorist's
major aim is to understand and treat problem behaviors. The applied
ethologist (usually animal scientists but includes others) who study animals
in an attempt to increase welfare within a management system outside of their
natural environment. There are probably other areas of ethology as well.
All are concerned with the normal behavior as a baseline.
The reason that you are not getting an answer to your question is that the
majority of academically trained -ologists on this forum deal with the latter
area. We are educated (or at least try to read) the other areas. We tend to
believe that all of our subjects are intelligent so do not dwell on a
definition. Intellect is a given. I don't care if a pig is smarter than a dog
or a horse or a cow or a rat or a whatever. My aim is to recognize normal
behavior within a specific species (and that is as much as I would like to
generalize) and deterimine what behaviors need to be expressed to ensure that
animals have their welfare maximized.
I guess my point is that you are not going to get a consensus on this forum.
That isn't it's purpose; it is the exchange of ideas. And since we don't see
the value of comparing the intelligence of or subjects (even to man), perhaps
you have chosen the wrong forum.
Gerry Flannigan
From: IN%"celtoi@hotmail.com" "Wind Runner Chapman" 13-APR-2000 17:17:31.97
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: intelligence
Dear Paul,
A Charra,
I think it that a universal definition would be more hurtful than harmful.
Humans have diverse cognitive maps that shape their understanding of the
world. I have studied and lived with many different cultures. A Native
American and a Caucasian American can each observe the same scenario.
However they may have VERY different interpretations. Using a generally
accepted method of communication, such as Socratic dialog, they will each
better be able to understand a concept that hitherto may not have been
possible to their ethnicity. The Sapier-Whorf linguistic theory addressed
this topic and I have seen it almost daily being Crow Indian/Irish.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
From: IN%"matchdog@wxs.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard" 13-APR-2000 17:17:50.76
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Aggression towards pups
Hello all,
First of all, I would like to thank those of you who sent me welcome
messages! Very encouraging, so I am daring enough to post a problem to you
all.
The problem concerns the behaviour of a Gos d' Atura (a.k.a. Catalan
Sheepdog) bitch, 2 ½ years old, first time mother of 5 pups. I own a Gos d'
Atura bitch myself, by the way. The Catalan Sheepdog is a very original and
quite (I hesitate about the terminology here..) undomesticated dog. These
dogs are very clear in their body language, they are very observant, keen on
learning and very self-possessed in the way they behave. Originally these
dogs would stay with a flock of sheep in the Spanish Mountains, sometimes
without any human companionship, for days on end. I find they do not take to
pressure in training. They are high-strung and get nervous under pressure. I
use clickertraining for my own bitch, and no pressure. Very rarely a (clear)
correction is needed, to make sure she follows the rules of the house. Her
behaviour towards other dogs is exemplary. I use her as an "accomplice" in
therapy for some of my canine clients, always with satisfactory results.
A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by the owner of the bitch in question.
He contacted me four hours after the birth, because the mother was
aggressive towards her pups. I immediately went over there, and saw a very
nervous bitch; she appeared to be quite upset. The owners, especially the
lord of the manor, were quite disapproving in their behaviour towards the
bitch, I'd almost say they were oozing disappointment. The bitch had
attacked her own pups a couple of times before my arrival. They had already
taken her to the vet to have her calcium levels checked, but those turned
out to be ok, and they really did not know what to do next. Upon my arrival
I checked the pups, and found that one had a damaged eye, which had opened
due to the wound. I took that pup to the vet to have it checked. To my
annoyance the owners had not noticed the wound at all. Luckily the eye
itself was not damaged, and by cleaning it properly it closed later the same
day.
I observed the mother with her pups, and noticed she was very nervous and
unsure of herself, especially so when the (male) owner was around.
Apparently the pups agitated her, especially when they were not in the
"right" position, like crawling over her front paws, or any other spot
elsewhere than next to her belly. She would growl lowly, the growling would
intensify within a couple of seconds and then she would snap at the pup that
irritated her. I was present and observing her behaviour and doubting what
to do or what to advise, when the growling was suddenly replaced with a
snarl and a snap at one pup, crawling next to her forepaw. It was badly
damaged on the ear, which was almost torn off, and it needed surgery right
away. I couldn't come up with any great ideas and finally advised the owners
to keep the bitch separate from the pups in between feeding-times and to
feed with a head halter (Gentle Leader) on, so that she could not bite her
pups. When separated from her pups, she was uneasy and wanted to get back to
them. The aggressiveness subsided after two and a half weeks and was gone
after three weeks.
Have any of you seen this kind of behaviour? I would love to get a plausible
explanation. I myself definitely got the impression that this was a problem
due to training with lots of pressure. The owner had drilled the dog to
obedience in a very harsh way, regardless of my earlier given advice about
low-pressure training. The mother would trample her pups to obey an order
from the owner. The owner almost kicked her when she did not retrieve a
tennis-ball, stopping only at the last second, remembering my presence in
the room. This happened during my first visit there, the pups being only 6
hours old. Is it possible to train a dog to such a level that natural
responses do not come naturally anymore?
