From: IN%"jorighetti@optusnet.com.au" "Joanne Righetti" 4-AUG-2003 02:01:12.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dog bites in disabled Hi everyone, Does anyone know of any research into the incidence of dog bites in disabled or special needs children or adults. Thanks, Joanne Righetti Dr Joanne Righetti Animal Behaviour Consultant Listen to the Pets-Music-Talk radio show at http://www.pettalkradio.com From: IN%"Eva.Sondergaard@agrsci.dk" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Eva_S=F8ndergaard?=" 4-AUG-2003 04:41:41.33 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Housing of horses Hi! Having searched extensively for literature on housing of horses, I have = found very little, when it comes to space allowance etc. Therefore, does = anyone know of investigations/ongoing research (published or = unpublished) on the behaviour and welfare of horses in relation to: 1. Space allowance when housed indoors 2. Space allowance in exercise paddocks 3. Shape of exercise paddocks or equipment provided in exercise paddocks I am also interested in any legislation/recommendations on these issues = and the background/basis for these. Kind regards, Eva S=F8ndergaard Eva S=F8ndergaard Forskningsassistent/Research assistant Afd. for Husdyrsundhed og Velf=E6rd/Dep. of Animal Health and Welfare Forskningscenter Foulum/Research Centre Foulum 8830 Tjele, Denmark Tlf./ph. +45 89 99 13 19 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 4-AUG-2003 16:16:07.94 To: IN%"carolineb@verticalmarkets.com.au" CC: IN%"debmed03@edna.edu.au" "'Behavioural Medicine Discussion List'", IN%"rholmes@bigpond.net.au" "Robert Holmes", IN%"sarcy@iprimus.com.au" "'Simon Coghlan'", IN%"ianh@prsc.qld.gov.au" "Ian Heighway", IN%"dick@westernsuburbsvetclinic.com.au" "'Dick Subj: electronic collars I enjoyed reading the article entitled "collaring a tough issue". I will begin by stating my belief that the dog triggered electronic devices of the low output variety that I use are completely humane and approach 100% effectiveness. I could almost agree with Simon's views but I think we need a bigger picture perspective here. There are many stakeholders when dealing with problem dog behaviours that impact upon the community and not merely the health of the individual dog and the happiness of the owner. As Veterinarians we can not afford to ignore the bigger picture. We must also be sensitive to human health and welfare issues if we are to remain effective practitioners. That is the bottom line. I am beginning to believe that barking dogs are more of a problem in the warmer climates such as Queensland and WA than in the more temperate climates of NSW and Victoria. The main reasons are because dogs are left outside more in warmer climates to avoid heatstroke, fencing is less substantial to improve breezes and utility, and there is a vast quantity of foot traffic and wildlife on the move attracting and stimulating the outdoor dog's territorial nature all leading to loads of nuisance barking. Perhaps nuissance barking must be experienced to be appreciated for the drain on societal health that it truly is. One dog can cause sleeplessness and anxiety for hundreds of humans. One dog can also trigger other dogs and teach them to nuisance bark. I find electronic collars to be both humane and highly effective but have no special fondness for them. They are merely another tool. I do not doubt the motives of those sincerely opposed to electronic collars, they are entitled to their ethical position and they must respect mine. I sometimes wonder if their position may become more mobile if they were personally subjected to the mind numbing toothache quality of a constant nuisance barker. To work through a list of alternative treatments takes weeks all the while people's health is badly affected and the dog's behaviour becomes increasingly entrenched. Why not just start with the electronic solution which is the most effective and humane treatment. It may be used concurrent with any other treatment. I can not agree with Simon that electronic collars should be lumped in together with surgical debarking. The two treatments effect the dog very differently. Dogs wearing electronic bark control collars can easily have their attentions redirected. I have seen only two surgically debarked dogs during practice and they continue the nuisance barking habit despite the volume being turned down. The collar modifies behaviour, surgical debarking does not. Yours sincerely, Dr Jacqueline Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant GOOD DOG From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 4-AUG-2003 16:38:16.65 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: new participant introductions from Jackie Perkins Hello everyone, I am pleased there is such a group as this and I am looking forward to the useful exchange of ideas. I have already cc' d the discussion list with a reply I wrote for an Australian magazine called The Veterinarian. I have been involved in many discussions regarding the useage of electronic collars. I am open to learning and using any good ideas or methods I can glean from anyone. I am a Veterinarian (UQ graduate) in Brisbane Australia working in behavioural medicine. God knows it can be difficult work, I need all the ideas I can get! I also have a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Qld with a double major in philosophy (mostly ethics and logic) and a single in psychology. I am a registered psychiatric nurse of 16 years experience and I have been involved with training breeding showing and trialing dogs mainly Corgis for my entire life as my family owned and ran kennels. My first memories are of puppies. I am presently preparing to take membership exams in Animal Behaviour with the Australian College of Veterinary Surgeons and am participating in Kersti Seksel's correspondence course in Behavioural Medicine. The largest proportion of cases I handle present as barking dogs. It is a gigantic problem in Brisbane. I am also specially interested in ethics and influencing it to be more academic rather than political. I look forward to sharing information to everyone's benefit. Regards to all, Jackie Perkins. From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 4-AUG-2003 20:43:35.83 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: lighten up! Jackie, thanks for that one, I needed a belly laugh! Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geiger" To: Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:50 PM Subject: lighten up! > > > An amusing cat video guaranteed to make you laugh! > Regards, > Jackie Perkins > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > GOOD DOG > BRISBANE QLD AUSTRALIA > Ph 07 33510600 > Fax 07 3351 0611 > > From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 5-AUG-2003 01:52:09.22 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: lighten up! funny cat video Also beeing impressed by the acrobatic and comedian abilities of these cats, i'm always asking myself, how come that somebody had had his camcorder ready. I'm living with dogs ten years and more and there happened funny and not so funny things time by time, but i do not have any= videos or photographs covering these events. On the other side there are commercial videotapes, TV-shows and so on covering animals doing "funny" or funny seeming things or accidental. If i want to videotape or photo something like shown in the funny cat vide= o i have to arrange a situation or it had to happen more than once. But i woul= d not let my dog stumble down or break into an table, jump onto polished surfaces and so on only to have it videotaped. Setting up a scenery which = i know is proving risks for my animals without some very good reasons seems to me beeing as indirect cruel to my to the pet. On the other side, there is an industry for funny accidents in humans also= which isn't funny at all to me. kids stumbling, women falling on icy groun= ds, men slipping on mud - nobody would like to be this person either - so what= is funny in it? Science fiction pioneer A. Heinlein wrote in his early work "= the man from another world" that people laugh (loudest) for two reasons: beein= g ashamed or asking a higher authority / fortune for not beeing the next affected. Smile and laughter as snarl and bark towards kismet - i like this interpretation. Zeitgeist (is this really an english word? Goethe?) is unmasking the very thin layer of culture that covers human nature, isn't i= t. Andreas Date sent: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:50:13 +1000 From: Geiger Subject: lighten up! To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > > An amusing cat video guaranteed to make you laugh! > Regards, > Jackie Perkins > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > GOOD DOG > BRISBANE QLD AUSTRALIA > Ph 07 33510600 > Fax 07 3351 0611 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Beha= viour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments= !) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 02:15:15.33 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" CC: IN%"carolineb@verticalmarkets.com.au", IN%"debmed03@edna.edu.au" "'Behavioural Medicine Discussion List'", IN%"rholmes@bigpond.net.au" "Robert Holmes", IN%"sarcy@iprimus.com.au" "'Simon Coghlan'", IN%"ianh@prsc.qld.gov.au" "Ian Heighway" Subj: RE: electronic collars Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars=20= are more effective for barking problems? ...and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and=20 address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with=20 separation distress problems? ...and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's=20 paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with=20 indiscriminate use of collars. ...and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can=20= be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work=20 properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the=20 consequences for shock collars? The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available=20 for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no=20 standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no=20 standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic=20 training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The=20 voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on=20= how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind=20= of pulses or waveforms used]. If a drug used for treating nuisance barking had an 'adverse effect'=20 profile like those of an electronic training aid, with the same kind of=20= variations in quality and efficacy would it ever be licensed? It=20 certainly would not be for sale in the supermarket. Anyone who supports the use of electric collars should ought to join=20 the argument in favour of stopping sales to the general public and in=20 favour of creating proper licensing and standards of manufacture. Jon On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 11:13 pm, Geiger wrote: > I enjoyed reading the article entitled =93collaring a tough issue=94. = I=20 > will begin by stating my belief that the dog triggered electronic=20 > devices of the low output variety that I use are completely humane and=20= > approach 100% effectiveness. I could almost agree with Simon=92s views=20= > but I think we need a bigger picture perspective here. There are many=20= > stakeholders when dealing with problem dog behaviours that impact upon=20= > the community and not merely the health of the individual dog and the=20= > happiness of the owner. As Veterinarians we can not afford to ignore=20= > the bigger picture. We must also be sensitive to human health and=20 > welfare issues if we are to remain effective practitioners. That is=20 > the bottom line. I am beginning to believe that barking dogs are more=20= > of a problem in the warmer climates such asQueenslandand WA than in=20 > the more temperate climates of NSW and Victoria. The main reasons are=20= > because dogs are left outside more in warmer climates to avoid=20 > heatstroke, fencing is less substantial to improve breezes and=20 > utility, and there is a vast quantity of foot traffic and wildlife on=20= > the move attracting and stimulating the outdoor dog=92s territorial=20 > nature all leading to loads of nuisance barking. Perhaps nuissance=20 > barking must be experienced to be appreciated for the drain on=20 > societal health that it truly is. One dog can cause sleeplessness and=20= > anxiety for hundreds of humans. One dog can also trigger other dogs=20 > and teach them to nuisance bark. I find electronic collars to be both=20= > humane and highly effective but have no special fondness for them.=20 > They are merely another tool. I do not doubt the motives of those=20 > sincerely opposed to electronic collars, they are entitled to their=20 > ethical position and they must respect mine. I sometimes wonder if=20 > their position may become more mobile if they were personally=20 > subjected to the mind numbing toothache quality of a constant nuisance=20= > barker. To work through a list of alternative treatments takes weeks=20= > all the while people=92s health is badly affected and the dog=92s=20 > behaviour becomes increasingly entrenched. Why not just start with the=20= > electronic solution which is the most effective and humane treatment.=20= > It may be used concurrent with any other treatment. I can not agree=20 > with Simon that electronic collars should be lumped in together with=20= > surgical debarking. The two treatments effect the dog very=20 > differently. Dogs wearing electronic bark control collars can easily=20= > have their attentions redirected. I have seen only two surgically=20 > debarked dogs during practice and they continue the nuisance barking=20= > habit despite the volume being turned down. The collar modifies=20 > behaviour, surgical debarking does not. =A0 > > Yours sincerely, Dr Jacqueline Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant=20= > GOOD DOG From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 5-AUG-2003 02:42:13.48 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars I totally agree with Jon on this =96 the lack of licensing and manufacture/design standards for these collars is deplorable =96 whether = the device is to be fitted to dog or(and much worse in my opinion)horse.=20 Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =A0 -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, 5 August 2003 8:12 p.m. To: Geiger Cc: carolineb@verticalmarkets.com.au; 'Behavioural Medicine Discussion List'; Robert Holmes; 'Simon Coghlan'; Ian Heighway; 'Dick Murray'; Jane Harper; 'Mike Harper'; Mandy Finnimore; Rachel Bowater; Ron Hyne; Owen Lavers; 'Steve Ireland'; Peter Lumsdale; Malcolm Mclennan; 'Le Hamer'; = Linda Paton; 'Kevin Doyle'; kaye@k9collars.com.au; John Holliday; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca; Jo Toia Subject: Re: electronic collars Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars = are more effective for barking problems? ...and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with separation distress problems? ...and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's = paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with = indiscriminate use of collars. ...and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can = be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work = properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the consequences = for shock collars? The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available for = use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no standards for = manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic training devices [shock, sonic = or gas], which is a disgrace. The voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on how the energy is supplied [over = what area, duration of time, what kind of pulses or waveforms used]. If a drug used for treating nuisance barking had an 'adverse effect' = profile like those of an electronic training aid, with the same kind of = variations in quality and efficacy would it ever be licensed? It certainly would = not be for sale in the supermarket. Anyone who supports the use of electric collars should ought to join the argument in favour of stopping sales to the general public and in favour = of creating proper licensing and standards of manufacture.=20 Jon On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 11:13 pm, Geiger wrote: I enjoyed reading the article entitled =93collaring a tough issue=94. I = will begin by stating my belief that the dog triggered electronic devices of = the low output variety that I use are completely humane and approach 100% effectiveness. I could almost agree with Simon=92s views but I think we = need a bigger picture perspective here. There are many stakeholders when = dealing with problem dog behaviours that impact upon the community and not = merely the health of the individual dog and the happiness of the owner. As Veterinarians we can not afford to ignore the bigger picture. We must = also be sensitive to human health and welfare issues if we are to remain effective practitioners. That is the bottom line. I am beginning to = believe that barking dogs are more of a problem in the warmer climates such asQueenslandand WA than in the more temperate climates of NSW and = Victoria. The main reasons are because dogs are left outside more in warmer = climates to avoid heatstroke, fencing is less substantial to improve breezes and utility, and there is a vast quantity of foot traffic and wildlife on = the move attracting and stimulating the outdoor dog=92s territorial nature = all leading to loads of nuisance barking. Perhaps nuissance barking must be experienced to be appreciated for the drain on societal health that it = truly is. One dog can cause sleeplessness and anxiety for hundreds of humans. = One dog can also trigger other dogs and teach them to nuisance bark. I find electronic collars to be both humane and highly effective but have no special fondness for them. They are merely another tool. I do not doubt = the motives of those sincerely opposed to electronic collars, they are = entitled to their ethical position and they must respect mine. I sometimes wonder = if their position may become more mobile if they were personally subjected = to the mind numbing toothache quality of a constant nuisance barker. To = work through a list of alternative treatments takes weeks all the while = people=92s health is badly affected and the dog=92s behaviour becomes increasingly entrenched. Why not just start with the electronic solution which is the most effective and humane treatment. It may be used concurrent with any other treatment. I can not agree with Simon that electronic collars = should be lumped in together with surgical debarking. The two treatments effect = the dog very differently. Dogs wearing electronic bark control collars can easily have their attentions redirected. I have seen only two surgically debarked dogs during practice and they continue the nuisance barking = habit despite the volume being turned down. The collar modifies behaviour, surgical debarking does not. =A0 Yours sincerely, Dr Jacqueline Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant = GOOD DOG From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 05:27:09.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars The following is a general comment not directed at Jacqueline, who is,=20= I am sure, both professional and ethical in her behaviour... There is an issue arising out of this, which is a professional and=20 ethical one. As veterinary surgeons we have a duty to prevent, and certainly not=20 to cause, unnecessary suffering. In the UK we swear an oath that our=20 primary responsibility is to the animals under our care. Should we, as suggested, use shock collars as a first line treatment=20 for barking problems instead of using other methods first? If those=20 alternative methods might have produced an equivalent result without=20 causing as much pain then we have caused unnecessary suffering.=20 Incidentally, since there is a paper that directly compares gas and=20 shock collar efficacy for controlling barking I suspect it would be=20 very hard to justify the use of a shock collar as a first resort if one=20= were challenged in court. What if we do not alter the environment substantially to reduce the=20 motivation to bark? For example to reduce the number of triggers for territorial behaviour=20= or to increase the range of alternative activities that the dog may=20 perform instead of barking. In my experience these things make a big=20 difference to territoriality. To fail to do these things, but use a=20 shock collar anyway because it might speed up results, is to cause=20 unnecessary suffering. Barking will inevitably be more of a nuisance in some areas than=20 others, due to the living conditions and types of dogs people keep. The=20= use of shock collars and debarking to resolve these problems reflects a=20= dominionistic solution which focusses on the needs of humans without=20 attending to those of the animal. In fact the problem may well be=20 inappropriate husbandry or the inappropriate ownership of breeds that=20 have a propensity to guard or bark. To fail to attend to this issue is=20= also to cause unnecessary suffering by 'omission'. As vets shouldn't=20 our responsibility be to sort these issues out rather than offer the=20 public a 'quick fix' [in inverted commas because I don't believe shock=20= collars to be a fix] that encourages even more people to place more=20 dogs into unacceptable or inappropriate living conditions because=20 humans will not be troubled by the consequences. The same argument of=20= poor husbandry should be employed when discussing the use of shock=20 collars in horse behavioural problems. Jon On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 11:13 pm, Geiger wrote: > I enjoyed reading the article entitled =93collaring a tough issue=94. = I=20 > will begin by stating my belief that the dog triggered electronic=20 > devices of the low output variety that I use are completely humane and=20= > approach 100% effectiveness. I could almost agree with Simon=92s views=20= > but I think we need a bigger picture perspective here. There are many=20= > stakeholders when dealing with problem dog behaviours that impact upon=20= > the community and not merely the health of the individual dog and the=20= > happiness of the owner. As Veterinarians we can not afford to ignore=20= > the bigger picture. We must also be sensitive to human health and=20 > welfare issues if we are to remain effective practitioners. That is=20 > the bottom line. I am beginning to believe that barking dogs are more=20= > of a problem in the warmer climates such asQueenslandand WA than in=20 > the more temperate climates of NSW and Victoria. The main reasons are=20= > because dogs are left outside more in warmer climates to avoid=20 > heatstroke, fencing is less substantial to improve breezes and=20 > utility, and there is a vast quantity of foot traffic and wildlife on=20= > the move attracting and stimulating the outdoor dog=92s territorial=20 > nature all leading to loads of nuisance barking. Perhaps nuissance=20 > barking must be experienced to be appreciated for the drain on=20 > societal health that it truly is. One dog can cause sleeplessness and=20= > anxiety for hundreds of humans. One dog can also trigger other dogs=20 > and teach them to nuisance bark. I find electronic collars to be both=20= > humane and highly effective but have no special fondness for them.=20 > They are merely another tool. I do not doubt the motives of those=20 > sincerely opposed to electronic collars, they are entitled to their=20 > ethical position and they must respect mine. I sometimes wonder if=20 > their position may become more mobile if they were personally=20 > subjected to the mind numbing toothache quality of a constant nuisance=20= > barker. To work through a list of alternative treatments takes weeks=20= > all the while people=92s health is badly affected and the dog=92s=20 > behaviour becomes increasingly entrenched. Why not just start with the=20= > electronic solution which is the most effective and humane treatment.=20= > It may be used concurrent with any other treatment. I can not agree=20 > with Simon that electronic collars should be lumped in together with=20= > surgical debarking. The two treatments effect the dog very=20 > differently. Dogs wearing electronic bark control collars can easily=20= > have their attentions redirected. I have seen only two surgically=20 > debarked dogs during practice and they continue the nuisance barking=20= > habit despite the volume being turned down. The collar modifies=20 > behaviour, surgical debarking does not. =A0 > > Yours sincerely, Dr Jacqueline Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant=20= > GOOD DOG > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 05:38:18.76 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars In response to Rudy's comments, there is definitely the potential for human abuse with these devices... One gentleman who corresponded with us in support of the use of shock collars wrote: 'I tested the shock collar on my wife and she reported no ill effects'. One wonders why he did not test it on himself ;-) Jon From: IN%"J.G.van_Dijk.neur@lumc.nl" "Dijk, J.G. van (NEUR)" 5-AUG-2003 05:57:23.72 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? Dear all, As a neurologist I am interested in the startle reflex; this is usually evoked by sudden very loud sounds. What you see is a sort of forward cringing movement of the head, and lifting of the arms. Subjects may also bend their knees a bit. With a colleague interested in falling, we discussed whether or not this response would be detrimental to falling (for instance, does a startle response caused by tripping prevent you sticking out your arms to break the fall?). We then wondered what the motor function of the startle response is. Is it true that the startle response of a dog or a cat consists of the animal lowering itself a bit, which probably allows it to change direction and jump off quickly? If so, then you might wonder whether the human startle response is, in fact, largely unchanged from our four-footed days. Does anyone know more about the motor purpose of the startle reflex? Are there differences between animals in the nature of the movement? What is this movement good for? Best wishes Gert van Dijk Leiden University Medical Centre The Netherlands From: IN%"mad@nofeardavis.org" "Maren Plagens" 5-AUG-2003 06:40:50.68 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars There is a potential for abuse with ANY training devise that is used on dogs. I have been training dogs since I was 19 (we won't say how long that has been) I agree that someone with mal-intent or lack of education can use a shock or "e-collar" to abuse a dog. I also use "choke chains" and "pinch collars" I have seen the miss-use of both as well as the miss-use of a "flat buckle" collar. I would like to say it is not the collar we should condemn. I use all of the options for training available to me using as my guide, the dog, the problem to be solved, the severity, and the ability of the owner to continue training correctly. I have used every thing from the shock collar to the gentle leader, to a plain flat collar. I would agree that not everyone should be able to use these devises without training! But I would not send a pinch collar home with most of America's population because the lack of understanding on proper use is such a huge problem. So maybe just as some foods are sold only to vets, some training devises should be sold only to trainers? But then we run into (at least here in the U.S.) that there is no standard or "certification" for trainers. So selling shock collars to trainers only is still no guarantee of competence... Maren Plagens Jon Bowen wrote: > In response to Rudy's comments, there is definitely the potential for > human abuse with these devices... > One gentleman who corresponded with us in support of the use of shock > collars wrote: > 'I tested the shock collar on my wife and she reported no ill effects'. > One wonders why he did not test it on himself > > Jon > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 5-AUG-2003 08:02:09.72 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars The e-collar, when incorporated into a training regiment and properly used, is as safe as any other piece of equipment so employed; even in the hands of the pet owner. Not so, however, with the shock collar; it should only be used either by, or under the close and watchful supervision of, an experienced trainer. Reading this thread, it seems to me that some of you commenting are not familiar with the correct use of the e-collar. That's too bad. Not your unfamiliarity with the device ... that's easy to remedy. What's bad is your comfort in commenting on the use and application of a device that you [apparently] have no experience with. To wit, someone wrote: "Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars are more effective for barking problems? ..and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with separation distress problems? ..and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with indiscriminate use of collars. ..and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the consequences for shock collars? The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind of pulses or waveforms used]." The subject line here is "electronic collars," yet the author above writes to "shock collars" (and has made some bad mistakes about their use as well). I'm wondering if she knows the difference between the use and application for these distinctly two different peices of equipment? It appears not. Which gives me cause to wonder, why then comment on the mis-use of e-collars and shock collars without first understanding their correct use? Most curious ... the intent ... it is obviously not to inform. How can it be, the author speaks not from the authority of experience. Propaganda? Most unworthy, and most unexpected from a group of intellectuals. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 5-AUG-2003 08:08:48.94 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com", IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au", IN%"carolineb@verticalmarkets.com.au", IN%"debmed03@edna.edu.au", IN%"rholmes@bigpond.net.au", IN%"sarcy@iprimus.com.au", IN%"ianh@prsc.qld.gov.au", IN%"dick@westernsuburbsvetclinic.com.au", IN%"tri CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars The e-collar, when incorporated into a training regiment and properly used, is as safe as any other piece of equipment so employed; even in the hands of the pet owner. Not so, however, with the shock collar; it should only be used either by, or under the close and watchful supervision of, an experienced trainer. Reading this thread, it seems to me that some of you commenting are not familiar with the correct use of the e-collar. That's too bad. Not your unfamiliarity with the device ... that's easy to remedy. What's bad is your comfort in commenting on the use and application of a device that you [apparently] have no experience with. To wit, someone wrote: "Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars are more effective for barking problems? ..and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with separation distress problems? ..and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with indiscriminate use of collars. ..and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the consequences for shock collars? The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind of pulses or waveforms used]." The subject line here is "electronic collars," yet the author above writes to "shock collars" (and has made some bad mistakes about their use as well). I'm wondering if she knows the difference between the use and application for these distinctly two different peices of equipment? It appears not. Which gives me cause to wonder, why then comment on the mis-use of e-collars and shock collars without first understanding their correct use? Most curious ... the intent ... it is obviously not to inform. How can it be, the author speaks not from the authority of experience. Propaganda? Most unworthy, and most unexpected from a group of intellectuals. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 08:47:32.68 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars The original correspondent on this subject appeared to be writing about shock collars, not general electronic training aids, so that is what I was writing about. If that is not the case it makes no difference to what I have said. The situation being discussed was nuisance barking but I am happy to talk about training if that's what you want to discuss. I am afraid that you are wrong in assuming that I [and others] have no experience with the use of shock collars. I actually have two in my possession and know exactly what they feel like and what they can do. I am sure that Rudy has a great deal of experience too. In fact I was involved a little over a year ago as an expert witness in a case involving the misuse of a shock collars, and I am involved in the governmental consultation exercises for the drafting of the forthcoming Animal Welfare Act. I would like to know exactly what 'bad mistakes' I have made about the use of shock collars? I have referred to two published papers which are a matter of record, and the lack of standards [of power output or reliability] for these devices which is also a matter of public record. The latter is not a subjective remark, it is a fact. The risks of creating aggression and negative associations through the use of punishment is also well recognised, and not specific to the use of shock collars. It is simply that in the hands of an untrained person the risk of forming negative associations between the shock and other environmental cues is high. Timing and salience are critical to creating the right associations, once again an unarguable matter of basic learning theory. I would consider that these are legitimate concerns, and am surprised that you take issue with statements that appear to support your own. After all, we agree that these devices should not be used by the public. Surely you would rather these devices should be regulated in some way? I believe that I have been perfectly accurate and specific in my use of terms I would take the term 'electronic collars' to mean any kind of electronically operated training device attached to a collar, which could include gas or ultrasound devices as well as shock devices. Shock devices are specifically those that work by passing an electric current through the skin via electrodes, in the case of a collar it is attached to the neck and passes a current through the throat. I resent the comment about propagandising. I did not raise this topic and I believe my comments to be restrained and factual, in contrast to yours which are insulting and personal. Jon On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 03:01 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > The e-collar, when incorporated into a training regiment and properly > used, > is as safe as any other piece of equipment so employed; even in the > hands of > the pet owner. Not so, however, with the shock collar; it should only > be > used either by, or under the close and watchful supervision of, an > experienced trainer. > > Reading this thread, it seems to me that some of you commenting are not > familiar with the correct use of the e-collar. That's too bad. Not > your > unfamiliarity with the device ... that's easy to remedy. What's bad > is your > comfort in commenting on the use and application of a device that you > [apparently] have no experience with. > > To wit, someone wrote: > > "Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars > are more effective for barking problems? > ..and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and > address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with > separation distress problems? > ..and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's > paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with > indiscriminate use of collars. > ..and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can > be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work > properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the > consequences for shock collars? > The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available > for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no > standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no > standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic > training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The > voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on > how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind > of pulses or waveforms used]." > > The subject line here is "electronic collars," yet the author above > writes > to "shock collars" (and has made some bad mistakes about their use as > well). > I'm wondering if she knows the difference between the use and > application > for these distinctly two different peices of equipment? It appears > not. > Which gives me cause to wonder, why then comment on the mis-use of > e-collars and shock collars without first understanding their correct > use? > > Most curious ... the intent ... it is obviously not to inform. How > can it > be, the author speaks not from the authority of experience. > Propaganda? > Most unworthy, and most unexpected from a group of intellectuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 5-AUG-2003 08:48:44.12 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Dear Tony, Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the difference between an 'e-collar' and a 'shock collar' so that those of us who work in other areas of animal learning, behaviour and welfare might understand and assess the validity of your critical comments. Regards, Chris On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:08:31 -0400 Tony Ancheta wrote: > The e-collar, when incorporated into a training regiment and properly used, > is as safe as any other piece of equipment so employed; even in the hands of > the pet owner. Not so, however, with the shock collar; it should only be > used either by, or under the close and watchful supervision of, an > experienced trainer. > > Reading this thread, it seems to me that some of you commenting are not > familiar with the correct use of the e-collar. That's too bad. Not your > unfamiliarity with the device ... that's easy to remedy. What's bad is your > comfort in commenting on the use and application of a device that you > [apparently] have no experience with. > > To wit, someone wrote: > > "Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars > are more effective for barking problems? > ..and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and > address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with > separation distress problems? > ..and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's > paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with > indiscriminate use of collars. > ..and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can > be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work > properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the > consequences for shock collars? > The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available > for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no > standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no > standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic > training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The > voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on > how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind > of pulses or waveforms used]." > > The subject line here is "electronic collars," yet the author above writes > to "shock collars" (and has made some bad mistakes about their use as well). > I'm wondering if she knows the difference between the use and application > for these distinctly two different peices of equipment? It appears not. > Which gives me cause to wonder, why then comment on the mis-use of > e-collars and shock collars without first understanding their correct use? > > Most curious ... the intent ... it is obviously not to inform. How can it > be, the author speaks not from the authority of experience. Propaganda? > Most unworthy, and most unexpected from a group of intellectuals. > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"LilleBird@aol.com" 5-AUG-2003 08:51:47.11 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com", IN%"rondog@btinternet.com", IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au", IN%"carolineb@verticalmarkets.com.au", IN%"debmed03@edna.edu.au", IN%"rholmes@bigpond.net.au", IN%"sarcy@iprimus.com.au", IN%"ianh@prsc.qld.gov.au", IN%"dick@wester CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars In a message dated 8/5/2003 7:21:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tony@koehlerdogtraining.com writes: > Most curious ... the intent ... it is obviously not to inform. How can it > be, the author speaks not from the authority of experience. Propaganda? > Most unworthy, and most unexpected from a group of intellectuals. > > > As a trainer who does not use e-collars and has no experience with them doesn't it make sense to standardize the voltage/current and then to perhaps certify the trainers/vets who buy them and teach their usage to their clients. I would never attempt to give one to a client because of my own lack of experience with them but refer them to a very experienced trainer who does have it...like you ?? Not being sarcastic...it's a question I have been grappling with for years. elaine buchsbaum red dog training NYC lillebird@aol.com From: IN%"lucy@equinesynergy.freeserve.co.uk" "lucy GRAY" 5-AUG-2003 09:17:51.20 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time I = introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine = behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your discussion = regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I thought I'd make = a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any experience = particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that it involves = administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the dog barking. = I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is ethical? If the = trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety wouldn't adding = punishment just reinforce the state of distress the dog is in? If the = dog is fearful of being alone then adding pain/discomfort is only going = to increase this fear. Surely this state of unavoidable punishment will = be detrimental to the dog, with the eventual outcome of the dog becoming = conditionally supressed and not able to carry 'normal' dog behaviours.(I = appreciate that this would be after prolonged exposure to this type of = device) When it possible to solve these problems in other ways including = changes to environment, counter conditioning, etc.. and probably most = important of all re-educating the owners, is there any justification for = using this type of device?=20 Lucy. PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar out = there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work? From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 5-AUG-2003 09:19:46.68 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Chris wrote: Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the difference between an 'e-collar' and a 'shock collar' so that those of us who work in other areas of animal learning, behaviour and welfare might understand and assess the validity of your critical comments. Tony comments: Chris, et al ... I shall be glad to write on the topic. However, because I run commercial training kennel my time is limited. The piece will have to wait until this evening, so look for it in tomorrow's e-mail. Jon ... A 'shock collar' passes voltage through the dog to ground ... why, prey tell, would you have two of them in you possession? Incidently, not in 27 years of professional dog training I have never seen one commercially produced. Are they manufactured commercially on your side of the big pond? An e-collar passes current between a cathode and an electrode and thus the voltage is localized to the area immediately around the two contact points. I'm bettin' that's the type of collars you have. More later on use and application for each. Unless, of course, my brief explaination satisfies Chris' request. Let me know, Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 09:23:52.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars List members might be interested to go to Mr. Ancheta's website, from=20 which the following was taken: The Foundation (chapter 3) for The Koehler Method of Dog Training is a=20= process using the dog=92s own =93right of choice.=94 Allow me to outline = the=20 foundation work for those not familiar with it (it=92s a real attention=20= getter). As early as day number three, the dog is brought onto the=20 training field from a place of solitary confinement where he has been=20 for about two hours. He has not eaten in 4 hours, nor has he consumed=20 any water for one hour. He is wearing a properly fitted choke collar=20 and a fifteen foot longe line. You arrive at a predetermined position=20 on the field, which you have selected as a starting point. While at the starting point you place the thumb of your right hand into=20= the loop of the longe line and close your fist around the handle. Place=20= your left hand directly under your right and close a fist around the=20 line and let the balance of the line drop to the ground. Now, silently=20= move toward a fixed object of reference 50 feet ahead. Oh but wait, you=20= exclaim, does this author not understand that if I drop the fifteen=20 feet of slack to the dog he will move directly toward anything that=20 might distract him? Yes, and so did Mr. Koehler. We fully recognize, as=20= should you, that the dog who goes toward the distraction does so as a=20 matter of choice.=A0 You too are granted the right of choice, and in this case, your choice=20= will be to turn away from the dog=92s line of travel and move, with = equal=20 determination, in a direction opposite his. Before long, the slack is=20 consumed, and the dog is made very uncomfortable. His good senses will=20= tell him that the resulting discomfort was something other than what he=20= expected when he chose to go in the direction of the distraction. His=20 instincts will be to somehow lessen the discomfort around his neck, and=20= when he finally moves toward you, also an act of his choosing, the line=20= will indeed slacken and the dog will have made a more correct choice;=20 one which results in comfort. With only six days of longe line work, the dog has learned that moving=20= in your direction is more comfortable than moving toward the=20 distraction; or the dog has learned that moving toward the distraction=20= results in discomfort. This experience will teach your dog that comfort=20= or discomfort are the direct results of the choices he makes.=A0=A0 On the issue of training a sit command... Bring the dog to your starting point and give him the command=20 "Joe-Heel," after 10 paces slide your left hand down to the stitching (=20= stopping the dog=92s forward motion) place your right hand next to your=20= left hand (you should now be grasping the leash with both hands) bend a=20= little at the knees to put some slack in the collar and give the=20 command "Joe-sit." Wait 2 seconds for a response, he will either sit=20 (as he has done 100 times previously) for reward, or he will not...in=20 which case you will jerk straight up with both hands thus causing the=20 dog=92s head to go up, his rear to go down, and as soon as he is=20 sitting... relax the leash and praise the dog . Repeat this procedure=20 25X per night. And... Question: Still, the book seems to focus more on the aspect of=20 punishment for wrong action rather than the use of positive=20 reinforcement for right action, why? Answer: Without the use of positive reinforcement the longe line (the=20 very foundation of our training) would not work. Perhaps you should try=20= reading the book aloud to the =93man in the mirror.=94 If your = definition=20 of positive reinforcement is to offer a treat to the dog for correct=20 performance you are probably more than a little confused. If you were=20 to give a Koehler trained dog a treat for every act of right=20 performance the dog would be very fat. Click on the =93 Pattern of=20 Learning=94 link to learn the dynamic relationship of positive and=20 negative reinforcement, reward systems, schedules of reinforcement,=20 primary reinforcers, secondary reinforcers, the use of delayed=20 secondary rewards, and the use of modified punishers as reinforcers. Jon= From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 5-AUG-2003 09:36:46.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars At 10:48 05/08/03 -0400, LilleBird@aol.com wrote: >As a trainer who does not use e-collars and has no experience with them doesn't it make >sense to standardize the voltage/current and then to perhaps certify the trainers/vets >who buy them and teach their usage to their clients. Elaine's point is a good one, and raises some questions - how exactly is the shock intensity adjusted so that it can be felt but is not overly painful? Is that fixed in the factory, or can the user adjust it? If it is user-adjustable, presumably one assesses the effective strength by noting behavioural responses to shocks? Variable skin contact resistance means that a fixed output voltage may be felt more or less. In any case, I would have thought that how the shock is perceived is a function of more than just nerve stimulation. Francis From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 5-AUG-2003 09:44:10.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Jon wrote: "List members might be interested to go to Mr. Ancheta's website, from which the following was taken:" Tony, heading out the door, asks: Jon, why did you ->not include in your post<- the first four days of teaching the sit? Why did you only quote the paragraph on correcting the dog that chooses to refuse a known command? You are right, though, the list members should visit my website. And they should read all of it ... including my concerns about the current trend in e-collar use. Regards, Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 5-AUG-2003 09:46:44.82 To: IN%"J.G.van_Dijk.neur@lumc.nl" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? Speaking as a person who is not an expert on the startle reflex but who has tripped a lot, who understands biology and physics, the startle reflex you describe does help a person cope with a fall or potential fall better than the alternative not involving a flexor response. A contraction of the legs lowers center of gravity, reducing the potential energy of the fall, and decreasing forward angular acceleration by allowing more of the energy to go into a fall in the direction of standing/radial direction rather than the forward/tangential direction. It also facilitates repositioning of the legs to establish a wider and more appropriate stability base. It allows a person to turn or tuck to better distribute and absorb the energy of the fall. In the case of a fall from a height the bent knees are necessary for an extended deceleration decreasing the force of the fall by increasing its duration. The contraction of the arms is similarly useful though not a complete action in itself. Fully extended along the sides of the body is the normal standing/walking position of the arms. This position is nearly useless in a fall. Moving the arms quickly in an extended arc toward the front of the body requires a relatively large amount of torque necessary for both starting and stopping the repositioning due to the larger moment arm of an extended are over a contracted one. This higher amount of torque would tend to increase the angular acceleration of the bodies center of mass and the earlier change in position of the body would increase the component of the persons weight in the tangential direction making the final angular velocity greater. Second, the contraction followed by the reposition and extension of the arms is actually faster than a pure reposition of the arms. Even though the path length is somewhat longer in the contraction, it uses a stronger set of muscles, biceps and lats, for contraction. The delts are only really needed to reposition the shortened arms. Then the subsequent extension is done by very strong muscles the triceps, anterior deltoids and pectoralis major. Think of how a gunslinger quickdraws a gun in a fight. That is almost the same motion as the preparation for a fall. Further, the motion associated with the extended arc has two problems with it. The arc that extends out from the body is more likely to encounter a blocking obstacle (such as the floor if the response is too slow) than if the arms are drawn up along the body and then pushed out from it. Also if the arc motion is not completed, it is virtually useless in ameliorating the impact. The hands and arms are not positioned well to absorb the impact, and the delts have to do all the work against a long lever arm giving them an extreme amount of torque to overcome. The hand (being lower down the bodies moment arm) also has to absorb more of the bodies linear momentum. Try to do a push-up by lying flat on your belly and moving your arms up in an arc. Now try to do it the more standard way with your arms tucked in front of you, pushing out. The mechanical advantage is definitely with the later. Further, the anatomical constraints of the two positions are such that the impact can be much better absorbed by the palms and forearms with the tuck/extensory motion than the arc motion if the motions don't have time to be completed. Finally, the flexor component of the startle response prepares humans for other emergencies than falling. The leg flexor response brings the body closer to the ground, preparing the person to duck, crouch, hide or spring into a run once direction is determined. The arm withdrawal component prepares the arms to shield the head and neck (which is also useful in a fall especially if the fall isn't a simple flat fall on even terrain). It also sets up the arms for a counter strike or block (which is why this position is the preferred ready position of almost all martial arts). The moral of the story is that that evolution is much smarter than us humans and normal physiological responses usually shouldn't be interfered with. Another case and point that I have long worried would lead to no good is estrogen replacement therapy for menopause. Recent studies are proving that it was probably a bad idea. From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 5-AUG-2003 09:52:35.63 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Hi Tony, Yes it does answer my question to a certain extent. Does this mean that a 'shock collar' has its influence over a greater area of the animal's body than a localised electrical shock produced by an 'e-collar'? Could this not mean that there are certain dangers of other organs (e.g. the heart) being influenced using the shock collar (which passes current through the ground), or, that the animal might be reacting to a highly localised source of higher grade pain with the e-collar rather than generalised lower grade pain. Regards, Chris > > An e-collar passes current between a cathode and an electrode and thus the > voltage is localized to the area immediately around the two contact points. > I'm bettin' that's the type of collars you have. > > More later on use and application for each. Unless, of course, my brief > explaination satisfies Chris' request. > > Let me know, > > > > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 5-AUG-2003 09:53:01.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"avahq@ava.com.au" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars At 07:48 AM Tuesday 8/5/2003, you wrote:

As a trainer who does not use e-collars and has no experience with them doesn't it make sense to standardize the voltage/current and then to perhaps certify the trainers/vets who buy them and teach their usage to their clients. I would never attempt to give one to a client because of my own lack of experience with them but refer them to a very experienced trainer who does have it...like you ??  Not being sarcastic...it's a question I have been grappling with for years.