I am aware that studies have been done on this kind of behaviour occurring
in sows, and that certain hormones can influence this behaviour, but was
also told that if this was the case, the aggression never lasted longer than
a week, is this true? And I wonder, sometimes human mothers develop
psychosis after giving birth. does this happen in the animal world as well?
Also, I wonder what kind of influence this bad start will have on the
behaviour of the pups later on. The owners later asked me to test the pups,
so they could give the new owners a certificate with my findings. I refused,
saying I couldn't possibly test them with an objective mind. That was true,
but also a white lie. I am afraid these pups will all develop behavioural
problems sooner or later, no matter how well they might perform during the
test. I don't want any of these pups sold with positive sounding
test-results bearing my signature.
Any input will be greatly appreciated!
Bianca Uittenbogaard
Matchdog@wxs.nl
www.listen.to/click
Success is a journey, not a destination
From: IN%"celtoi@hotmail.com" "Wind Runner Chapman" 13-APR-2000 17:38:13.39
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Attacking pups
I have seen this behavior in bitches that have had cesarean sections. I
suspect it may have somthing to do with the lack of oxyticin. Hormone cycles
make my head spin. ;~)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
From: IN%"per27@prodigy.net" "Paul Robinson" 13-APR-2000 18:07:11.66
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "All"
CC:
Subj: Requested departure.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_QbrQWGJ9bxdYsELmqlFQwQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
As some of you have hinted quite strongly that my presence in this forum =
is not welcome, I shall leave.
If I have offended, it was unintentional, and I apologize. =20
My final remark: If carpenters could not agree on what constitutes an =
inch, buildings would collapse. So, I believe, with your research. =20
Paul
--Boundary_(ID_QbrQWGJ9bxdYsELmqlFQwQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
As some of you have hinted quite strongly that my presence in this =
forum is=20
not welcome, I shall leave.
If I have offended, it was unintentional, and I apologize. =
My final remark: If carpenters could not agree on what =
constitutes an=20
inch, buildings would collapse. So, I believe, with your =
research. =20
Paul
--Boundary_(ID_QbrQWGJ9bxdYsELmqlFQwQ)--
From: IN%"matchdog@wxs.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard" 13-APR-2000 18:28:45.65
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Agression towards pups P.S.
The birthing process in this bitch went fantastically well, all pups were
born within 3 hours, the bitch ate all the placenta's. I do not know if her
oxyticin levels were checked, but I suppose they were. I even believe the
vet (who visited two hours after the birth of the last puppy) gave her an
injection of oxyticin, as this is quite the usual procedure in Holland.
Bianca Uittenbogaard
Matchdog@wxs.nl
www.listen.to/click
Success is a journey, not a destination
From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 14-APR-2000 05:38:53.57
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-ethology"
CC:
Subj: APBC annual review of cases for 1999
Dear all,
The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors annual review of cases for
1999 is now available at:
http://www.apbc.org.uk/1999/report.htm
Best wishes.
David
----------------------------------------
Name:David Appleby
Address:The Pet Behaviour Centre,
Upper street, Defford, Worcestershire.
WR8 9AB.England.
Phone:+44(0)1386 750615
Fax:+44(0)1386 750743
E-mail:appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk
WWW: http://www.petbcent.demon.co.uk
----------------------------------------
From: IN%"c.j.nicol@bristol.ac.uk" 14-APR-2000 05:40:05.42
To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: feather pecking workshop
A one-day workshop on feather pecking in laying hens will be held at
Langford on 21 June 2000. The workshop will include contributions by
Linda Keeling (Sweden), Beat Huber-Eicher (Switzerland), Jorgen Kjaer
(Denmark), John Savory (UK), as well as contributions from Bristol
researchers, researchers from DLO Institute in the Netherlands and a
strong industry presence and participation, including representatives
from breeding companies and farmers.
We invite to this workshop anyone with an interest in poultry
behaviour and the possible implications of the European ban on battery
cages.
Further details can be obtained from Rita Hinton who has a programme
and registration form available.
Rita Hinton tel (0) 117 928 9502
e-mail: rita.hinton@bristol.ac.uk
----------------------
Christine Nicol
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science
Langford House
Langford
North Somerset
BS40 5DU
Tel 0117 928 9473
Fax 0117 928 9582
Email: c.j.nicol@bristol.ac.uk
From: IN%"jon.watts@usask.ca" "Jon Watts" 14-APR-2000 10:36:28.12
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Flesh-food ethologists
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Brenda Reed wrote:
>
> I am glad to see such theoretical (or exploratory)conversations going on
> among subscribers.
- Me too.
> So much of applied ethology discussion site seems aimed
> at purely "profitable" questions of the management of animals as a
> flesh-food crop.
>
- A look at the archive of these discussions will show that this is
incorrect (see www.usask.ca/wcvm/ae/archives.htm).
It is also disparaging to the many participants who are committed to
improving animal welfare and researching welfare issues in animal
production systems. These people deal with problems that impact the
welfare of animals by the thousands or millions, and look for ways to
evaluate, eliminate or reduce them. They do have to deal with agricultural
industries which are not going to cease to exist any time soon, or change
their established practices at the drop of a hat. This is part of the
challenge. Food animal ethologists certainly have the greatest net
positive influence on animal welfare in the world of any group of people
interested in animal behaviour.
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Watts (___) ) )
University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ (
Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | )
and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | (
Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | )
52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *&
Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@
S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~
Canada &^%%#$@
jon.watts@usask.ca "The Holy Cow"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: IN%"JPGarner@UCDavis.Edu" "Garner, Joseph P." 14-APR-2000 12:37:54.57
To: IN%"jon.watts@usask.ca" "'Jon Watts'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Flesh-food ethologists
Hi Jon, Hi everyone,
Thank you Jon for making such a pertinent point. One of the interesting
differences between working in the UK and the USA, is that in the UK a
sizeable proportion of people that i met in everyday life considered animal
welfare science to be sleeping with the enemy. In the USA people I have met
are much more open to the pragmatism of our situation: animals will be
housed intensively for food and research for the conceivable future, and we
should therefore concentrate our efforts on imporving the welfare of animals
in these systems. Ironically this is in direct contrast to the integration
of welfare science and industry in europe and america, here in the USA the
ties between industry and welfare organisations are far weaker. One school
of thought traces this difference back to the "official" position of the
non-militant animal rights movement in each country. In the UK animal rights
movements have worked with industry (e.g. RSPCA's freedom foods initiative)
to persaude industry that good welfare is good buisness. In contrast in the
states the "official" line has more often been to advocate vegetarianism or
veganism. Unfortunately vegans are not a consumer group for the meat
industry, and so the animal rights movement has had little economic leverage
on the industry.
ooops brought up politics again!
cheers
Joe
___________________________
Dr. Joseph Garner
University of California
Department of Animal Science
One Shields Avenue
Davis
CA 95616
USA
Phone: (530) 754 5291
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Watts [mailto:jon.watts@usask.ca]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 9:36 AM
> To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: Flesh-food ethologists
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Brenda Reed wrote:
> >
> > I am glad to see such theoretical (or
> exploratory)conversations going on
> > among subscribers.
>
> - Me too.
>
> > So much of applied ethology discussion site seems aimed
> > at purely "profitable" questions of the management of animals as a
> > flesh-food crop.
> >
>
> - A look at the archive of these discussions will show that this is
> incorrect (see www.usask.ca/wcvm/ae/archives.htm).
>
> It is also disparaging to the many participants who are committed to
> improving animal welfare and researching welfare issues in animal
> production systems. These people deal with problems that impact the
> welfare of animals by the thousands or millions, and look for ways to
> evaluate, eliminate or reduce them. They do have to deal with
> agricultural
> industries which are not going to cease to exist any time
> soon, or change
> their established practices at the drop of a hat. This is part of the
> challenge. Food animal ethologists certainly have the greatest net
> positive influence on animal welfare in the world of any
> group of people
> interested in animal behaviour.
>
> Jon
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> Jon Watts (___)
> ) )
> University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ (
> Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | )
> and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | (
> Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis
> | )
> 52 Campus Drive |ons.|
> \___________/| *&
> Saskatoon ------ ||
> || %$#@
> S7N 1B4 / \ ||
> || ^*@*~
> Canada
> &^%%#$@
> jon.watts@usask.ca "The Holy Cow"
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
>
>
>
From: IN%"elfhund@hotmail.com" "Brenda Reed" 14-APR-2000 16:10:23.98
To: IN%"wattsjon@duke.usask.ca", IN%"elfhund@hotmail.com"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"orion1432@juno.com"
Subj: RE: Fw: Re: Definitions: Intelligence, Language, etc.
Dear Jon and all those irritated by my last email,
I have been on this list for about a year. Although interesting situations
are sometimes described, most questions do seem to have to do with how to
treat animals that will end up as someone's dinner.
I eat meat and have no problem with meat-eating -- anyone who imagined that
I was a vegan was making assumptions.
It is not incorrect or disparaging to call food animals a "flesh-food crop."
Again, anyone who took offense was not reading carefully.
Brenda Reed
>From: Jon Watts
>To: Brenda Reed
>CC: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca, orion1432@juno.com
>Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Definitions: Intelligence, Language, etc.
>Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:46:51 -0600 (CST)
>
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Brenda Reed wrote:
> >
> > I am glad to see such theoretical (or exploratory)conversations going on
> > among subscribers.
>
> - Me too.
>
> > So much of applied ethology discussion site seems aimed
> > at purely "profitable" questions of the management of animals as a
> > flesh-food crop.
> >
>
> - A look at the archive of these discussions will show that this is
>incorrect (see www.usask.ca/wcvm/ae/archives.htm).
>
>It is also disparaging to the many participants who are committed to
>improving animal welfare and researching welfare issues in animal
>production systems. These people deal with problems that impact the
>welfare of animals by the thousands or millions, and look for ways to
>evaluate, eliminate or reduce them. They do have to deal with agricultural
>industries which are not going to cease to exist any time soon, or change
>their established practices at the drop of a hat. This is part of the
>challenge. Food animal ethologists certainly have the greatest net
>positive influence on animal welfare in the world of any group of people
>inerested in animal behaviour.
>
>Jon
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jon Watts (___) ) )
>University of Saskatchewan |o o|___________/ (
>Dept of Herd Medicine O \#/ | )
>and Theriogenology |bser| | Statistical | (
>Western College of Vet. Med. |vati| | analysis | )
>52 Campus Drive |ons.| \___________/| *&
>Saskatoon ------ || || %$#@
>S7N 1B4 / \ || || ^*@*~
>Canada &^%%#$@
>jon.watts@usask.ca "The Holy Cow"
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
From: IN%"maslow@spin.net.au" "A. Eenink & K.M. Cornack" 14-APR-2000 16:50:05.46
To: IN%"matchdog@wxs.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Aggression towards pups
Bianca
You raise some interesting issues in your posting.
I suspect aggression towards pups occurs occasionally in the time immediately
after birth, especially in first time mums. I don't think we are close to fully
understanding the reasons and mechanisms of this behaviour. Perhaps others know
more and would like to contribute. There are potentially many reasons/causes and
your theory of it being related to pressure training is certainly interesting,
and not one I had considered. Would be an intersting area to study but how would
we obtain meaningful data that might give some answers?. Is it more common after
protracted labours or caesarean sections? Is it related to parity? or age? or
breed?, dog "personality", environment or training?. I doubt it will be as
simple as simply being related to oxytocin levels in isolation, though hormonal
factors, pain and stress are likely to be important mediators.
Likewise I suspect we do not know how these pups would go later in terms of
developing problem behaviours. How would be double blind it to isolate the
effects of post-birth maternal aggression from all other factors that might
effect their subsequent behaviour?. What do others think?. As the aggression
"resolved" by three weeks then perhaps it's effects will not have a long lasting
influence - that would be my hypothesis. So much would depend on lots of other
factors.
Just a final comment about the head collar: she could certainly still have
physically biten the pups with a gentle leader on: they are not muzzles. I think
it was a good suggestion but from the point of view of calm, gentle control, not
because it could stop her biting.
Sincerely
Kathy Cornack
Bianca Uittenbogaard wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> First of all, I would like to thank those of you who sent me welcome
> messages! Very encouraging, so I am daring enough to post a problem to you
> all.
>
> The problem concerns the behaviour of a Gos d' Atura (a.k.a. Catalan
> Sheepdog) bitch, 2 ½ years old, first time mother of 5 pups. I own a Gos d'
> Atura bitch myself, by the way. The Catalan Sheepdog is a very original and
> quite (I hesitate about the terminology here..) undomesticated dog. These
> dogs are very clear in their body language, they are very observant, keen on
> learning and very self-possessed in the way they behave. Originally these
> dogs would stay with a flock of sheep in the Spanish Mountains, sometimes
> without any human companionship, for days on end. I find they do not take to
> pressure in training. They are high-strung and get nervous under pressure. I
> use clickertraining for my own bitch, and no pressure. Very rarely a (clear)
> correction is needed, to make sure she follows the rules of the house. Her
> behaviour towards other dogs is exemplary. I use her as an "accomplice" in
> therapy for some of my canine clients, always with satisfactory results.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by the owner of the bitch in question.
> He contacted me four hours after the birth, because the mother was
> aggressive towards her pups. I immediately went over there, and saw a very
> nervous bitch; she appeared to be quite upset. The owners, especially the
> lord of the manor, were quite disapproving in their behaviour towards the
> bitch, I'd almost say they were oozing disappointment. The bitch had
> attacked her own pups a couple of times before my arrival. They had already
> taken her to the vet to have her calcium levels checked, but those turned
> out to be ok, and they really did not know what to do next. Upon my arrival
> I checked the pups, and found that one had a damaged eye, which had opened
> due to the wound. I took that pup to the vet to have it checked. To my
> annoyance the owners had not noticed the wound at all. Luckily the eye
> itself was not damaged, and by cleaning it properly it closed later the same
> day.