I have a bit of experience with e-collars.  Incidentally, e-collars are manually operated using a hand held transmitter.  Ant-bark collars are automatically activated based on either vibrations or the sound of the dog barking.

I don't see the logic of the standardizing you are proposing.  Every dog is different.   We cannot standardize the usage of an e-collar in the sense of "use a setting of 14 for nuisance barking" or "use a setting of 27 for snake proofing".

Let me illustrate this with one e-collar in particular, a top-of-the-line model that is commonly used in working and sport applications.  It has a dial on the hand held transmitter which the handler can set between 0 and 60, and anything in between.  No one can feel the "shock" from settings below 2 or 3.   I've tried it on me, to get a feel for what it's like, up to about 25.  It's mildly annoying at settings of around 10.

On my husband's GSD, a setting of 20 (out of 60) made him yelp.. that's too high for him.  Yet another GSD, a relative of my husband's dog, barely notices the shock from this same collar set all the way at 60...that's a good setting for him.  That's the difference in these dogs' inherent tolerance to pain.   Repeat that with a 100 dogs and you may find 100 different "correct" settings.

To complicate matters further, whether an individual dog is in drive or not greatly affects his tolerance for pain.   So the correct setting for a given dog may be context sensitive.

GOOD e-collars have dozens of intermediate settings, on the hand held transmitter.   For most training applications, you find the setting(s) that your dog notices, but doesn't make him yelp, cringe, etc.  You might notice a dog's reactions to a correct setting as moving his head to the side, or a ear flick, etc.  This does not take an advanced degree or training course or "very experienced trainer" to use.  It's not rocket science.   In situations where one is using the e-collar to try to create an aversion, like with snake proofing or deer proofing, a trainer may dial the e-collar to a higher setting.

Laura Sanborn From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 09:58:02.55 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars > Jon ... A 'shock collar' passes voltage through the dog to ground ... > why, > prey tell, would you have two of them in you possession? > Incidently, not in 27 years of professional dog training I have never > seen one commercially > produced. Are they manufactured commercially on your side of the big > pond? > An e-collar passes current between a cathode and an electrode and thus > the > voltage is localized to the area immediately around the two contact > points. > I'm bettin' that's the type of collars you have. I don't believe this is a recognised distinction. For one thing Mr. Ancheta recognises that his own definition of a 'shock' collar refers to a device that, to his knowledge, has never been made! If one completes an electrical circuit with any part of one's body one receives a shock through that part, it has nothing to do with earthing. In fact, earthing is just another way of completing a circuit anyway. If two electrodes are used [a cathode and anode] then the current passes through a localised area, although its effects may be felt over a much wider area if the shock affects the function of nerves and muscles or causes damage to tissue. In fact, passing a current through a small area of skin or a body part may be more painful than a more generalised shock depending upon the amount of energy dissipated, the electrical properties of the shock and the part of the body being shocked. I don't wish to draw lurid or unnecessary comparisons between shock collars and instruments of torture, but the electric torture batons used by interrogators seem to be pretty painfu. they don't involve any earthing and they certainly do get applied to specific parts of the body! Localised shocks can have body-wide effects too; just look at the Tazer devices used for knocking out criminals. Before anyone gets furious I am not comparing the shock collar with a Tazer, merely pointing out that the presence or absence of earthing has very little to do with the experience of shock., So 'shock' and 'e'-collar are interchangeable terms depending upon the level of euphemism one wishes, or does not wish, to employ. The term 'Shock collar' has been accepted as a descriptive term in various law cases, published papers and government documents so I don't have any concerns about using it. Both the collars [made by well known companies] I have produce variable levels of discomfort depending on the setting used, the conductivity of the skin and individual pain sensitivity. At high settings the shocks are appear very unpleasant to most people, but, as I have said before on this topic, the problem is that others may be much less severe and there is no regulation on what constitutes a safe and reliable shock collar. Jon > More later on use and application for each. Unless, of course, my > brief > explaination satisfies Chris' request. > > Let me know, > > > > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 10:00:40.81 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars You said it yourself...I advised them to read all of it. On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 04:43 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Jon wrote: > "List members might be interested to go to Mr. Ancheta's website, from > which the following was taken:" > > Tony, heading out the door, asks: > Jon, why did you ->not include in your post<- the first four days of > teaching the sit? Why did you only quote the paragraph on correcting > the > dog that chooses to refuse a known command? > > You are right, though, the list members should visit my website. And > they > should read all of it ... including my concerns about the current > trend in > e-collar use. > > Regards, > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 10:02:13.14 To: IN%"mad@nofeardavis.org" "Maren Plagens" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars > My response is that a "certified animal behaviorist" in the US means > little to nothing. Having a degree in animal behavior does not mean > that you have any practical experience. I am a "behaviorist" by degree > but I see so many people that have never even trained a dog and tout > themselves as "Certified Behaviorists" and the results they produce > give good trainers a bad name. Is there no certification scheme for non-vet behaviourists? I think there should be, and also a similar scheme for dog trainers too. Good luck with your efforts to sort this out. Best wishes, Jon > Jon Bowen wrote: > > I agree that the sale of shock collars should be restricted, but the > fact that no suitable qualification exists for licensing shock collars > to dog trainers does not mean that the current state should continue. > The fact is that not all trainers know what they are doing with shock > collars so perhaps they should not be able to gain possession of them > unless they are licensed. > > Regarding this statement, I would have to agree whole-heartedly. Not > everyone should have access to the e-collar, or for that matter, a > pinch or prong collar. And I am often disturbed by the uses I see > "choke chains" employed in. > In the International Association of Canine Professionals, we are > working towards putting forth some sort of standards for the > profession of a "Trainer" so that the general populous has some way of > knowing if they are doing something right for their animals. > I have seen too many "botched" training jobs that result in abuse, or > abandonment, or at least a worsening of the problem. > > I could go on about the subject but since this is an Ethology list and > not a dog trainers list I will not... > > Maren Plagens > > From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 10:11:45.53 To: IN%"J.G.van_Dijk.neur@lumc.nl" "Dijk, J.G. van (NEUR)", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? I only have some anecdotal comments for you but they might help lead you to other information. There is a book called Kill or be Killed written by Rex Applegate who was one of the main instructors for the Allied troops in W.W.II in hand to hand combat. He described an incident where a team of men had to go down an alley at night and expected to be attacked. The next morning at first light, they went back to find that the alley was strung with clotheslines that would have hit every one of them in the head or neck had they not involuntarily crouched. The men instinctively dropped into a fighting crouch that was made part of the training. The instinct to crouch does seem based on preparing the body to move. Shifting weight to the balls of the feet, bending the knees slightly, feet about shoulder width apart and arms bent bringing the hands closer to the body helps reduce the moment of inertia and put the body in a position that has both mobility and stability. Watch basketball players and other athletes who make quick abrupt changes is movement. I have an Arabian gelding from good working lines who was professionally trained by a man who does both working stock horses and 3 day eventers. Jakko is a good stock horse and very agile. When startled, he will drop his head and bend knees dropping his center by an inch or two and at times has almost unseated me. When I first got him and we were learning to trust each other, he would drop and pivot a quarter turn, hit my leg on the side he pivoted to, then pivot back under me catching me in the saddle. He does the same thing when working cattle and pivoting to turn them. I'm usually prepared for that and can stick to the saddle better. On the 4th of July, we took several dogs down to a local rodeo and parade. The event starts with the firing of a black powder cannon. We knew it was coming but not just when. It startled us. all human and canine. We all crouched and spun to face the noise. The dogs recovered faster than we did. The horses in the parade also startled but tended to a want to dart away. I didn't see them, too busy ducking myself but suspect they also dropped and then moved. We have Dobermans and Beaucerons and a hybrid litter done to gain vigor. Dobes sometimes crouch in preparation to make a turn or dash in play but also have a ready position in an aggressive mode that is up on toes, forward and focused on a target. A more relaxed version is head up, rear feet slightly spread and center of mass balanced between fore and hindquarters. This allows them more mobility from side to side. The Beaucerons tend to crouch more often as do the hybrid pups. In play they will crouch sometimes just a bit, other times almost to the ground, front and rear feet slightly spread, ready to push off to either side. They are more flexible from side to side than a Dobe but do not seem to have quite the same initial burst of speed nor as fast a top speed. But bred for somewhat different purposes. I asked my husband about, a mechanical engineer who practices martial arts and analyzes movement. He thinks the functional purpose is to bring the body to a more contracted position to get a smaller moment of inertia and also to arrange extensors and contractor muscles plus the skeleton in a posture that maximizes choices of movement. Too contracted and you have to move further to either fight or flee, not contracted enough and you may not be able to move in the direction you wanted to fast enough. One last note. One instructor of martial arts wrote that the dropping of the head and bringing it forward engages more of the primitive reflexive motor areas of the brain. From some of the work with eye accessing cues and head positioning NLP uses, I suspect there is validity to this. Looking down or dropping the head, accesses kinesthetics, looking up or tilting the head back the visual. The head lowered but forward position might help engage visual/kinesthetic pathways needed to avoid danger. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dijk, J.G. van (NEUR)" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:57 AM Subject: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? > Dear all, > > As a neurologist I am interested in the startle reflex; this is usually > evoked by sudden very loud sounds. What you see is a sort of forward > cringing movement of the head, and lifting of the arms. Subjects may also > bend their knees a bit. > > With a colleague interested in falling, we discussed whether or not this > response would be detrimental to falling (for instance, does a startle > response caused by tripping prevent you sticking out your arms to break the > fall?). We then wondered what the motor function of the startle response is. > > Is it true that the startle response of a dog or a cat consists of the > animal lowering itself a bit, which probably allows it to change direction > and jump off quickly? If so, then you might wonder whether the human startle > response is, in fact, largely unchanged from our four-footed days. > > Does anyone know more about the motor purpose of the startle reflex? Are > there differences between animals in the nature of the movement? What is > this movement good for? > > Best wishes > > > Gert van Dijk > Leiden University Medical Centre > The Netherlands From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 5-AUG-2003 11:26:50.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: What is the motor function of the startle reflex How far back do we go with this? Could this be a very ancient primate response to startle/threat. It could be that lubricating the palms and feet with sweat facilitates arboreal transit and the reflex clenching of hands (and feet might) be an adaptation for securing grip (toe curling moments!). We had a lively discussion on this group in 1989 about click trains, rattle snakes, creaking doors and branches. I recall suggesting that sleep paralysis might be some sort of echo of an adaptation for sleeping safely in tree nests. The "stop! look! listen!" (Behavioural Inhibition Reflex-vide Grey)is common to innumerable vertebrates and is therefore an "Ur-adaptive behaviour pattern" It is surely a "species typical state of general preparedness" What you do when the lights go out, the ground shakes, the floor is slippery etc depends on your species. If you are ever in my neck of the woods SWING by! Robin Walker Veterinarian and Primate. -----Original Message----- From: Dijk, J.G. van (NEUR) [mailto:J.G.van_Dijk.neur@lumc.nl] Sent: 05 August 2003 12:57 To: 'Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca' Subject: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? Dear all, As a neurologist I am interested in the startle reflex; this is usually evoked by sudden very loud sounds. What you see is a sort of forward cringing movement of the head, and lifting of the arms. Subjects may also bend their knees a bit. With a colleague interested in falling, we discussed whether or not this response would be detrimental to falling (for instance, does a startle response caused by tripping prevent you sticking out your arms to break the fall?). We then wondered what the motor function of the startle response is. Is it true that the startle response of a dog or a cat consists of the animal lowering itself a bit, which probably allows it to change direction and jump off quickly? If so, then you might wonder whether the human startle response is, in fact, largely unchanged from our four-footed days. Does anyone know more about the motor purpose of the startle reflex? Are there differences between animals in the nature of the movement? What is this movement good for? Best wishes Gert van Dijk Leiden University Medical Centre The Netherlands From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 12:36:02.05 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars just a quick comment, barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued = elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue, = chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair = trigger excitement responses. A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can help = a dog learn self control. The males are less likely to work themselves = into a state where they stop eating, and overfocus on romance. Anyone = know any human males who lose their brains when pheromones are in the = air? The level of stimulation can be adjusted to the dog and the lowest = setting can act not as a painful shameful fear inducing conditioned = aversive but as a pattern interrupt that breaks a dog out of a closed = loop of behavior. Is slapping someone who is hysterical unethical or = appropriate and for that person's benefit if hysterics are likely to = endanger him/her? Is shouting NO! at someone about to touch a live = electrical wire in the highest interest of the person? Interrupting a = behavior makes it more conscious and more likely to help the animal, = canine or human, make a careful choice. A bark collar is a useful tool = and part of a good trainer's repertoire.=20 Julie Alexander ----- Original Message -----=20 From: lucy GRAY=20 To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time I = introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine = behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your discussion = regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I thought I'd make = a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any experience = particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that it involves = administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the dog barking. = I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is ethical? If the = trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety wouldn't adding = punishment just reinforce the state of distress the dog is in? If the = dog is fearful of being alone then adding pain/discomfort is only going = to increase this fear. Surely this state of unavoidable punishment will = be detrimental to the dog, with the eventual outcome of the dog becoming = conditionally supressed and not able to carry 'normal' dog behaviours.(I = appreciate that this would be after prolonged exposure to this type of = device) When it possible to solve these problems in other ways including = changes to environment, counter conditioning, etc.. and probably most = important of all re-educating the owners, is there any justification for = using this type of device?=20 Lucy. PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar = out there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work?= From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 12:43:16.68 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"avahq@ava.com.au" Subj: RE: electronic collars I think you miss the point. I don't want standardisation of settings I want some standardisation of=20= the kinds of shock that are delivered, the quality of manufacture and=20 the kinds of people who may use them. Many manufacturers of these devices claim that they produce a static=20 shock or are painless, but when you try various different ones some are=20= excruciatingly painful. Why should this be allowed? They are on sale to members of the general=20= public who may have no idea that the thing they are using is very=20 painful or indeed that pain perception is individual. Then there is the issue of how often the shocks recycle if the dog=20 keeps barking, whether shock intensity automatically increases and what=20= safeguards there are to stop failures in which the machine keeps=20 shocking a dog who is scratching itself or doing something else but is=20= not barking. Jon On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 04:57 pm, Laura Sanborn wrote: > At 07:48 AM Tuesday 8/5/2003, you wrote: > > As a trainer who does not use e-collars and has no experience with=20 > them doesn't it make sense to standardize the voltage/current and then=20= > to perhaps certify the trainers/vets who buy them and teach their=20 > usage to their clients. I would never attempt to give one to a client=20= > because of my own lack of experience with them but refer them to a=20 > very experienced trainer who does have it...like you ??=A0 Not being=20= > sarcastic...it's a question I have been grappling with for years. > > > I have a bit of experience with e-collars.=A0 Incidentally, e-collars=20= > are manually operated using a hand held transmitter.=A0 Ant-bark = collars=20 > are automatically activated based on either vibrations or the sound of=20= > the dog barking. > > I don't see the logic of the standardizing you are proposing.=A0 Every=20= > dog is different.=A0=A0 We cannot standardize the usage of an e-collar = in=20 > the sense of "use a setting of 14 for nuisance barking" or "use a=20 > setting of 27 for snake proofing". > > Let me illustrate this with one e-collar in particular, a=20 > top-of-the-line model that is commonly used in working and sport=20 > applications.=A0 It has a dial on the hand held transmitter which the=20= > handler can set between 0 and 60, and anything in between.=A0 No one = can=20 > feel the "shock" from settings below 2 or 3.=A0=A0 I've tried it on = me, to=20 > get a feel for what it's like, up to about 25.=A0 It's mildly annoying=20= > at settings of around 10. > > On my husband's GSD, a setting of 20 (out of 60) made him yelp..=20 > that's too high for him.=A0 Yet another GSD, a relative of my = husband's=20 > dog, barely notices the shock from this same collar set all the way at=20= > 60...that's a good setting for him.=A0 That's the difference in these=20= > dogs' inherent tolerance to pain.=A0=A0 Repeat that with a 100 dogs = and=20 > you may find 100 different "correct" settings. > > To complicate matters further, whether an individual dog is in drive=20= > or not greatly affects his tolerance for pain.=A0=A0 So the correct=20 > setting for a given dog may be context sensitive. > > GOOD e-collars have dozens of intermediate settings, on the hand held=20= > transmitter.=A0=A0 For most training applications, you find the = setting(s)=20 > that your dog notices, but doesn't make him yelp, cringe, etc.=A0 You=20= > might notice a dog's reactions to a correct setting as moving his head=20= > to the side, or a ear flick, etc.=A0 This does not take an advanced=20 > degree or training course or "very experienced trainer" to use.=A0 = It's=20 > not rocket science.=A0=A0 In situations where one is using the = e-collar to=20 > try to create an aversion, like with snake proofing or deer proofing,=20= > a trainer may dial the e-collar to a higher setting. > > Laura Sanborn= From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 12:51:16.66 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? their build and behavior give them a low profile hard to detect body, a freeze behavior to prevent slight motions giving them away and a rapid response body so that if those fail, they can sprint, duck and dodge for a short period better than their predators. ----- Original Message ----- From: "heather mcmurray" To: "Julie Alexander" Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:46 AM Subject: Re: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? > what would crouching be like in a rabbit? They already have an incredible > stability and centering. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julie Alexander" > To: "Dijk, J.G. van (NEUR)" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:09 AM > Subject: Re: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? > > > > I only have some anecdotal comments for you but they might help lead you > > to other information. > > There is a book called Kill or be Killed written by Rex Applegate who > > was one of the main instructors for the Allied troops in W.W.II in hand > > to hand combat. He described an incident where a team of men had to go > > down an alley at night and expected to be attacked. The next morning at > > first light, they went back to find that the alley was strung with > > From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 12:56:07.84 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Tony, We get so sick of Koehler method bashing. I think Mr. Koehler summed it up well in his term 'wincers'. We started with a strict Koehler type style in a kennel that bred Dobermans for personal protection. Contrary to popular belief, there were some American bred Dobes with working ability before the European lines started to be imported, although the incidence of ability is much higher in the Euro lines. Wm. Koehler save many many dogs from euthanasia. His 16 week step by careful step with feedback checkpoints program is something too detailed for people who want shortcuts. A year ago, we were at a seminar with an elderly couple who had trained with Bill Koehler himself for 2 years. They spoke of his great love for animals, the precise details of his training and the success of his student. And how frequently misunderstood the method was by people who didn't take the time to learn it. The same is true of many methods for different species. In horse training, Parelli methods are often criticized as not working by those who are first starting and unwilling to hear feedback about what they do not see in the horse or themselves. I don't know how to make a soufflé and won't discuss methods about it. I haven't taught a herding dog, pointer, water retriever or tracking hound. I'm not entitled to an opinion about it. Hand a tough minded dog whose destructive, overly boisterous or dangerous behavior to a wincer and ask them what they will do to save the dog's life. Would they take 16 weeks of demonstrating the desired behavior, holding the dog accountable for it's decisions, testing and proofing? Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Ancheta" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:43 AM Subject: Re: electronic collars > Jon wrote: > "List members might be interested to go to Mr. Ancheta's website, from > which the following was taken:" > > Tony, heading out the door, asks: > Jon, why did you ->not include in your post<- the first four days of > teaching the sit? Why did you only quote the paragraph on correcting the > dog that chooses to refuse a known command? > > You are right, though, the list members should visit my website. And they > should read all of it ... including my concerns about the current trend in > e-collar use. > > Regards, > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 12:56:54.98 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars But barking has different functions in different situations and some=20 dogs bark due to distress, which will certainly not be made any better=20= by being shocked. Those barking out of fear and territoriality may also be made worse. The indiscriminate use of shock collars for all barking problems does=20 not take into account individual motivation. I have to say that the situation you are describing with males barking=20= for females on heat seems like one that is close to what I was=20 describing in a previous email; a piece of poor husbandry covered up by=20= the use of punishment. If this were a lab or breeding husbandry=20 situation I would think it pretty disgraceful to house males and female=20= dogs in close proximity and then use a shock collar to suppress the=20 behaviour that is an obvious consequence. there are other ways to avoid=20= this situation, and I wonder whether anyone has given a thought to how=20= the male dogs feel about being housed like this. It must be immensely=20 frustrating. I would consider this a potential welfare problem but I=20 wonder what the welfare scientists on the list think? Jon > just a quick comment, > barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued=20= > elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue,=20 > chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair=20= > trigger excitement responses. > A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can=20 > help a dog learn self control. The males=A0are less likely to work=20 > themselves into a state where they stop eating, and=A0overfocus=20 > on=A0romance. Anyone=A0know any human males who lose their brains when=20= > pheromones are in the air?=A0The level of stimulation can be adjusted = to=20 > the dog and the lowest setting can act not as a painful shameful fear=20= > inducing conditioned aversive but as a pattern interrupt that breaks a=20= > dog out of a closed loop of behavior. Is slapping someone who is=20 > hysterical unethical or appropriate and for that person's benefit if=20= > hysterics are likely to endanger him/her? Is=A0shouting NO! at someone=20= > about to touch a live electrical wire in=A0the highest interest of the=20= > person?=A0Interrupting a behavior makes it more conscious and more=20 > likely to help the animal, canine or human, make a careful choice. A=20= > bark collar is a useful tool and part of a good trainer's repertoire. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: lucy GRAY > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM > Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time I=20= > introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine=20 > behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your=20 > discussion regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I=20 > thought I'd make a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. > I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any experience=20= > particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that it=20 > involves administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the=20 > dog barking. I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is=20= > ethical? If the trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety=20 > wouldn't adding punishment just reinforce the state of distress the=20 > dog is in? If the dog is fearful of being alone then adding=20 > pain/discomfort is only going to increase this fear. Surely this state=20= > of unavoidable punishment will be detrimental to the dog, with the=20 > eventual outcome of the dog becoming conditionally supressed and not=20= > able to carry 'normal' dog behaviours.(I appreciate that this would be=20= > after prolonged exposure to this type of device) When it possible to=20= > solve these problems in other ways including changes to environment,=20= > counter conditioning, etc.. and probably most important of all=20 > re-educating the owners, is there any justification for using this=20 > type of device? > =A0 > Lucy. > =A0 > PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar=20 > out there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work? From: IN%"Shetts@aol.com" 5-AUG-2003 13:01:29.36 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars In a message dated 08/05/2003 12:48:41 PM Mountain Daylight Time, reddragn@bossig.com writes: > barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued > elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue, chronically elevate > cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair trigger excitement > responses I'm always looking for recent articles to be sure I keep current on the literature. Could you point me to the citation of the study you are referring to which demonstrates barking dogs have higher cortisol levels, which I think is what you are saying from the somewhat confusing wording? Much appreciate it. Suzanne Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Please change my email to: Suzanne@AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com Go to www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com to receive our monthly free ezine (first issue August) and information about other products and services 303-932-9095 fax 303-932-2298 From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 5-AUG-2003 13:11:28.42 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Jon Bowen wrote: Anyone who supports the use of electric collars should ought to join the argument in favour of stopping sales to the general public and in favour of creating proper licensing and standards of manufacture. margory cohen wrote in: Frankly, there are places, not only in the U.S. but I hear abroad as well, where that position is taken when it comes to keeping a dog! Just catching up in the discussion about electric training and am pleased to see Mr. Tony Ancheta on the board. What also is interesting is that from some who by their own admission have no expertise or first-hand experience and from how it reads even in-person contact with any form of electric collar, that some of those posts automatically assume this to be equipment of torture and that anyone who uses it not only should be licensed but also probably interrogated and examined for any fiber of morality. It's never >equipment< that trains or not a dog. Or horse. And no matter what a person uses to accomplish a particular response, the desired response doesn't ever come about thru abuse. Not a genuine response. One has to be very clear to keep out of this discussion, (especially because I think there is now a chance for some real illumination to come into the forum on this particular topic) distorted or ill-informed notions. My usual stance, ailing back notwithstanding. -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 13:46:29.03 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? Beautifully stated! Much better than I could.=20 Evolution has provided a reflex of requisite variety. The combination = of mobility and stability permits greater behavioral responses and = prevents many chances of injury. Julie ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Michalchik@aol.com=20 To: J.G.van_Dijk.neur@lumc.nl=20 Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 8:46 AM Subject: Re: What is the motor function of the startle reflex? Speaking as a person who is not an expert on the startle reflex but = who has tripped a lot, who understands biology and physics, the startle = reflex you describe does help a person cope with a fall or potential = fall better than the alternative not involving a flexor response.=20 A contraction of the legs lowers center of gravity, reducing the = potential energy of the fall, and decreasing forward angular = acceleration by allowing more of the energy to go into a fall in the = direction of standing/radial direction rather than the = forward/tangential direction. It also facilitates repositioning of the = legs to establish a wider and more appropriate stability base. It allows = a person to turn or tuck to better distribute and absorb the energy of = the fall. In the case of a fall from a height the bent knees are = necessary for an extended deceleration decreasing the force of the fall = by increasing its duration. The contraction of the arms is similarly useful though not a complete = action in itself. Fully extended along the sides of the body is the = normal standing/walking position of the arms. This position is nearly = useless in a fall. Moving the arms quickly in an extended arc toward the = front of the body requires a relatively large amount of torque necessary = for both starting and stopping the repositioning due to the larger = moment arm of an extended are over a contracted one. This higher amount = of torque would tend to increase the angular acceleration of the bodies = center of mass and the earlier change in position of the body would = increase the component of the persons weight in the tangential direction = making the final angular velocity greater. Second, the contraction = followed by the reposition and extension of the arms is actually faster = than a pure reposition of the arms. Even though the path length is = somewhat longer in the contraction, it uses a stronger set of muscles, = biceps and lats, for contraction. The delts are only really needed to = reposition the shortened arms. Then the subsequent extension is done by = very strong muscles the triceps, anterior deltoids and pectoralis major. = Think of how a gunslinger quickdraws a gun in a fight. That is almost = the same motion as the preparation for a fall.=20 Further, the motion associated with the extended arc has two problems = with it. The arc that extends out from the body is more likely to = encounter a blocking obstacle (such as the floor if the response is too = slow) than if the arms are drawn up along the body and then pushed out = from it. Also if the arc motion is not completed, it is virtually = useless in ameliorating the impact. The hands and arms are not = positioned well to absorb the impact, and the delts have to do all the = work against a long lever arm giving them an extreme amount of torque to = overcome. The hand (being lower down the bodies moment arm) also has to = absorb more of the bodies linear momentum. Try to do a push-up by lying = flat on your belly and moving your arms up in an arc. Now try to do it = the more standard way with your arms tucked in front of you, pushing = out. The mechanical advantage is definitely with the later. Further, the = anatomical constraints of the two positions are such that the impact can = be much better absorbed by the palms and forearms with the = tuck/extensory motion than the arc motion if the motions don't have time = to be completed. Finally, the flexor component of the startle response prepares humans = for other emergencies than falling. The leg flexor response brings the = body closer to the ground, preparing the person to duck, crouch, hide or = spring into a run once direction is determined. The arm withdrawal = component prepares the arms to shield the head and neck (which is also = useful in a fall especially if the fall isn't a simple flat fall on even = terrain). It also sets up the arms for a counter strike or block (which = is why this position is the preferred ready position of almost all = martial arts). The moral of the story is that that evolution is much smarter than us = humans and normal physiological responses usually shouldn't be = interfered with. Another case and point that I have long worried would = lead to no good is estrogen replacement therapy for menopause. Recent = studies are proving that it was probably a bad idea. = From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 5-AUG-2003 14:02:05.64 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars By all means, please do educate me on the difference between an "e-collar" and a shock collar. I have been training dogs a long time on a wide variety of collars and I do not know the difference. An e-collar administers a shock when the trainer pushes the remote control button, no? The collar for an electronic fence adminsters a shock when the dog comes within the fence's field, no? A bark collar administers a shock when the dog's bark triggers it, no? They are all shock collars. Shock collars (or e-collars) may be perfectly "safe" to use, I choose not to use deliberately inflected pain as a training tool, preferring instead to have a relationship with my dog based on trust and mutual respect. But I see from your sig line, you aren't bothered by any such moral/ethical niceties. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT, therapy dog NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, therapy dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies http://catatonic.freeservers.com/penny/thedogs.html At 10:01 AM 8/5/03 -0400, Tony Ancheta wrote: >The e-collar, when incorporated into a training regiment and properly used, >is as safe as any other piece of equipment so employed; even in the hands of >the pet owner. Not so, however, with the shock collar; it should only be >used either by, or under the close and watchful supervision of, an >experienced trainer. > >Reading this thread, it seems to me that some of you commenting are not >familiar with the correct use of the e-collar. That's too bad. Not your >unfamiliarity with the device ... that's easy to remedy. What's bad is your >comfort in commenting on the use and application of a device that you >[apparently] have no experience with. > >To wit, someone wrote: > >"Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars >are more effective for barking problems? >..and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and >address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with >separation distress problems? >..and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's >paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with >indiscriminate use of collars. >..and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can >be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work >properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the >consequences for shock collars? >The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available >for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no >standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no >standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic >training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The >voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on >how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind >of pulses or waveforms used]." > >The subject line here is "electronic collars," yet the author above writes >to "shock collars" (and has made some bad mistakes about their use as well). >I'm wondering if she knows the difference between the use and application >for these distinctly two different peices of equipment? It appears not. >Which gives me cause to wonder, why then comment on the mis-use of >e-collars and shock collars without first understanding their correct use? > >Most curious ... the intent ... it is obviously not to inform. How can it >be, the author speaks not from the authority of experience. Propaganda? >Most unworthy, and most unexpected from a group of intellectuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Tony Ancheta, NBR >www.koehlerdogtraining.com >Westpoint, California >Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 14:34:20.12 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Jon,=20 I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what = type? Do you train dogs, if so by what methods and for what purpose? If = you don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I don't think you're = entitled to an opinion. If you don't train them to work under heavy = distraction, you're disqualified also. Our house dogs are breeds that do not do well when kenneled. The males = show less stress when kenneled around a bitch in season than when away = from us. And from a sheer husbandry standpoint, we have found that = chlorophyll added to the diet helps cut the scent significantly.=20 And as we breed protection dogs whose standards of behavior are higher = than the average pet dog and pet owner, yes we do expect them to have a = brain when romance is in the air. We have gone so far as to have 2 males = down side by side nose to tail--on leash 2 handlers, while a bitch in = season jumps over both of them. I've also seen stallions behave = beautifully in hand or under saddle around mares in standing heat. Do = you expect a bodyguard or a cop to lose it when a nice pair of human = mammary glands enter the environment? Should a teenage boy be permitted = to catcall, whistle and make rude comments because an attractive woman = walks by? How many men either cause or nearly cause accidents because = they become distracted staring at women? It is not just reasonable to = expect males--canine and human, to control themselves but a safety = issue. Do you consider it reasonable to lock up adolescent human males = until their brain catches up with their gonads or teach them how to = control themselves? Certainly barking has different purposes. We specialize in protection = dogs for families. Identifying the type of bark, the purpose and context = is vital. Our livestock guardians have a response to dogs barking in the = distance that seems to function like birdsong or howler monkey = vocalizations. To say I'm here, this is my space, I know you are there, = keep out! Quite different from a bark that signals deer or cattle near = the fence, the one for coyotes, stray dogs, cougar and bear and = different again from that announcing approaching humans. I described a = specific temporary circumstance, the negative consequence of permitting = the barking to continue and how the collar helped the dog learn self = control. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jon Bowen=20 To: Julie Alexander=20 Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars But barking has different functions in different situations and some = dogs bark due to distress, which will certainly not be made any better = by being shocked. Those barking out of fear and territoriality may also be made worse. The indiscriminate use of shock collars for all barking problems does = not take into account individual motivation. I have to say that the situation you are describing with males barking = for females on heat seems like one that is close to what I was = describing in a previous email; a piece of poor husbandry covered up by = the use of punishment. If this were a lab or breeding husbandry = situation I would think it pretty disgraceful to house males and female = dogs in close proximity and then use a shock collar to suppress the = behavior that is an obvious consequence. there are other ways to avoid = this situation, and I wonder whether anyone has given a thought to how = the male dogs feel about being housed like this. It must be immensely = frustrating. I would consider this a potential welfare problem but I = wonder what the welfare scientists on the list think? Jon just a quick comment, barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued = elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue, = chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair = trigger excitement responses. A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can = help a dog learn self control. The males are less likely to work = themselves into a state where they stop eating, and overfocus on = romance. Anyone know any human males who lose their brains when = pheromones are in the air? The level of stimulation can be adjusted to = the dog and the lowest setting can act not as a painful shameful fear = inducing conditioned aversive but as a pattern interrupt that breaks a = dog out of a closed loop of behavior. Is slapping someone who is = hysterical unethical or appropriate and for that person's benefit if = hysterics are likely to endanger him/her? Is shouting NO! at someone = about to touch a live electrical wire in the highest interest of the = person? Interrupting a behavior makes it more conscious and more likely = to help the animal, canine or human, make a careful choice. A bark = collar is a useful tool and part of a good trainer's repertoire. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: lucy GRAY To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time = I introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine = behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your discussion = regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I thought I'd make = a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any = experience particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that = it involves administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the = dog barking. I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is = ethical? If the trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety wouldn't = adding punishment just reinforce the state of distress the dog is in? If = the dog is fearful of being alone then adding pain/discomfort is only = going to increase this fear. Surely this state of unavoidable punishment = will be detrimental to the dog, with the eventual outcome of the dog = becoming conditionally supressed and not able to carry 'normal' dog = behaviours.