>
> I observed the mother with her pups, and noticed she was very nervous and
> unsure of herself, especially so when the (male) owner was around.
> Apparently the pups agitated her, especially when they were not in the
> "right" position, like crawling over her front paws, or any other spot
> elsewhere than next to her belly. She would growl lowly, the growling would
> intensify within a couple of seconds and then she would snap at the pup that
> irritated her. I was present and observing her behaviour and doubting what
> to do or what to advise, when the growling was suddenly replaced with a
> snarl and a snap at one pup, crawling next to her forepaw. It was badly
> damaged on the ear, which was almost torn off, and it needed surgery right
> away. I couldn't come up with any great ideas and finally advised the owners
> to keep the bitch separate from the pups in between feeding-times and to
> feed with a head halter (Gentle Leader) on, so that she could not bite her
> pups. When separated from her pups, she was uneasy and wanted to get back to
> them. The aggressiveness subsided after two and a half weeks and was gone
> after three weeks.
>
> Have any of you seen this kind of behaviour? I would love to get a plausible
> explanation. I myself definitely got the impression that this was a problem
> due to training with lots of pressure. The owner had drilled the dog to
> obedience in a very harsh way, regardless of my earlier given advice about
> low-pressure training. The mother would trample her pups to obey an order
> from the owner. The owner almost kicked her when she did not retrieve a
> tennis-ball, stopping only at the last second, remembering my presence in
> the room. This happened during my first visit there, the pups being only 6
> hours old. Is it possible to train a dog to such a level that natural
> responses do not come naturally anymore?
>
> I am aware that studies have been done on this kind of behaviour occurring
> in sows, and that certain hormones can influence this behaviour, but was
> also told that if this was the case, the aggression never lasted longer than
> a week, is this true? And I wonder, sometimes human mothers develop
> psychosis after giving birth. does this happen in the animal world as well?
> Also, I wonder what kind of influence this bad start will have on the
> behaviour of the pups later on. The owners later asked me to test the pups,
> so they could give the new owners a certificate with my findings. I refused,
> saying I couldn't possibly test them with an objective mind. That was true,
> but also a white lie. I am afraid these pups will all develop behavioural
> problems sooner or later, no matter how well they might perform during the
> test. I don't want any of these pups sold with positive sounding
> test-results bearing my signature.
>
> Any input will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Bianca Uittenbogaard
>
> Matchdog@wxs.nl
> www.listen.to/click
>
> Success is a journey, not a destination
From: IN%"matchdog@wxs.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard" 14-APR-2000 19:09:17.54
To: IN%"maslow@spin.net.au" "A. Eenink & K.M. Cornack"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Aggression towards pups
Hello Kathy and all,
you wrote:
>>There are potentially many reasons/causes and
your theory of it being related to pressure training is certainly
interesting,
and not one I had considered. Would be an intersting area to study but how
would
we obtain meaningful data that might give some answers?. Is it more common
after
protracted labours or caesarean sections? Is it related to parity? or age?
or
breed?, dog "personality", environment or training?. I doubt it will be as
simple as simply being related to oxytocin levels in isolation, though
hormonal
factors, pain and stress are likely to be important mediators.<<
As I am a professional behaviour counsellor, people contact me in order to
solve the problems they experience with their pets. Most of the time the
troublesome behaviour is a natural behaviour that by it's frequency,
intensity or duration poses a problem for the owner. I do see the need for
study, but am going to rely on others to do their part in this, so that I
can rely on their findings later on. My job is to solve the problems as good
as I can. But this is an aside. What bothered me in this case was the fact
that this quite original dog was not relying on it's natural instincts. The
dog was very healthy, had an easy birth, and so far as I could see there was
nothing physically wrong with her at all. Stress would certainly be a factor
to repress the natural behaviour in my opinion, as well as a possible
hormonal imbalance. But in this case the thing that got me wondering was the
fact that this bitch was conditioned to respond to orders all the time.
Could it be that because of that she would not rely on her instinct but wait
for orders? Could it be that she panicked because her owner clearly did not
know what to tell her and was in distress himself? The breed is high-strung,
but normally very self-possessed.
>>Likewise I suspect we do not know how these pups would go later in terms
of
developing problem behaviours. How would be double blind it to isolate the
effects of post-birth maternal aggression from all other factors that might
effect their subsequent behaviour?. What do others think?. As the aggression
"resolved" by three weeks then perhaps it's effects will not have a long
lasting
influence - that would be my hypothesis. So much would depend on lots of
other
factors.<<
It's the fact that it took three whole weeks that bothers me. I've been
present at quite a few birthings from first time mothers. Some do appear to
be upset, or clearly do not know how to go about things at first, but most
of the time they settle to their motherhood in a couple of days. And this is
really the first time that I witnessed a mother actually damaging healthy
pups. When I visited the family later on, all pups were showing the need of
having their mother around, the two male pups were constantly beleaguered by
the others, so their penises could be used as a pacifier, while others
twisted the bedding to suckle on that. The puppy with the damaged ear had to
be stitched under anaesthetic. It almost died during that procedure. It
needed five stitches in an ear as big as the nail of my index finger. When I
visited on day two, mom - thanks to ignorance of the owners - had removed
all stitches but one, so I taped the ear to the head as good as I could, the
vet later checked the pup and approved of this. The puppy had trouble
breathing and had no muscle tone, it would have died then, if I hadn't been
around. I think these traumatic events must have some influence on the
behaviour, sooner or later.
>>Just a final comment about the head collar: she could certainly still have
physically biten the pups with a gentle leader on: they are not muzzles. I
think
it was a good suggestion but from the point of view of calm, gentle control,
not
because it could stop her biting.<<
The head halter was meant to provide gentle control, and give the bitch
opportunity to wash her pups as well. As soon as she would start growling,
the owner was instructed to get up and leave, taking the bitch away from the
litter, without any negative comments.
Thank you for your input.
Bianca
Bianca Uittenbogaard
Matchdog@wxs.nl
www.listen.to/click
Success is a journey, not a destination
From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" "Bill Campbell" 15-APR-2000 19:04:15.23
To: IN%"matchdog@wxs.nl" "Bianca Uittenbogaard"
CC: IN%"maslow@spin.net.au" "A. Eenink & K.M. Cornack", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Aggression towards pups
Bianca,
I've had calls from breeders with this problem in the past. Many of the
bitches were on relatively high carbohydrate diets, which is how B.N.
Klosovski created problems experimentally in pre-whelped bitches.
Development of the Nervous System, and its Disturbance by Harmful
factors.
Macmillan, NY 1963
Bill Campbell
Bianca Uittenbogaard wrote:
>
> Hello Kathy and all,
>
> you wrote:
> >>There are potentially many reasons/causes and
> your theory of it being related to pressure training is certainly
> interesting,
> and not one I had considered. Would be an intersting area to study but how
> would
> we obtain meaningful data that might give some answers?. Is it more common
> after
> protracted labours or caesarean sections? Is it related to parity? or age?
> or
> breed?, dog "personality", environment or training?. I doubt it will be as
> simple as simply being related to oxytocin levels in isolation, though
> hormonal
> factors, pain and stress are likely to be important mediators.<<
>
> As I am a professional behaviour counsellor, people contact me in order to
> solve the problems they experience with their pets. Most of the time the
> troublesome behaviour is a natural behaviour that by it's frequency,
> intensity or duration poses a problem for the owner. I do see the need for
> study, but am going to rely on others to do their part in this, so that I
> can rely on their findings later on. My job is to solve the problems as good
> as I can. But this is an aside. What bothered me in this case was the fact
> that this quite original dog was not relying on it's natural instincts. The
> dog was very healthy, had an easy birth, and so far as I could see there was
> nothing physically wrong with her at all. Stress would certainly be a factor
> to repress the natural behaviour in my opinion, as well as a possible
> hormonal imbalance. But in this case the thing that got me wondering was the
> fact that this bitch was conditioned to respond to orders all the time.
> Could it be that because of that she would not rely on her instinct but wait
> for orders? Could it be that she panicked because her owner clearly did not
> know what to tell her and was in distress himself? The breed is high-strung,
> but normally very self-possessed.
>
> >>Likewise I suspect we do not know how these pups would go later in terms
> of
> developing problem behaviours. How would be double blind it to isolate the
> effects of post-birth maternal aggression from all other factors that might
> effect their subsequent behaviour?. What do others think?. As the aggression
> "resolved" by three weeks then perhaps it's effects will not have a long
> lasting
> influence - that would be my hypothesis. So much would depend on lots of
> other
> factors.<<
>
> It's the fact that it took three whole weeks that bothers me. I've been
> present at quite a few birthings from first time mothers. Some do appear to
> be upset, or clearly do not know how to go about things at first, but most
> of the time they settle to their motherhood in a couple of days. And this is
> really the first time that I witnessed a mother actually damaging healthy
> pups. When I visited the family later on, all pups were showing the need of
> having their mother around, the two male pups were constantly beleaguered by
> the others, so their penises could be used as a pacifier, while others
> twisted the bedding to suckle on that. The puppy with the damaged ear had to
> be stitched under anaesthetic. It almost died during that procedure. It
> needed five stitches in an ear as big as the nail of my index finger. When I
> visited on day two, mom - thanks to ignorance of the owners - had removed
> all stitches but one, so I taped the ear to the head as good as I could, the
> vet later checked the pup and approved of this. The puppy had trouble
> breathing and had no muscle tone, it would have died then, if I hadn't been
> around. I think these traumatic events must have some influence on the
> behaviour, sooner or later.