(I appreciate that this would be after prolonged exposure to = this type of device) When it possible to solve these problems in other = ways including changes to environment, counter conditioning, etc.. and = probably most important of all re-educating the owners, is there any = justification for using this type of device? =20 Lucy. =20 PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar = out there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work? From: IN%"sjackson@soton.ac.uk" 5-AUG-2003 15:05:53.29 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: e/shock collars Quoting Carol Goldschmidt : > Dear Colleagues, > > I have a practical question: Does anyone know of an easy method to > darken the material known variously as Perspex / Plexiglass / Acrylic > sheet? We have been making some "hides" and incorporating Plexiglass > windows (I have found that Grad Students are not to be trusted with > breakable materials like glass!). There are now lots of kits > available > with sheets of film for darkening car windows - there is even a choice > of percentage of light and heat transmission! However, in the > instructions for these kits, there is a clear warning NOT TO BE USED > ON > PLEXIGLASS. (Much to the chagrin of a Scotsman, this warning is NOT > on > the packaging - so only becomes known when the kit is bought and > opened!). Apparently the adhesive on the film causes acrylic to > become > cloudy. So... any suggestions for darkening Plexiglass would be > gratefully received. > > Yours, > > Ian D. > -- > Ian J.H. Duncan, > Professor of Applied Ethology, > Chair in Animal Welfare, > Department of Animal and Poultry Science, > University of Guelph, > Guelph, > Ontario N1G 2W1, > Canada > > Telephone: (519) 824 4120 ext 53652 > FAX: (519) 836 9873 > E-mail iduncan@uoguelph.ca > > Sara Jackson Anthrozoology Institute University of Bristol Husbandry Building Department of Clincal Veterinary Science Langford Bristol BS40 5DU From: IN%"sjackson@soton.ac.uk" 5-AUG-2003 15:07:49.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: e/shock collars (trying to get it right this time!!!!) Dear Laura, I am writing in response to your posting about standardisation of e/shock collars. Firstly I would like to say I am staying neutral as to whether or not they should be used for behavioural problems. Although I have years of experience in training gun dogs I am only starting to learn about behavioural problems and would be loath to comment on anything if I am not fully informed. I do not think anyone would disagree in saying that using a e/shock collar can lead to abuse and welfare problems if it is used incorrectly, whether or not the misuse is intentional. I believe you are quite correct in saying what would be useful for one dog would be pointless for another. This is similar, for example, to positive reinforcement in terms of what works for one dog may not work for another, depending on what motivates that individual dog. Therefore would it not be better to have a licensed product that can be prescribed by a vet, behaviourist or certified trainer, when they come into existence, that can determine the correct setting for that individual dog. It may mean trying the collar several times in different contexts to ascertain the best setting. The mechanism controlling the setting could then be disabled to prevent the owner from increasing it. It may not be rocket science to interpret a dog’s signals or behaviour but it does need some experience. I would not want to attempt to interpret behaviour in cats, or horses, at this point, as I no real experience with either. It is far too easy to misinterpret animal behaviour and many people who do not have an interest in behaviour or training do just that. Would it not be better to have some with experience ascertaining the correct setting? Thanks Sara From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 5-AUG-2003 15:57:14.21 To: IN%"jorighetti@optusnet.com.au" "Joanne Righetti", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: dog bites in disabled What an interesting topic! Service dogs to assist people with disabilities and pet visitation and animal assisted therapy have been done for many years with this population (of which I am one; I use a service dog). Are you researching the incidence with pet dog bites outside of therapeutic settings? Are you researching prevention in or outside of these settings? If I knew the target of your research, perhaps I could help direct you to resources. But you have to keep us posted. Cissy Joanne Righetti wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > > Does anyone know of any research into the incidence of dog bites in > disabled or special needs children or adults. > > Thanks, > > > > Joanne Righetti > > > > > > > > > > Dr Joanne Righetti > Animal Behaviour Consultant > Listen to the Pets-Music-Talk radio show at http://www.pettalkradio.com > From: IN%"appleby@petbcent.demon.co.uk" "David Appleby" 5-AUG-2003 15:58:47.52 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars -----Original Message----- >From: "Julie Alexander" >Sent: 05/08/03 21:34:34 >To: "Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" >Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > >Jon, >I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what type? Do you train dogs, if so by what methods and for what purpose? If you don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I don't think you're entitled to an opinion. If you don't train them to work under heavy distraction, you're disqualified also. ------------------------------------------- I can't answer this question for Jon but I was raised with dogs, trained and worked my own dogs in agility, trained and worked RAF police dogs for seven years, was a Guide Dog Mobility Instructor for seven years, have been an applied animal behaviourist since 1986 with an average case load of 40 new clients a month, have an MSc in pet behaviour counseling so I think I am qualified to comment and my comment is that I agree with everything Jon, who is no 'wincer' but is a thinker, has said. Best wishes. David ---------------------------------------- Name: David Appleby MSc 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: www.petbcent.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------- From: IN%"Shetts@aol.com" 5-AUG-2003 16:40:58.38 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: re:electronic collars Against my better judgement, I am going to make one post on this subject and related ones. First, there are certification programs for dog trainers. The Association of Pet Dog Trainers has one, National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors has one (although I think they refer to theirs as an endorsement), and the International Association of Canine Professionals has one. Of course none is universally accepted in the dog training field. Second - there are two professional organizations who certify academically trained animal behaviorists. One is the Animal Behavior Society - and the criteria for this does require experience, contrary to what an earlier post maintained. Visit their website at www.animalbehavior.org if you want details. The other is the College of Veterinary Behaviorists which is a board certified speciality for veterinarians. It also has experiential requirements as part of the required residency. Of course there are private schools who also claim to certify people, but the criteria are completion of their own training program, without any academic work from an accredited institution. And anyone can call themselves a "behaviorist" regardless of education or experience. There are no government regulations or licensing requirements. Nor for dog trainers for that matter. Third - Regarding the electronic collars AKA shock collars. I also agree with Jon and David's posts. Use of these collars was addressed in 2 documents - one being the Professional Standards for Dog Trainers: Effective Humane Principles, available from Delta Society (www.deltasociety.org) and the other being a Guide to Humane Dog Training available from American Humane Association (www.americanhumane.org). Fourth - This discussion brings up the ever present problem that certain individuals do not know how to have an objective discussion on a topic - even a strong disagreement - without turning it personal. I've been involved in the dog training field for years and I see this as an ongoing problem and have been the victim of such attacks on numerous occasions. I think it is important that anyone who calls themselves a professional in any field should know how to strongly disagree with another person's beliefs or opinions without resorting to personal attacks. This is a skill that can be taught, and learned. Last - Mr. Tony's website does indeed speak for itself. I agree with him fully on that point. Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Please change my email to: Suzanne@AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com Go to www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com to receive our monthly free ezine (first issue August) and information about other products and services 303-932-9095 fax 303-932-2298 From: IN%"ceann-icrc@lycos.com" 5-AUG-2003 17:48:17.72 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Jon, We can always count on you to be the "voice of reason". Thank you. I have always been told by an Ethologist that ethology simply means to try to see things from the animals point of view. I don't see that attitude from most of the dog trainers on the list. Empathy seems to be missing. I just simply can't imagine abusing any of my coyotes with a shock collar to keep it from howling. I don't have a lot of formal education the way most of the people on the list do, but I do have sixteen years of working with wolves and coyotes. I have never resorted to the use of punishment for my animals. Erich Klinghammer would have never tolerated it at Wolf Park. That meant we were forced to use other means to manipulate behviors. It is doable. CeAnn-- --------- Original Message --------- . From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 5-AUG-2003 17:56:38.92 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi Julie, Glad you are impatient because so am I. I am fed up with people who=20 attempt to belittle others by making broad criticisms of their=20 'experience' when they know nothing about them [Mr. Ancheta]. I am=20 also fed up with people who seek to batter others into silence by=20 implying that unless they meet some 'gold standard' they are not=20 entitled to voice any opinion at all. Frankly I don't see that you entitled to question me about my=20 professional or personal history because neither you nor I had to=20 satisfy any requirements to join this list and I have not challenged=20 your right to express your opinions. However, I can see that you are=20 not willing to listen to anything else I say unless I do... I am a veterinarian with a post-graduate qualification in behaviour=20 counselling, which is what I do full time now. I have run puppy classes=20= and done dog training of various types since I was a child. In my work=20= as a vet I have treated a number of cases of throat injury [fractured=20= larynx] and retinal haemorrages caused by overzealous use of correction=20= with choke chains and flat collars. I have acted as an expert witness=20 in several cases including one in which the inappropriate use of a=20 shock collar directly caused the death of another dog. I provide advice=20= to charities who specialise in training assistance dogs for the most=20 demanding uses. I don't breed dogs at the moment but I do have an intact male and=20 intact female who are kept together. One is actually very ill now and=20 so the issue of how to keep them together is very important. At college=20= we bred beagles and as students we were involved in various aspects of=20= husbandry of these dogs so I know what the technicalities of managing a=20= breeding programme looks like up close. Beagles are also very vocal=20 dogs but I don't remember anyone using a shock collar to shut them up. I have used a variety of different methods in the past but at the=20 moment I mainly use variations around clicker training, although I do=20 not use food as the only reinforcer. I also use conditioned punishers=20 once I know that the dog is responding with almost complete consistency=20= and understands what it should be doing. I find these methods works=20 best for the kind of behavioural work that I do but am open to other=20 ideas and constantly develop what I am doing. The kinds of uses I put=20 this to include inter-dog aggression, wildlife chasing, aggression=20 against people and fear or anxiety problems, all of which involve a=20 high degree of 'distraction'. These are often dogs who have learned to=20= behave in a particular way without any external control for a long=20 period of time so they are resistant to change. So I'm afraid that just because I don't agree with you, does not mean=20 that I don't know what I am talking about or don't have any experience. However i am sure that someone will try to find some kind of fault in=20 my experience or training [or simply say that I am not telling the=20 truth] because it suits them far better to do this than face the fact=20= that someone with at least as much knowledge as they have disagrees=20 with them. I don't accept any of your analogies because they involve people.=20 People are their own agents and can make far wider and better informed=20= choices over their behaviour than dogs can, and humans can understand=20 and rationalise the long term consequences of what they do. What does disappoint me immensely is that those who support the use of=20= shock collars do not want their design, safety and use to be better=20 regulated and that you have not focussed your attention on that point=20 in my original email. Instead all I got was a load of unnecessary abuse=20= from Mr. A. Jon On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 09:29 pm, Julie Alexander wrote: > Jon, > I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what=20 > type? Do you train dogs, if so=A0by what methods and for what=20 > purpose?=A0If you don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I = don't=20 > think you're entitled to an opinion. If you don't train them to work=20= > under heavy distraction, you're disqualified also. > Our=A0house=A0dogs are breeds that do not do well when kenneled. The = males=20 > show less stress=A0when kenneled around a=A0bitch in season than when = away=20 > from us. And from a sheer husbandry standpoint, we have found that=20 > chlorophyll added to the diet helps cut the scent significantly. > =A0And as we breed protection dogs whose standards of behavior are=20 > higher than the average pet dog and pet owner, yes we do expect them=20= > to have a brain when romance is in the air. We have gone so far as to=20= > have=A02 males down side by side nose to tail--on leash 2 handlers,=20 > while a bitch in season jumps over both of them. I've also seen=20 > stallions behave beautifully=A0in hand or under saddle around mares in=20= > standing heat.=A0Do you expect a bodyguard or a cop to lose it when a=20= > nice pair of human mammary glands enter the environment? Should a=20 > teenage boy be permitted to catcall, whistle and make rude comments=20 > because an attractive woman walks by? How many men either cause or=20 > nearly cause accidents because they become distracted staring at=20 > women? It is not just reasonable to expect males--canine and human, to=20= > control themselves but a safety issue. Do you consider it reasonable=20= > to lock up adolescent human males until their brain catches up with=20 > their gonads or teach them how to control themselves? > Certainly barking has different purposes. We specialize in protection=20= > dogs for families. Identifying the type of bark, the purpose and=20 > context is vital. Our livestock guardians have a response to dogs=20 > barking in the distance that seems to function like birdsong or howler=20= > monkey vocalizations. To say I'm here, this is my space, I know you=20 > are there, keep out! Quite different from a bark that signals deer or=20= > cattle near the fence, the one for coyotes, stray dogs, cougar and=20 > bear and different again from that announcing approaching humans. I=20 > described a specific temporary circumstance, the negative consequence=20= > of permitting the barking to continue and how the collar helped the=20 > dog learn self control. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Bowen > To: Julie Alexander > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > But barking has different functions in different situations and some=20= > dogs bark due to distress, which will certainly not be made any better=20= > by being shocked. > Those barking out of fear and territoriality may also be made worse. > The indiscriminate use of shock collars for all barking problems does=20= > not take into account individual motivation. > > I have to say that the situation you are describing with males barking=20= > for females on heat seems like one that is close to what I was=20 > describing in a previous email; a piece of poor husbandry covered up=20= > by the use of punishment. If this were a lab or breeding husbandry=20 > situation I would think it pretty disgraceful to house males and=20 > female dogs in close proximity and then use a shock collar to suppress=20= > the behavior that is an obvious consequence. there are other ways to=20= > avoid this situation, and I wonder whether anyone has given a thought=20= > to how the male dogs feel about being housed like this. It must be=20 > immensely frustrating. I would consider this a potential welfare=20 > problem but I wonder what the welfare scientists on the list think? > > Jon > > > just a quick comment, > barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued=20= > elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue,=20 > chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair=20= > trigger excitement responses. > A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can=20 > help a dog learn self control. The males=A0are less likely to work=20 > themselves into a state where they stop eating, and=A0overfocus=20 > on=A0romance. Anyone=A0know any human males who lose their brains when=20= > pheromones are in the air?=A0The level of stimulation can be adjusted = to=20 > the dog and the lowest setting can act not as a painful shameful fear=20= > inducing conditioned aversive but as a pattern interrupt that breaks a=20= > dog out of a closed loop of behavior. Is slapping someone who is=20 > hysterical unethical or appropriate and for that person's benefit if=20= > hysterics are likely to endanger him/her? Is=A0shouting NO! at someone=20= > about to touch a live electrical wire in=A0the highest interest of the=20= > person?=A0Interrupting a behavior makes it more conscious and more=20 > likely to help the animal, canine or human, make a careful choice. A=20= > bark collar is a useful tool and part of a good trainer's repertoire. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: lucy GRAY > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM > Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time I=20= > introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine=20 > behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your=20 > discussion regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I=20 > thought I'd make a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. > I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any experience=20= > particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that it=20 > involves administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the=20 > dog barking. I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is=20= > ethical? If the trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety=20 > wouldn't adding punishment just reinforce the state of distress the=20 > dog is in? If the dog is fearful of being alone then adding=20 > pain/discomfort is only going to increase this fear. Surely this state=20= > of unavoidable punishment will be detrimental to the dog, with the=20 > eventual outcome of the dog becoming conditionally supressed and not=20= > able to carry 'normal' dog behaviours.(I appreciate that this would be=20= > after prolonged exposure to this type of device) When it possible to=20= > solve these problems in other ways including changes to environment,=20= > counter conditioning, etc.. and probably most important of all=20 > re-educating the owners, is there any justification for using this=20 > type of device? > =A0 > Lucy. > =A0 > PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar=20 > out there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work? From: IN%"mad@nofeardavis.org" "Maren Plagens" 5-AUG-2003 17:58:41.51 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Electronic collars continued I see that there will never be a consensus on whether or not behaviorists or trainers or the general populous should use shock collars. Which I would like to point out when I have spoken with the manufacturers of different "shock collars" they are all shock collars, they administer a shock in order to stop / modify a behavior. The common practice of calling a shock collar an "e-collar" is a marketing scheme to make them sound more palatable. However, that is neither here nor there. 10-15 years ago I would have called a shock collar a last resort training tool. The equipment was not so flexible and well made as it is now. There was one "shock" level for all things and not all dogs have the same tolerance for the stimulus. I say stimulus because if you have ever felt a "shock" there are very few levels on a good collar that hurt. They, startle, or sting. Kind of like a nine-volt battery on the tongue (but most levels are even less) With the technology and the new equipment I am cannot call a properly administered 'shock' cruel or inhumane. It has been pointed out that the potential for abuse is there. Absolutely it is! Not just intentional abuse but accidental abuse because of mishandling. This is a possibility with ANY training devise! It is also a possibility that to not address behavioral problems will lead to neglect and abuse of the animal, whether barking, or chewing, or lack of self control. For example, the dog who incessantly barks with no training employed, we have at best a "de-barking" surgical procedure, and at worst a dog that is dumped at the local shelter. Another example, a dog that jumps the fence. At best a dog that is never let out of the outside pen (since the person in this example is obviously not willing to keep the dog in the house) and at worst a dog that is tethered 24/7 (not to mention the behavioral problems that come with this aside from the ethical) or that trip to the shelter. In my experience with the shock collar used in my training programs it is when someone comes to me with a dog that won't stop barking, or jumps the fence, or they simply cannot physically control the dog (a very small woman w/ a St. Bernard) or an aggressive animal, dog to dog or dog to people. These people are at wits end and if they do not find a solution FAST the dog will be the one to suffer. There are many times that I wish that people had thought before choosing which breed to buy, or if that can handle a dog. But the fact is that they already have the dog and some vested interest. My job is, first and foremost, to keep the dog in the home. (Barring abusive homes) In most cases a shock collar would not be necessary if these people had come to me (or another reputable trainer) first. But often bad behaviors have been set in my either bad trainers or the unknowing owners who do not understand conditioning. I am given a situation that is at it's absolute worst and I am given very little time to correct the problem. I know I will probably upset several people on this list by what I am about to say. Sometimes drastic measures are necessary to keep a dog from the "blue juice" as we call the euthanasia drug. If you can produce drastic improvements in a dog’s behavior very quickly you may very well save his life. Then you can back down and employ methods that are a little less stressful. "Drastic measures" do not mean cruel, painful or unethical. I use the word to mean high stress training. Which when done right can be very effective over a short period of time. Dogs do not react to such intense training over long term. No matter how "drastic" the training or how intense, I still hold that you will never get anywhere unless that dog is receiving 10x's as much praise as correction. A dog will fail unless you give him something he can achieve and let him know he has! I also want to make it clear that shock collars are not always those drastic measures (nor does the above mentioned training always include a correction collar of any type, it depends on the problem) There are plenty of everyday practical uses for the shock collar. It does not have to be overly stressful. If fact if used correctly (that key word of any training tool) can be more humane and more effective than many other commonly accepted training methods. In my personal experience shock collars are not a tool I often use, but I do use it. If you are one who believes that "negative" conditioning is cruel or wrong. Two things to think about: 1. Show me an animal who is "trained" that has never experienced "negative conditioning" remember that also includes with-holding the treat or saying the word "no" (If you find this animal I would like to meet the trainer and learn from them) 2. Since this is a behavior list, is it natural learning for any animal if you exclude negative stimulus? Look again at how animals learn in nature before you answer this. For those of you who read this whole long thread, this is a subject for the training email lists, not the behavior. Perhaps the question for this list should be: "Does a shock collar work to stop incessant barking, if so why? If not, why? And what is the negative effect on the animal if any when electrical impulses are delivered? Hell, we ought to also ask, are there any positive effects?" Maren Plagens Trainer, Rescuer, Behaviorist Animal Disaster Relief, Foster Care, Veterinary Assistant. From: IN%"mad@nofeardavis.org" "Maren Plagens" 5-AUG-2003 17:59:08.52 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Electronic collars continued I see that there will never be a consensus on whether or not behaviorists or trainers or the general populous should use shock collars. Which I would like to point out when I have spoken with the manufacturers of different "shock collars" they are all shock collars, they administer a shock in order to stop / modify a behavior. The common practice of calling a shock collar an "e-collar" is a marketing scheme to make them sound more palatable. However, that is neither here nor there. 