>
> >>Just a final comment about the head collar: she could certainly still have
> physically biten the pups with a gentle leader on: they are not muzzles. I
> think
> it was a good suggestion but from the point of view of calm, gentle control,
> not
> because it could stop her biting.<<
>
> The head halter was meant to provide gentle control, and give the bitch
> opportunity to wash her pups as well. As soon as she would start growling,
> the owner was instructed to get up and leave, taking the bitch away from the
> litter, without any negative comments.
>
> Thank you for your input.
>
> Bianca
>
> Bianca Uittenbogaard
>
> Matchdog@wxs.nl
> www.listen.to/click
>
> Success is a journey, not a destination
From: IN%"GPQUINLAN@aol.com" 15-APR-2000 19:37:07.80
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: House passes wolf plan
Hello everyone. I hope this is expectable to pass on to the group. I found it
interesting enough to want to share it with you all.
Happy Tax Day,
George Phillip Quinlan
All About Dogs
Behavior Center
April 12, 2000
House passes wolf plan
Proposal, which would allow shooting or trapping wolves to
protect lives, property and pets in much of the state, now goes
to Senate
By Martiga Lohn
News-Tribune staff writer
ST. PAUL -- A Department of Natural Resources-backed plan to manage
Minnesota's rebounding gray wolf population cleared the House of
Representatives Tuesday on a 78-53 vote.
The wolf bill now awaits what's expected to be a closer vote in the
Minnesota
Senate.
The most controversial provision in the wolf bill would allow farmers
and pet
owners in most of the state -- but not Northeastern Minnesota -- to
shoot or
trap wolves at any time to protect their animals.
Environmentalists and wolf advocates have characterized the provision as
a
license to shoot wolves at will. House backers of the wolf management
plan
said the provision is not that broad.
``It's as close to a sport season as you can get without calling it a
sport
season,` Environmental attorney Brian O'Neill said last week.
``This is not an open season,'' said Rep. Tim Finseth, R-Angus, the
co-chairman of the wolf management conference committee. ``We're not
saying go out and eliminate the wolf by any means. We're saying go out
and
eliminate the wolf to protect your livestock, your animals and your
pets.''
Minnesota's gray wolf currently is listed as a threatened species under
the
federal Endangered Species Act. The state's current wolf population of
approximately 2,500 is above federal goals for wolf recovery. The U.S.
government plans to begin the process of removing the wolf from the
endangered species list once the state has a management plan in place.
The bill adopted last week by a House-Senate conference committee would
split the state into two zones.
Northeastern Minnesota and most of north central Minnesota would be in
Zone A, where wolves would have more protection than the rest of the
state.
Farmers and pet owners in Northeastern Minnesota could ask the DNR to
approve a ``predator control area'' where they could trap for wolves
after
proven instances of wolf depredation. Rules for predator control areas
in the
rest of the state, Zone B, would be more liberal.
Statewide, people could kill wolves to protect their own or other human
life
and to protect livestock and pets. They also could harass wolves within
500
yards of people or buildings to discourage wolf-human contact.
The bill would prohibit an open season on wolves for the first five
years after
they're delisted. After that, the DNR could institute a hunting and
trapping
season after taking public comment.
``It's probably the best we could do,'' said Rep. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook,
who
sat on the wolf management conference committee. ``I would have liked to
have gone a little further with wolf control measures in Northeastern
Minnesota.... We had to be a bit restrained in the Northeast to make
sure we
get through the federal delisting.''
Most of the Northeastern legislative delegation voted for the bill, but
Representatives Mike Jaros and Dale Swapinski of Duluth voted no. Voting
yes were Representatives Irv Anderson, Bakk, Bill Hilty, Tom Huntley,
Mary
Murphy, Tom Rukavina, Loren Solberg and David Tomassoni.
========
April 14, 2000
Wolf plan rejected by Senate
Vote could kill action on management plan for this year's
session
By Martiga Lohn
News-Tribune staff writer
ST. PAUL -- On a 33-32 vote that fell largely along Twin Cities vs.
Greater
Minnesota lines, the Senate voted Thursday to send a controversial gray
wolf
management bill back to conference committee, potentially killing the
bill this
session.
In a further twist, Sen. Bob Lessard, DFL-International Falls, said that
the
wolf vote will jeopardize at least two proposals to permanently increase
funding for the Department of Natural Resources.
``If we want to start a battle between Greater Minnesota and the metro
area
today, we've done it,'' Lessard said. ``It's beyond just the wolf
bill....
Everything is dead.''
Lessard said he planned to drop both a bill to raise hunting and fishing
license
fees, which passed the House Thursday morning, and a constitutional
amendment dedicating a portion of the state sales tax to natural
resources
programs. Support for increased DNR funding has come from all over the
state, from metropolitan-area park commissions to a broad range of
sporting
groups.
The wolf bill too could be at an impasse. The House passed the wolf bill
Tuesday, and the House co-chairman of the wolf management conference
committee said Thursday that he won't reconvene the committee for
further
negotiations.
``I don't see the House moving any more,'' said Rep. Tim Finseth,
R-Angus.
``I've been around this bill a long time and I think we're as close as
we're
going to get.''
Finseth added that he is not willing to continue working on a wolf bill
with
Sen. Gary Laidig, R-Stillwater, the committee's Senate co-chairman.
Laidig,
the chief author of the Senate's wolf bill, voted for the bill in
committee, then
attempted to recraft the bill and finally led Senate opposition to the
bill.
``I have no intention of sitting next to Laidig on the conference
committee,''
Finseth said.
Laidig said he approved the conference committee bill believing that the
House was days away from adjourning for the session. Now, leaders are
predicting that the session could run into May.
Laidig added that he believes another round of conference committee
meetings will result in a better wolf management bill. ``I could not
have
cooked up a worse plan,'' Laidig said.
Two different wolf bills -- one from the House that allowed an open
season
on wolves and another plan from the Senate that provided more protection
for
wolves -- were sent to the conference committee, which then adopted a
modified version of a third wolf management plan developed by the DNR.
The conference committee bill would allow people throughout Minnesota to
kill wolves in defense of human life or domestic animals. It also splits
the state
into two zones -- Zone A, covering Northeastern Minnesota, where rules
for
shooting or trapping wolves are stricter than Zone B, the rest of the
state. The
bill's most controversial provision would allow people in Zone B to
shoot or
trap wolves at any time to protect pets, livestock or domestic animals.
The House yielded on several key items in the bill, agreeing to give up
an
immediate open season on wolves and to split the state into zones,
Finseth
said. The only place wolves would have received special protection under
the
House bill was in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Thursday's Senate vote revealed the fault lines of the debate over state
management of the gray wolf, which has been protected under the federal
Endangered Species Act since 1974. With an estimated 2,500 wolves today,
Minnesota's wolf population has recovered past the threshold set by a
federal
recovery plan.
The management plan adopted last week by the conference committee was
supported by the DNR, which said the plan would convince the U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service that the state could effectively manage its wolf
population and
also stand up to challenges in federal court.
But the bill pleased neither House nor Senate, farmers nor
environmentalists.
``The plan doesn't give the state enough control of what's happening,''
said
Ginny Yingling, a wildlife volunteer and former state director of the
Sierra
Club. ``It's got unrestricted killing in big parts of the state.... It
provides almost
no protections for wolves either in Zone B or areas adjacent to Zone
B.''
``People north of me inside the so-called wolf zone still have their
hands tied,''
said Janet McNally, a sheep and cattle farmer south of Hinckley.
``Basically,
they're still being denied the tools that are really effective.''
Now, some are worried that another legislative session could go by
without
lawmakers approving a state wolf management plan -- further delaying the
delisting process.
``Every month that goes by that the wolf isn't delisted and we don't
have the
freedom to protect our livestock, people are having a lot of losses,''
McNally
said. ``We just can't afford to do it another year.''
``If the House refuses to meet, then it's a really bad deal,'' said Sen.
Becky
Lourey, DFL-Kerrick. ``If they don't agree, it's dead.''
=====
Some interesting comments by Wayne Steffan in alt.wolves:
> > >> And after they get through delisting, what happens than = artillery
> > >> strikes???
> > >
> > >If they get through. I dont think this plan should be accepted by FWS,
> > >and if it is, the lawsuits will delay state control for years. Too bad
> > >Minnesota legislators are so stupid they cant see that, and cant see the
> > >harm they are doing their constituents. Even worse, its too bad the
> > >constituents dont see the harm being done them by legislators.
> >
> > I'm confused.
>
> Temptation resisted.
>
> >What "harm" is being done?
>
> Simple.
>
> If the plan isnt approved by the feds, the state (that is, the people)
> doesnt get control. There are other plans, ie the roundtable plan that
> was hammered out after months of efforts by all interest groups, that
> also allow people to protect their animals, that would certainly be
> approved. Absolutely positively 100% guaranteed. The legislators are
> taking a huge gamble by pushing for more liberal control. They run a
> high risk of getting no control at all for years to come. Furthermore, a
> more liberal plan such as this would certainly end up being subject to
> numerous legal challenges. The other plans which the state has chosen
> not to pursue would have withstood any and all legal challenges. And it
> would have allowed people to protect their animals. The state is
> shooting itself in the foot. Rather, they are shooting the people of the
> state. They are trying to aim between the toes, and they are bound to
> miss.