10-15 years ago I would have called a shock collar a last resort training tool. The equipment was not so flexible and well made as it is now. There was one "shock" level for all things and not all dogs have the same tolerance for the stimulus. I say stimulus because if you have ever felt a "shock" there are very few levels on a good collar that hurt. They, startle, or sting. Kind of like a nine-volt battery on the tongue (but most levels are even less) With the technology and the new equipment I am cannot call a properly administered 'shock' cruel or inhumane. It has been pointed out that the potential for abuse is there. Absolutely it is! Not just intentional abuse but accidental abuse because of mishandling. This is a possibility with ANY training devise! It is also a possibility that to not address behavioral problems will lead to neglect and abuse of the animal, whether barking, or chewing, or lack of self control. For example, the dog who incessantly barks with no training employed, we have at best a "de-barking" surgical procedure, and at worst a dog that is dumped at the local shelter. Another example, a dog that jumps the fence. At best a dog that is never let out of the outside pen (since the person in this example is obviously not willing to keep the dog in the house) and at worst a dog that is tethered 24/7 (not to mention the behavioral problems that come with this aside from the ethical) or that trip to the shelter. In my experience with the shock collar used in my training programs it is when someone comes to me with a dog that won't stop barking, or jumps the fence, or they simply cannot physically control the dog (a very small woman w/ a St. Bernard) or an aggressive animal, dog to dog or dog to people. These people are at wits end and if they do not find a solution FAST the dog will be the one to suffer. There are many times that I wish that people had thought before choosing which breed to buy, or if that can handle a dog. But the fact is that they already have the dog and some vested interest. My job is, first and foremost, to keep the dog in the home. (Barring abusive homes) In most cases a shock collar would not be necessary if these people had come to me (or another reputable trainer) first. But often bad behaviors have been set in my either bad trainers or the unknowing owners who do not understand conditioning. I am given a situation that is at it's absolute worst and I am given very little time to correct the problem. I know I will probably upset several people on this list by what I am about to say. Sometimes drastic measures are necessary to keep a dog from the "blue juice" as we call the euthanasia drug. If you can produce drastic improvements in a dog’s behavior very quickly you may very well save his life. Then you can back down and employ methods that are a little less stressful. "Drastic measures" do not mean cruel, painful or unethical. I use the word to mean high stress training. Which when done right can be very effective over a short period of time. Dogs do not react to such intense training over long term. No matter how "drastic" the training or how intense, I still hold that you will never get anywhere unless that dog is receiving 10x's as much praise as correction. A dog will fail unless you give him something he can achieve and let him know he has! I also want to make it clear that shock collars are not always those drastic measures (nor does the above mentioned training always include a correction collar of any type, it depends on the problem) There are plenty of everyday practical uses for the shock collar. It does not have to be overly stressful. If fact if used correctly (that key word of any training tool) can be more humane and more effective than many other commonly accepted training methods. In my personal experience shock collars are not a tool I often use, but I do use it. If you are one who believes that "negative" conditioning is cruel or wrong. Two things to think about: 1. Show me an animal who is "trained" that has never experienced "negative conditioning" remember that also includes with-holding the treat or saying the word "no" (If you find this animal I would like to meet the trainer and learn from them) 2. Since this is a behavior list, is it natural learning for any animal if you exclude negative stimulus? Look again at how animals learn in nature before you answer this. For those of you who read this whole long thread, this is a subject for the training email lists, not the behavior. Perhaps the question for this list should be: "Does a shock collar work to stop incessant barking, if so why? If not, why? And what is the negative effect on the animal if any when electrical impulses are delivered? Hell, we ought to also ask, are there any positive effects?" Maren Plagens Trainer, Rescuer, Behaviorist Animal Disaster Relief, Foster Care, Veterinary Assistant. From: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "Johanna =?iso-8859-1?q?V=E4is=E4nen?=" 5-AUG-2003 18:08:22.67 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: new member Hello everyone, I just found this great list (better late than never)! My intrest area covers almost everything from behavioural ecology to ethical contemplations concerning attitudes towards pets, but for some years now, however, research on the behaviour and welfare of production animals has captured my attention most. I have worked mostly with lab animals and pigs earlier on but currently I am involved in a project where genetical basis of social behaviour and production traits is studied in fowl. At home I have two miniature poodles aged 9 and 6 years, and attend kennel and agility activities during my free time. Happy summerdays to all list members! Johanna _____________________________________________________________________ Johanna Väisänen, PhD student in Ethology Department of Biology IFM University of Linköping SE-58183 Linköping Sweden Phone: +46-13-281243 Mobile: +46-70-2254817 (+358-40-7462498 during summer time) Fax: +46-13-281399 Emails:johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se & johanna_vaisanen@jippii.fi From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 5-AUG-2003 18:26:19.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of concern about dogs barking. Here is my view/2-cents: My experience living in the city, and living now in a very hot climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance. Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water. AND this seems to be the biggie -- dog barks when it is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend and the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house. Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed. If you are breeding dogs, then you should be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed urban neighborhood. If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let you make friends with the dog. There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by the humans, not the dog. In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough. From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 18:57:18.76 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Do you expect a dog to work around a bitch in season? Our Dobes and Beaucerons both dislike being kenneled intensely and show more signs of stress than when in the house and near the bitches. Comparison based on behavior when kenneled before bitches are in season. Depends on the breed and bloodlines. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Appleby" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Julie Alexander" > >Sent: 05/08/03 21:34:34 > >To: "Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" > >Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > > >Jon, > >I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what > type? Do you train dogs, if so by what methods and for what purpose? If you > don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I don't think you're entitled > to an opinion. If you don't train them to work under heavy distraction, > you're disqualified also. > ------------------------------------------- > I can't answer this question for Jon but I was raised with dogs, trained and > worked my own dogs in agility, trained and worked RAF police dogs for seven > years, was a Guide Dog Mobility Instructor for seven years, have been an > applied animal behaviourist since 1986 with an average case load of 40 new > clients a month, have an MSc in pet behaviour counseling so I think I am > qualified to comment and my comment is that I agree with everything Jon, who > is no 'wincer' but is a thinker, has said. > > Best wishes. > > David > > ---------------------------------------- > Name: David Appleby MSc > 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: www.petbcent.demon.co.uk > ---------------------------------------- > From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 5-AUG-2003 19:36:50.95 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Jon, Great, you have a lot of experience and your statements may be true of = many other breeds or situations. But not with our dogs. I object to = sweeping comments without first getting more information. It is not = difficult to assess which=20 We are specialists who do not want to deal with average pet dogs nor = their owners. We don't try to advise the average pet owner, it is not in = our experience any more than training a pointer.=20 We know our dogs very well and place them in screened and matched = homes. Our male Beauceron came as re-home from a situation where he had = been very deprived socially and with little sensory stimulation. This in = a breed known for Velcro qualities. For Drako especially, being kenneled = is a severe stress. He'd rather stay inside for half an hour in the = morning while we have coffee than head outside to relieve himself. When = turned out even with our bitches, unless we are out with them, he will = return to the door within a few minutes. Once inside, he's content to = hang around us even when we're reading. Our Dobermans also do not like being kenneled. Our livestock guardians = are not as dependant on human contact. None of the dogs have behavior = problems when owners are gone during a normal workday if they are = inside. Put outside in a kennel and the neighbors will complain, the dog = will lose weight, pace and be overactive when turned loose.=20 So should we stress the bitches by kenneling them, stress the males by = kenneling them or use estrus as a training test? Keeping both sexes = inside for these particular dogs is a better option. Chlorophyll reduces = their interest in the bitches significantly, for perhaps 3 days at mid = cycle their interest is most intense. Given these details, do you still = recommend kenneling either sex? Julie ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jon Bowen=20 To: Julie Alexander=20 Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi Julie, Glad you are impatient because so am I. I am fed up with people who = attempt to belittle others by making broad criticisms of their = 'experience' when they know nothing about them [Mr. Ancheta]. I am also = fed up with people who seek to batter others into silence by implying = that unless they meet some 'gold standard' they are not entitled to = voice any opinion at all.=20 Frankly I don't see that you entitled to question me about my = professional or personal history because neither you nor I had to = satisfy any requirements to join this list and I have not challenged = your right to express your opinions. However, I can see that you are not = willing to listen to anything else I say unless I do... I am a veterinarian with a post-graduate qualification in behaviour = counselling, which is what I do full time now. I have run puppy classes = and done dog training of various types since I was a child. In my work = as a vet I have treated a number of cases of throat injury [fractured = larynx] and retinal haemorrages caused by overzealous use of correction = with choke chains and flat collars. I have acted as an expert witness in = several cases including one in which the inappropriate use of a shock = collar directly caused the death of another dog. I provide advice to = charities who specialise in training assistance dogs for the most = demanding uses. I don't breed dogs at the moment but I do have an intact male and = intact female who are kept together. One is actually very ill now and so = the issue of how to keep them together is very important. At college we = bred beagles and as students we were involved in various aspects of = husbandry of these dogs so I know what the technicalities of managing a = breeding programme looks like up close. Beagles are also very vocal dogs = but I don't remember anyone using a shock collar to shut them up. I have used a variety of different methods in the past but at the = moment I mainly use variations around clicker training, although I do = not use food as the only reinforcer. I also use conditioned punishers = once I know that the dog is responding with almost complete consistency = and understands what it should be doing. I find these methods works best = for the kind of behavioural work that I do but am open to other ideas = and constantly develop what I am doing. The kinds of uses I put this to = include inter-dog aggression, wildlife chasing, aggression against = people and fear or anxiety problems, all of which involve a high degree = of 'distraction'. These are often dogs who have learned to behave in a = particular way without any external control for a long period of time so = they are resistant to change. So I'm afraid that just because I don't agree with you, does not mean = that I don't know what I am talking about or don't have any experience. However i am sure that someone will try to find some kind of fault in = my experience or training [or simply say that I am not telling the = truth] because it suits them far better to do this than face the fact = that someone with at least as much knowledge as they have disagrees with = them. I don't accept any of your analogies because they involve people. = People are their own agents and can make far wider and better informed = choices over their behaviour than dogs can, and humans can understand = and rationalise the long term consequences of what they do. What does disappoint me immensely is that those who support the use of = shock collars do not want their design, safety and use to be better = regulated and that you have not focussed your attention on that point in = my original email. Instead all I got was a load of unnecessary abuse = from Mr. A. Jon On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 09:29 pm, Julie Alexander wrote: Jon, I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what = type? Do you train dogs, if so by what methods and for what purpose? If = you don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I don't think you're = entitled to an opinion. If you don't train them to work under heavy = distraction, you're disqualified also. Our house dogs are breeds that do not do well when kenneled. The = males show less stress when kenneled around a bitch in season than when = away from us. And from a sheer husbandry standpoint, we have found that = chlorophyll added to the diet helps cut the scent significantly. And as we breed protection dogs whose standards of behavior are = higher than the average pet dog and pet owner, yes we do expect them to = have a brain when romance is in the air. We have gone so far as to have = 2 males down side by side nose to tail--on leash 2 handlers, while a = bitch in season jumps over both of them. I've also seen stallions behave = beautifully in hand or under saddle around mares in standing heat. Do = you expect a bodyguard or a cop to lose it when a nice pair of human = mammary glands enter the environment? Should a teenage boy be permitted = to catcall, whistle and make rude comments because an attractive woman = walks by? How many men either cause or nearly cause accidents because = they become distracted staring at women? It is not just reasonable to = expect males--canine and human, to control themselves but a safety = issue. Do you consider it reasonable to lock up adolescent human males = until their brain catches up with their gonads or teach them how to = control themselves? Certainly barking has different purposes. We specialize in = protection dogs for families. Identifying the type of bark, the purpose = and context is vital. Our livestock guardians have a response to dogs = barking in the distance that seems to function like birdsong or howler = monkey vocalizations. To say I'm here, this is my space, I know you are = there, keep out! Quite different from a bark that signals deer or cattle = near the fence, the one for coyotes, stray dogs, cougar and bear and = different again from that announcing approaching humans. I described a = specific temporary circumstance, the negative consequence of permitting = the barking to continue and how the collar helped the dog learn self = control. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Bowen To: Julie Alexander Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars But barking has different functions in different situations and some = dogs bark due to distress, which will certainly not be made any better = by being shocked. Those barking out of fear and territoriality may also be made worse. The indiscriminate use of shock collars for all barking problems = does not take into account individual motivation. I have to say that the situation you are describing with males = barking for females on heat seems like one that is close to what I was = describing in a previous email; a piece of poor husbandry covered up by = the use of punishment. If this were a lab or breeding husbandry = situation I would think it pretty disgraceful to house males and female = dogs in close proximity and then use a shock collar to suppress the = behavior that is an obvious consequence. there are other ways to avoid = this situation, and I wonder whether anyone has given a thought to how = the male dogs feel about being housed like this. It must be immensely = frustrating. I would consider this a potential welfare problem but I = wonder what the welfare scientists on the list think? Jon just a quick comment, barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued = elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue, = chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair = trigger excitement responses. A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can = help a dog learn self control. The males are less likely to work = themselves into a state where they stop eating, and overfocus on = romance. Anyone know any human males who lose their brains when = pheromones are in the air? The level of stimulation can be adjusted to = the dog and the lowest setting can act not as a painful shameful fear = inducing conditioned aversive but as a pattern interrupt that breaks a = dog out of a closed loop of behavior. Is slapping someone who is = hysterical unethical or appropriate and for that person's benefit if = hysterics are likely to endanger him/her? Is shouting NO! at someone = about to touch a live electrical wire in the highest interest of the = person? Interrupting a behavior makes it more conscious and more likely = to help the animal, canine or human, make a careful choice. A bark = collar is a useful tool and part of a good trainer's repertoire. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: lucy GRAY To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time = I introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine = behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your discussion = regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I thought I'd make = a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any = experience particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that = it involves administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the = dog barking. I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is = ethical? If the trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety wouldn't = adding punishment just reinforce the state of distress the dog is in? If = the dog is fearful of being alone then adding pain/discomfort is only = going to increase this fear. Surely this state of unavoidable punishment = will be detrimental to the dog, with the eventual outcome of the dog = becoming conditionally supressed and not able to carry 'normal' dog = behaviours.(I appreciate that this would be after prolonged exposure to = this type of device) When it possible to solve these problems in other = ways including changes to environment, counter conditioning, etc.. and = probably most important of all re-educating the owners, is there any = justification for using this type of device? =20 Lucy. =20 PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar = out there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work? From: IN%"marine.bedoucha@wanadoo.fr" "Marine C. Bedoucha" 5-AUG-2003 20:19:02.50 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: introduction, and e-collars Dear all, Let me first introduce myself to the list again, as I have been away for a long time. My name is Marine Cassoret. I have completed a PhD last year at the University of Bristol under the supervision of Steve Kestin. My thesis was on Pain and Fear in fish, and the welfare aspects of Angling. I currently live in North Carolina. Still in the hope of finding a postdoc' , I currently assist my husband who, mostly, designs equestrian equipment (bits, mouthpieces, etc...). I pretty much enjoyed seeing the e-collar debate being brought up on the list. I have very little experience in dog training, being only an "amateur" - I train my Alaskan Malamutes in obedience (for the challenge or the embarrassment, or just to learn the true meaning of humility?). I may not therefore be entitled to give an opinion, so just take it as a very unscientific comment: I would agree with all of you who commented that there is no universal method, and that there is a potential risk of abuse with every one of them. You can ruin a horse's mouth with a "gentle" snaffle. You can destroy a dog's confidence by yanking him with a simple flat-buckle collar. I'd tend to think that it's not the method or the tools that can wreck an animal's training, but certainly muscle and (lack of)brains. I am appalled to see that e-collars (or even prong collars) can be bought by anyone in a petshop with little/no advice as to how to use them , or that anyone can buy a horse-bit with a cathedral-mouthpiece in a saddlery with the idea that it will certainly help stop/slow down his/her half-trained, under-exercised horse. I am very uncomfortable with the way e-collars are presented in stores. The term e-collar itself is, I believe, very misleading, and tends to "hide" the aversive function of the collar - giving the illusion that it is a quick, safe, universal way to train your dog from your sofa using a remote control. As an anecdote - I recently had to consider the use of an e-collar on one of my dogs. To cut a long story short, Malamutes generally have a strong prey drive. I have one who'd live with anything from horses to cats to hedgehogs. Not so much for the young male, and I've had trouble cat-proofing him, despite early, regular exposure and training (positive reinforcement/clicker-training). I am facing a dilemma: --The use of the e-collar affects the dog's welfare in the short term. BUT --I know that the dog will get the occasion to chase the cat outside, and badly injure/kill it if it catches it, or, perhaps kill a neighbour's cat with potentially terrible consequences for the dog itself ("cat-killers" often end up poisoned....). I am in this case affecting the dog's welfare in the long term, as well as endangering the cat's life. I think a similar situation would apply to a sheep chasing / killing dog living in a sheepcountry and which would most likely end up getting shot by farmers.... --Locking the cat up in the house, would not solve the problem (if it escapes, see above) and certainly affect its welfare in the long term. --I can certainly reinforce the "leave it" command, recall, etc.. but the chase/grab/kill is VERY self-rewarding, and the rewarding aspect increases on every chase ( and certainly will reach a climax once the cat is caught). --What I am left with is making the "leave it" VERY rewarding, and the chase UN-rewarding. Or simply aversive - Hence the idea of the e-collar. It is a drastic measure, but if used correctly, it will be used on a very short period of time. If it works, I believe it will benefit the dog, the cat, and me. (Have I used it yet? No. Have I tested it? Yes. I held the electrodes with one hand and pressed the remote. Only my hands were a bit damp and I had forgotten to check the intensity level, which was on max. Collar stayed in the box since that day.) Regards, Marine Cassoret-Bedoucha www.marinefishpage.fr.st/ From: IN%"canine.education@bigpond.com.au" "Canine Eduication and Behavioural Research" 5-AUG-2003 20:35:59.67 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars In reply to dogs working around bitches on heat our customs dogs (Australia) are all entire and yes they are expected to work in close proximity to the other sex including when bitches are on heat. To date there has been no drop in the number of finds and thus it is fair to say that their work has not suffered at all. No form of correction is routinely used to facilitate this rather it is considered to be an indication on the dogs ability to focus on the task at hand, those which cannot are removed from the program. It would also be fair to say that a male SAR dog which could not work a field because a bitch on heat was close by would also be pretty useless, but again this would not be considered (I would hope) to be a lack of training rather that the dog was not focused on the task at hand. Surely part of any working dogs training program is for it to be kennelled to at least a degree, this prevents the dog experiencing additional stressors when on overnight stay is required at the vets at the very least. Also could this inability to be kennelled also be considered to be a form of separation anxiety? If so again the possibility of insufficient exposure to stressors during the sensitive developmental periods can again be raised. To illustrate this one only has to look at the US Military's superdog program or to the rearing requirements of any of the service type dogs (both law enforcement and assistance) Please know that I am not trying to demean yourself or your dogs, this is an open list whereby we ALL hope to gain knowledge from each other and each others experiences. I am a great believer in the saying "that the height of unprofessionalism is resorting to personal attack", and thus I have no intention of going down that path. Regards Iain Macdonald "Canine Education and Behavioural Research" Sth Gippsland Hwy Lang Lang Victoria, Australia 3984 Ph 61 3 59975575 Mobile 0419 205120 From: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" 5-AUG-2003 21:02:37.49 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars All, Let me briefly interject a plea from another perspective. I am not a professional trainer, behaviorist, or behavior researcher, though that may well change someday. I work with shelter dogs on a volunteer basis. The training we do at the shelter is very practically oriented. We aim to modify behaviors that make dogs hard or impossible to find a permanent home for, or that make it hard for the dogs to interact successfully with their social or physical environment (fearful, aggressive, undersocialized, or other behaviors). Difficulty runs the gamut; most dogs in the shelter have issues; some just need some basic socialization and some experience with good dog-human or dog-dog interactions; some need intensive training; for the most serious cases we consult a few area behaviorists. What I value about the perspective of applied ethology, and what I often get out of this list, is a better understanding of the many and complex considerations that factor into understanding animal behavior. I'm coming from an animal welfare perspective, but trying to improve an animal's welfare without trying to understand its behavior, needs, and responses doesn't make any sense. People believe all sorts of things about dogs' needs and behavior; I don't need more half-grounded Grand Systems. I do need more well-grounded well-designed studies, and more critical and open conversations about what folks have observed and how to interpret it. I appreciate this list because the exchange of information, differing perspectives and suggestions *grounded firmly in observation* and *pursued openly, rationally, and cooperatively* furthers that understanding. Certainly people on this list often disagree, and what I value is that they usually discuss such disagreements calmly and cooperatively, each putting forward additional info that might help sort the known from the unknown and from the guessed. Jon and Margory, e.g., have had such exemplary disagreements. I'm more than interested in whatever people have to say about various training / positive reinforcement / negative reinforcement methods. I have found much of today's conversation immensely frustrating, because the open, critical exchange has been undermined by posturing and my-credential-is-bigger-than-your-credential games. As I saw it, Tony Ancheta initiated this by weighing in with a personal attack against Jon, rather than presenting an articulate counter-view to Jon's statements, along with information to support it. A few others, have joined in this credential-challenging and accusation-hurling. Here's the bottom line: I have no claim to direct anyone's activity on this list; I'm generally a non-contributing lurker. But this list surely shouldn't be about anyone -- not even their credentials. The question isn't about credentials, it's about support for claims. Attacking people is unneccesary and shuts down the development of knowledge. Please resist the temptation to attack and defend. Rather, go back to your usual model of discussing the substance of your disagreement, asking them to support their view, and offering support for yours. The shelter dogs and I thank you. Respectfully, Amanda Vizedom --- Julie Alexander wrote: > Jon, > Great, you have a lot of experience and your statements may be true of many > other breeds or situations. But not with our dogs. I object to sweeping > comments without first getting more information. It is not difficult to > assess which > We are specialists who do not want to deal with average pet dogs nor their > owners. We don't try to advise the average pet owner, it is not in our > experience any more than training a pointer. > We know our dogs very well and place them in screened and matched homes. Our > male Beauceron came as re-home from a situation where he had been very > deprived socially and with little sensory stimulation. This in a breed known > for Velcro qualities. For Drako especially, being kenneled is a severe > stress. He'd rather stay inside for half an hour in the morning while we have > coffee than head outside to relieve himself. When turned out even with our > bitches, unless we are out with them, he will return to the door within a few > minutes. Once inside, he's content to hang around us even when we're reading. > Our Dobermans also do not like being kenneled. Our livestock guardians are > not as dependant on human contact. None of the dogs have behavior problems > when owners are gone during a normal workday if they are inside. Put outside > in a kennel and the neighbors will complain, the dog will lose weight, pace > and be overactive when turned loose. > So should we stress the bitches by kenneling them, stress the males by > kenneling them or use estrus as a training test? Keeping both sexes inside > for these particular dogs is a better option. Chlorophyll reduces their > interest in the bitches significantly, for perhaps 3 days at mid cycle their > interest is most intense. Given these details, do you still recommend > kenneling either sex? > Julie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Bowen > To: Julie Alexander > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:54 PM > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > > Hi Julie, > > Glad you are impatient because so am I. I am fed up with people who attempt > to belittle others by making broad criticisms of their 'experience' when they > know nothing about them [Mr. Ancheta]. I am also fed up with people who seek > to batter others into silence by implying that unless they meet some 'gold > standard' they are not entitled to voice any opinion at all. > > Frankly I don't see that you entitled to question me about my professional > or personal history because neither you nor I had to satisfy any requirements > to join this list and I have not challenged your right to express your > opinions. However, I can see that you are not willing to listen to anything > else I say unless I do... > > I am a veterinarian with a post-graduate qualification in behaviour > counselling, which is what I do full time now. I have run puppy classes and > done dog training of various types since I was a child. In my work as a vet I > have treated a number of cases of throat injury [fractured larynx] and > retinal haemorrages caused by overzealous use of correction with choke chains > and flat collars. I have acted as an expert witness in several cases > including one in which the inappropriate use of a shock collar directly > caused the death of another dog. I provide advice to charities who specialise > in training assistance dogs for the most demanding uses. > > I don't breed dogs at the moment but I do have an intact male and intact > female who are kept together. One is actually very ill now and so the issue > of how to keep them together is very important. At college we bred beagles > and as students we were involved in various aspects of husbandry of these > dogs so I know what the technicalities of managing a breeding programme looks > like up close. Beagles are also very vocal dogs but I don't remember anyone > using a shock collar to shut them up. > > I have used a variety of different methods in the past but at the moment I > mainly use variations around clicker training, although I do not use food as > the only reinforcer. I also use conditioned punishers once I know that the > dog is responding with almost complete consistency and understands what it > should be doing. I find these methods works best for the kind of behavioural > work that I do but am open to other ideas and constantly develop what I am > doing. The kinds of uses I put this to include inter-dog aggression, wildlife > chasing, aggression against people and fear or anxiety problems, all of which > involve a high degree of 'distraction'. These are often dogs who have learned > to behave in a particular way without any external control for a long period > of time so they are resistant to change. > > So I'm afraid that just because I don't agree with you, does not mean that > I don't know what I am talking about or don't have any experience. > However i am sure that someone will try to find some kind of fault in my > experience or training [or simply say that I am not telling the truth] > because it suits them far better to do this than face the fact that someone > with at least as much knowledge as they have disagrees with them. > > I don't accept any of your analogies because they involve people. People > are their own agents and can make far wider and better informed choices over > their behaviour than dogs can, and humans can understand and rationalise the > long term consequences of what they do. > > What does disappoint me immensely is that those who support the use of > shock collars do not want their design, safety and use to be better regulated > and that you have not focussed your attention on that point in my original > email. Instead all I got was a load of unnecessary abuse from Mr. A. > > Jon > > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 09:29 pm, Julie Alexander wrote: > > > Jon, > I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what type? > Do you train dogs, if so by what methods and for what purpose? If you don't > breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I don't think you're entitled to an > opinion. If you don't train them to work under heavy distraction, you're > disqualified also. > Our house dogs are breeds that do not do well when kenneled. The males > show less stress when kenneled around a bitch in season than when away from > us. And from a sheer husbandry standpoint, we have found that chlorophyll > added to the diet helps cut the scent significantly. > And as we breed protection dogs whose standards of behavior are higher > than the average pet dog and pet owner, yes we do expect them to have a brain > when romance is in the air. We have gone so far as to have 2 males down side > by side nose to tail--on leash 2 handlers, while a bitch in season jumps over > both of them. I've also seen stallions behave beautifully in hand or under > saddle around mares in standing heat. Do you expect a bodyguard or a cop to > lose it when a nice pair of human mammary glands enter the environment? > Should a teenage boy be permitted to catcall, whistle and make rude comments > because an attractive woman walks by? How many men either cause or nearly > cause accidents because they become distracted staring at women? It is not > just reasonable to expect males--canine and human, to control themselves but > a safety issue. Do you consider it reasonable to lock up adolescent human > males until their brain catches up with their gonads or teach them how to > control themselves? > Certainly barking has different purposes. We specialize in protection > dogs for families. Identifying the type of bark, the purpose and context is > vital. Our livestock guardians have a response to dogs barking in the > distance that seems to function like birdsong or howler monkey vocalizations. > To say I'm here, this is my space, I know you are there, keep out! Quite > different from a bark that signals deer or cattle near the fence, the one for > coyotes, stray dogs, cougar and bear and different again from that announcing > approaching humans. I described a specific temporary circumstance, the > negative consequence of permitting the barking to continue and how the collar > helped the dog learn self control. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Bowen > To: Julie Alexander > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > But barking has different functions in different situations and some dogs > bark due to distress, which will certainly not be made any better by being > shocked. > Those barking out of fear and territoriality may also be made worse. > The indiscriminate use of shock collars for all barking problems does not > take into account individual motivation. > > I have to say that the situation you are describing with males barking > for females on heat seems like one that is close to what I was describing in > a previous email; a piece of poor husbandry covered up by the use of > punishment. If this were a lab or breeding husbandry situation I would think > it pretty disgraceful to house males and female dogs in close proximity and > then use a shock collar to suppress the behavior that is an obvious > consequence. there are other ways to avoid this situation, and I wonder > whether anyone has given a thought to how the male dogs feel about being > housed like this. It must be immensely frustrating. I would consider this a > potential welfare problem but I wonder what the welfare scientists on the > list think? > > Jon > > > just a quick comment, > barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued > elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue, chronically > elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair trigger excitement > responses. > A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can help > a dog learn self control. The males are less likely to work themselves into a > state where they stop eating, and overfocus on romance. Anyone know any human > males who lose their brains when pheromones are in the air? The level of > stimulation can be adjusted to the dog and the lowest setting can act not as > a painful shameful fear inducing conditioned aversive but as a pattern > interrupt that breaks a dog out of a closed loop of behavior. Is slapping > someone who is hysterical unethical or appropriate and for that person's > benefit if hysterics are likely to endanger him/her? Is shouting NO! at > someone about to touch a live electrical wire in the highest interest of the > person? Interrupting a behavior makes it more conscious and more likely to > help the animal, canine or human, make a careful choice. A bark collar is a > useful tool and part of a good trainer's repertoire. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: lucy GRAY > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM > Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time I > introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine behaviour. > So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your discussion regarding > electronic collars sparked my interest and I thought I'd make a rather > tentative attempt at an opinion. > I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any experience > particularly === message truncated === ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." -Pema Chodron --------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 5-AUG-2003 22:09:03.28 To: IN%"Shetts@aol.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 12:01 PM, Shetts@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 08/05/2003 12:48:41 PM Mountain Daylight Time, =20 > reddragn@bossig.com writes: > > barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued =20= > elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue, =20 > chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair =20= > trigger excitement responses > > > > I'm always looking for recent articles to be sure I keep current on =20= > the literature.=A0 Could you point me to the citation of the study you = =20 > are referring to which demonstrates barking dogs have higher cortisol =20= > levels, which I think is what you are saying from the somewhat =20 > confusing wording?=A0 Much appreciate it. > > Suzanne > Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. > Thank you Suzanne, I am interested in that citation as well. Trisha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PeTalk - solving problem behaviors one pet at a time Patricia Simonet P.O. Box 19429 Spokane, WA 99219 www.petalk.org psimonet@petalk.org (509) 456-8970 ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20= From: IN%"mccann51@adelphia.net" 5-AUG-2003 22:15:01.06 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Newcomer Hello all. My name is Maxx and as I'm most sure you all guessed from the subject title, I am a newcomer to the forum. As well as that I am also a but child and amateur in the field and - I'm sure - in comparison to most all of you. I have joined so that I might elevate my intellectual status and learn as much as I can from the people who know it well... all of you. I have been interested in the topic of ethology for all of my remembered life and have invested some time in the study of its most base form, but would greatly like to delve deeper as I would hope to make a profession of it some day. I guess what I am seeking is some possible advice on any books to read, tips for achieving my goal, tid-bits of information pertaining to ethology... anything. My primary interest in ethological studies is that of the canine, but that is by no means a restriction for other aspects of the field. Anyway... ThankU Very Much, Maxx McCann PS I apologize for the wordy and incoherent introduction, I assure you that I in no way will ever talk as such again but only do it out of a personal quirk reserved only for such occassions (introductions). Thanks for understanding... From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 5-AUG-2003 22:40:02.55 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Barking in dogs On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 05:25 PM, heather mcmurray wrote: > I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of =20 > concern about dogs barking.=A0 Here is my view/2-cents: > My experience living in the city, and living now in=A0a very hot = climate =20 > is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs =20= > bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance.=A0 Dogs bark if = =20 > they are hungry or run out of water.=A0 AND this seems to be the = biggie =20 > -- dog barks when=A0it=A0is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend = and =20 > the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house.=A0 Pet = dogs =20 > should be neutered/spayed.=A0 If you are breeding dogs, then you = should =20 > be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a = =20 > small house in a packed urban neighborhood. > If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you =20 > everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you =20= > in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let =20= > you make friends with the dog. > There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by =20= > the humans, not the dog. > =A0 > In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who =20 > keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to =20= > sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough.=A0 > Heather, Sophia Yin conducted an elegant study on canine communication, A New =20 Perspective on Barking in Dogs (Canis familiaris,) published in the =20 Journal of Comparative Psychology, June 2002. I think she also has a =20 downloadable PDF file on her website: http://www.nerdbook.com/sophia/barking.html She also has audio files of the various barks on website! Trisha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PeTalk - solving problem behaviors one pet at a time Patricia Simonet P.O. Box 19429 Spokane, WA 99219 www.petalk.org psimonet@petalk.org (509) 456-8970 ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20= From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 5-AUG-2003 23:34:17.15 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: RE: Quick into and re;electronic collars I sense that the group has managed to "shock" itself enough to modify its own behaviour! Some of the output is best sorted with held breath and a stick. I will address one "dollop". In 1961, a student at the Royal Veterinary College at Camden Town in London was involved in a fracas with a member of the teaching staff. The student became "hysterical". Professor James McCunn, Head of the Anatomy Department and Vice Principal of the Veterinary Faculty was very senior and dually qualified as a medical practitioner and veterinarian. He was a good man and kindly. He was however, very much in the intuitive mould of Charles Dickens and Rudyard Kipling. Confronted with severely distressed young woman he saw fit to smack her smartly across the face. She exploded with rage and punched his face before running franticly through the corridors screaming, amongst other thing, "McCunn is a Bastard". The professor was unassailable in status and repute. The student was gone. This was a disaster. The outcome now would be the dismissal in disgrace of the academic and a very different approach to the young woman. And rightly so. I have William Koehler's book open at page 52 of Part II. His prescription for "The Real Hood" is no less repugnant. Had any of the Police officers with whom I worked for 22 years served their charges in this fashion they would have been arraigned before a court of law. Police officers have been discharged or removed from their posts for such behaviour. And rightly so. Robin Walker From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 6-AUG-2003 00:26:55.41 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: re:electronic collars >Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:19:33 >To: Shetts@aol.com >From: Tony Ancheta >Subject: re:electronic collars > >Suzanne wrote: >Last - Mr. Tony's website does indeed speak for itself. I agree with him >fully on that point. > >Tony comments: >Then perhaps you'll agree with this as well. It is written by one of your own, a Ph.D in Psychology, specializing in ethology, thoeretical learning and behaviour therapy. At the time of this writing he had published more than 40 scientific papers on behaviour control in psychological and veterinary journals. > >Enjoy! > >If you are reading this sentence, most likely you are considering using electrical stimulation to train your dog. It is also likely that this consideration has been born out of a need, sometimes a feeling of desperation. > >You have tried everything you know but your dog seems to be resistant to training. Or your dog is well behaved for the most part but there are still some things he won't do. Or your dog behaves on-leash but seems to forget his lessons when he is off-leash. Or, most likely, your dog's behavior is creating, or could create, problems for you, your friends, your neighbors or himself. > >You are thinking of using electrical stimulation as a means of disciplining your dog to correct his problem behavior, in short, using it as punishment. You are considering using a remote-controlled electronic stimulator (Remote Trainer) because the other punishments you tried didn't seem to work. > >Well, sure enough, electrical stimulation can be used as a punishment. In fact, using it as a punishment is the most common way people think of using it. When they hear the words "electrical stimulation", they think of punishment. Surprisingly though, using electrical stimulation as a punishment is its least beneficial use. > >I am a professional problem solver when it comes to canine behavior and dog training. People from all over country bring their problem dogs and/or their training problems to me. They get themselves into a bind with their dog or dog training methods and then ask me to get them out. For me, solving problems with electrical stimulation is a way of life.However strange it may seem, punishment is the least likely training technique I employ when using electrical stimulation to solve these problems. > >In my experience, punishment is not the first technique I use, but actually the last. First, I use electrical stimulation to motivate beneficial behavior. If used properly, electrical stimulation can energize positive responding. If used properly, electrical stimulation can be used to greatly improve your dog's attitude toward training and performing, making him confident and eager to perform for you. After a dog's positive behaviors have been brought out, if there are any problems remaining, then I use electrical stimulation as a correction. > >My formula for problem solving with electrical stimulation has always been to first accent the positive and then, if necessary, eliminate the negative. My experience and the scientific literature have taught me that this is the best way to solve behavior and training problems, and probably the only way to get really permanent solutions. > >Right now you are probably asking yourself, "How can he use electrical stimulation to accent the positive?" Well, since you are thinking in terms of punishment, it seems impossible, but it isn't. The way I use electrical stimulation to energize beneficial behavior is first by applying the principles of avoidance training, and ultimately by applying the principles of relaxation training. Avoidance training and relaxation training are not new to behavioral scientists. Avoidance learning using warning cues was first demonstrated over 40 years ago and there are thousands of studies exploring its effectiveness. Relaxation learning using safety cues was first demonstrated 20 years ago. Avoidance learning and relaxation learning are natural processes that have existed since animals developed nervous and hormonal systems. > >Avoidance training and relaxation training are not new to me since I have been using these procedures for years. However, avoidance training and relaxation training, are new to the field of dog training. For dog trainers, this should be a revolutionary way to train dogs. To get some idea of how new they are, read the rationale and rules for these training principles. This may help you to decide whether a remote-controlled electrical stimulation will be useful to you. > >If fact, you should read this entire book from cover to cover, including the glossary, before deciding whether to use a remote-controlled electronic stimulator. Then be realistic in assessing you skills as a trainer. Remote Trainers are like magnifying glasses, and magnifying glasses don't care what they magnify. Good training skills can be greatly improved, but bad training skills can be worsened. > >Remote Trainers are not magic cures or automatic problem solvers. They don't necessarily make training easier; however, they do make possible what was formerly impossible or impractical. Remember, a Remote Trainer is only a tool, and a tool is only as good as its user. > >Dr. Daniel F. Tortora > >===================== > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 01:18:00.89 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Yes, and I don't use a shock collar. On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 01:46 am, Julie Alexander wrote: > Do you expect a dog to work around a bitch in season? > Our Dobes and Beaucerons both dislike being kenneled intensely and show > more signs of stress than when in the house and near the bitches. > Comparison based on behavior when kenneled before bitches are in > season. > Depends on the breed and bloodlines. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Appleby" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:58 PM > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Julie Alexander" >>> Sent: 05/08/03 21:34:34 >>> To: "Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" > >>> Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars >>> >>> Jon, >>> I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, > what >> type? Do you train dogs, if so by what methods and for what purpose? > If you >> don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I don't think you're > entitled >> to an opinion. If you don't train them to work under heavy > distraction, >> you're disqualified also. >> ------------------------------------------- >> I can't answer this question for Jon but I was raised with dogs, > trained and >> worked my own dogs in agility, trained and worked RAF police dogs for > seven >> years, was a Guide Dog Mobility Instructor for seven years, have been > an >> applied animal behaviourist since 1986 with an average case load of 40 > new >> clients a month, have an MSc in pet behaviour counseling so I think I > am >> qualified to comment and my comment is that I agree with everything > Jon, who >> is no 'wincer' but is a thinker, has said. >> >> Best wishes. >> >> David >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> Name: David Appleby MSc >> 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: www.petbcent.demon.co.uk >> ---------------------------------------- >> > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 01:36:20.57 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I am not going to make any specific recommendation about the way that=20 you are kennelling your dogs. I was merely pointing out that to keep dogs in an environment where=20 they have a high motivation to vocalise, and then use a shock collar to=20= suppress barking is a potential welfare problem. I am not going to get involved in a scrap about who works with the most=20= 'specialised' dogs because this would be silly. I am sorry that I did not ask you for more information, but it was your=20= choice to disclose the use of chock collars on your premises. Had you wished to present more information you could have done it. I don't think I am guilty of making sweeping statements about anything,=20= and it would be worth looking back to how this argument=20 started....which was about the use of shock collars to suppress barking=20= in a city in Australia. I posed a couple of questions: Is it right to use shock to suppress in an environment that promoted=20 it, and is it not our duty to do everything else to reduce barking=20 before using a shock collar? Is it right that there is no standard of manufacture for electronic=20 collars [by which I mean all types: gas, sonic and shock] because their=20= intensity, reliability and fail-safe design is not standardised? Should they be available for use by the general public? Another implied question was whether it is acceptable to use a shock=20 collar to suppress barking when research shows the superiority of a gas=20= type collar for this purpose. For the time being we have to live with the presence of various kinds=20 of electronic collars, but if they are to remain in use in the future=20 then surely it is in the interest of those who wish to use them if they=20= are made safer and less open to abuse? Jon > Jon, > Great, you have a lot of experience and your statements may be true of=20= > many other breeds or situations.=A0But not with our dogs. I object to=20= > sweeping comments without first getting more information. It is not=20 > difficult to assess which > We are specialists who do not want to deal with average pet dogs nor=20= > their owners. We don't try to advise the average pet owner, it is not=20= > in our experience any more than training a pointer. > =A0We know our dogs very well and place them in screened and matched=20= > homes. Our male Beauceron came as re-home from a situation where he=20 > had been very deprived socially and with little sensory stimulation.=20= > This in a breed known for Velcro qualities. For Drako especially,=20 > being kenneled is a severe stress. He'd rather stay inside for half an=20= > hour in the morning while we have coffee than head outside to relieve=20= > himself. When turned out even with our bitches, unless we are out with=20= > them, he will return to the door within a few minutes. Once inside,=20 > he's content to hang around us even when we're reading. > =A0Our Dobermans also do not like being kenneled. Our livestock=20 > guardians are not as dependant on human contact. None of the dogs have=20= > behavior problems when owners are gone during a normal workday if they=20= > are inside. Put outside in a kennel and the neighbors will complain,=20= > the dog will lose weight, pace and be overactive when turned loose. > So should we stress the bitches by kenneling them, stress the males by=20= > kenneling them or use estrus as a training test? Keeping both sexes=20 > inside for these particular dogs is a better option. Chlorophyll=20 > reduces their interest in the bitches significantly, for perhaps 3=20 > days at mid cycle their interest is most intense. Given these details,=20= > do you still recommend kenneling either sex? > Julie > =A0 > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jon Bowen > To: Julie Alexander > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:54 PM > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > Hi Julie, > > Glad you are impatient because so am I. I am fed up with people who=20 > attempt to belittle others by making broad criticisms of their=20 > 'experience' when they know nothing about them [Mr. Ancheta]. I am=20 > also fed up with people who seek to batter others into silence by=20 > implying that unless they meet some 'gold standard' they are not=20 > entitled to voice any opinion at all. > > Frankly I don't see that you entitled to question me about my=20 > professional or personal history because neither you nor I had to=20 > satisfy any requirements to join this list and I have not challenged=20= > your right to express your opinions. However, I can see that you are=20= > not willing to listen to anything else I say unless I do... > > I am a veterinarian with a post-graduate qualification in behaviour=20 > counselling, which is what I do full time now. I have run puppy=20 > classes and done dog training of various types since I was a child. In=20= > my work as a vet I have treated a number of cases of throat injury=20 > [fractured larynx] and retinal haemorrages caused by overzealous use=20= > of correction with choke chains and flat collars. I have acted as an=20= > expert witness in several cases including one in which the=20 > inappropriate use of a shock collar directly caused the death of=20 > another dog. I provide advice to charities who specialise in training=20= > assistance dogs for the most demanding uses. > > I don't breed dogs at the moment but I do have an intact male and=20 > intact female who are kept together. One is actually very ill now and=20= > so the issue of how to keep them together is very important. At=20 > college we bred beagles and as students we were involved in various=20 > aspects of husbandry of these dogs so I know what the technicalities=20= > of managing a breeding programme looks like up close. Beagles are also=20= > very vocal dogs but I don't remember anyone using a shock collar to=20 > shut them up. > > I have used a variety of different methods in the past but at the=20 > moment I mainly use variations around clicker training, although I do=20= > not use food as the only reinforcer. I also use conditioned punishers=20= > once I know that the dog is responding with almost complete=20 > consistency and understands what it should be doing. I find these=20 > methods works best for the kind of behavioural work that I do but am=20= > open to other ideas and constantly develop what I am doing. The kinds=20= > of uses I put this to include inter-dog aggression, wildlife chasing,=20= > aggression against people and fear or anxiety problems, all of which=20= > involve a high degree of 'distraction'. These are often dogs who have=20= > learned to behave in a particular way without any external control for=20= > a long period of time so they are resistant to change. > > So I'm afraid that just because I don't agree with you, does not mean=20= > that I don't know what I am talking about or don't have any > = experience. > However i am sure that someone will try to find some kind of fault in=20= > my experience or training [or simply say that I am not telling the=20 > truth] because it suits them far better to do this than face the fact=20= > that someone with at least as much knowledge as they have disagrees=20 > with them. > > I don't accept any of your analogies because they involve people.=20 > People are their own agents and can make far wider and better informed=20= > choices over their behaviour than dogs can, and humans can understand=20= > and rationalise the long term consequences of what they do. > > What does disappoint me immensely is that those who support the use of=20= > shock collars do not want their design, safety and use to be better=20 > regulated and that you have not focussed your attention on that point=20= > in my original email. Instead all I got was a load of unnecessary=20 > abuse from Mr. A. > > Jon > > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 09:29 pm, Julie Alexander wrote: > > Jon, > I'm rather impatient today. First do you breed dogs and if so, what=20 > type? Do you train dogs, if so=A0by what methods and for what=20 > purpose?=A0If you don't breed dogs or keep intact dogs together, I = don't=20 > think you're entitled to an opinion. If you don't train them to work=20= > under heavy distraction, you're disqualified also. > Our=A0house=A0dogs are breeds that do not do well when kenneled. The = males=20 > show less stress=A0when kenneled around a=A0bitch in season than when = away=20 > from us. And from a sheer husbandry standpoint, we have found that=20 > chlorophyll added to the diet helps cut the scent significantly. > =A0And as we breed protection dogs whose standards of behavior are=20 > higher than the average pet dog and pet owner, yes we do expect them=20= > to have a brain when romance is in the air. We have gone so far as to=20= > have=A02 males down side by side nose to tail--on leash 2 handlers,=20 > while a bitch in season jumps over both of them. I've also seen=20 > stallions behave beautifully=A0in hand or under saddle around mares in=20= > standing heat.=A0Do you expect a bodyguard or a cop to lose it when a=20= > nice pair of human mammary glands enter the environment? Should a=20 > teenage boy be permitted to catcall, whistle and make rude comments=20 > because an attractive woman walks by? How many men either cause or=20 > nearly cause accidents because they become distracted staring at=20 > women? It is not just reasonable to expect males--canine and human, to=20= > control themselves but a safety issue. Do you consider it reasonable=20= > to lock up adolescent human males until their brain catches up with=20 > their gonads or teach them how to control themselves? > Certainly barking has different purposes. We specialize in protection=20= > dogs for families. Identifying the type of bark, the purpose and=20 > context is vital. Our livestock guardians have a response to dogs=20 > barking in the distance that seems to function like birdsong or howler=20= > monkey vocalizations. To say I'm here, this is my space, I know you=20 > are there, keep out! Quite different from a bark that signals deer or=20= > cattle near the fence, the one for coyotes, stray dogs, cougar and=20 > bear and different again from that announcing approaching humans. I=20 > described a specific temporary circumstance, the negative consequence=20= > of permitting the barking to continue and how the collar helped the=20 > dog learn self control. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Bowen > To: Julie Alexander > Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > But barking has different functions in different situations and some=20= > dogs bark due to distress, which will certainly not be made any better=20= > by being shocked. > Those barking out of fear and territoriality may also be made worse. > The indiscriminate use of shock collars for all barking problems does=20= > not take into account individual motivation. > > I have to say that the situation you are describing with males barking=20= > for females on heat seems like one that is close to what I was=20 > describing in a previous email; a piece of poor husbandry covered up=20= > by the use of punishment. If this were a lab or breeding husbandry=20 > situation I would think it pretty disgraceful to house males and=20 > female dogs in close proximity and then use a shock collar to suppress=20= > the behavior that is an obvious consequence. there are other ways to=20= > avoid this situation, and I wonder whether anyone has given a thought=20= > to how the male dogs feel about being housed like this. It must be=20 > immensely frustrating. I would consider this a potential welfare=20 > problem but I wonder what the welfare scientists on the list think? > > Jon > > > just a quick comment, > barking is a self rewarding and adrenalizing behavior. The continued=20= > elevated level of adrenal can start to produce adrenal fatigue,=20 > chronically elevate cortisol levels and an entrenched pattern of hair=20= > trigger excitement responses. > A bark collar--we use them on males when bitches are in season, can=20 > help a dog learn self control. The males=A0are less likely to work=20 > themselves into a state where they stop eating, and=A0overfocus=20 > on=A0romance. Anyone=A0know any human males who lose their brains when=20= > pheromones are in the air?=A0The level of stimulation can be adjusted = to=20 > the dog and the lowest setting can act not as a painful shameful fear=20= > inducing conditioned aversive but as a pattern interrupt that breaks a=20= > dog out of a closed loop of behavior. Is slapping someone who is=20 > hysterical unethical or appropriate and for that person's benefit if=20= > hysterics are likely to endanger him/her? Is=A0shouting NO! at someone=20= > about to touch a live electrical wire in=A0the highest interest of the=20= > person?=A0Interrupting a behavior makes it more conscious and more=20 > likely to help the animal, canine or human, make a careful choice. A=20= > bark collar is a useful tool and part of a good trainer's repertoire. > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: lucy GRAY > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:51 AM > Subject: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > Hi, I have been lurking for a few days and thought it was about time I=20= > introduced myself. I am a student in the UK studying mainly equine=20 > behaviour. So a bit of a beginner I'm afraid.... anyway your=20 > discussion regarding electronic collars sparked my interest and I=20 > thought I'd make a rather tentative attempt at an opinion. > I feel I have to go with Jon on this one, I haven't had any experience=20= > particularly with this type of collar but I'm guessing that it=20 > involves administering punishment to decrease the likelyhood of the=20 > dog barking. I would agree that this is effective but wonder if it is=20= > ethical? If the trigger for the barking is one of fear/anxiety=20 > wouldn't adding punishment just reinforce the state of distress the=20 > dog is in? If the dog is fearful of being alone then adding=20 > pain/discomfort is only going to increase this fear. Surely this state=20= > of unavoidable punishment will be detrimental to the dog, with the=20 > eventual outcome of the dog becoming conditionally supressed and not=20= > able to carry 'normal' dog behaviours.(I appreciate that this would be=20= > after prolonged exposure to this type of device) When it possible to=20= > solve these problems in other ways including changes to environment,=20= > counter conditioning, etc.. and probably most important of all=20 > re-educating the owners, is there any justification for using this=20 > type of device? > =A0 > Lucy. > =A0 > PS Tony, didn't realise there was so many different types of collar=20 > out there! Could you give me a quick run down on how they all work? From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 01:46:59.57 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > Our Dobes and Beaucerons both dislike being kenneled intensely and show > more signs of stress than when in the house and near the bitches. In purely functional terms this is a problem that needs to be sorted out, because you are accepting 'the lesser of two evils' and have been 'forced' to resort to using a shock collar to suppress a highly motivated behaviour. > Depends on the breed and bloodlines. I am sure it does, but it is your choice to put the dogs in the situation they are in. The dogs don't have any other option, which is why stewardship of animals must always take into account their welfare. If certain breeds and lines don't cope well with a particular situation that is unavoidable in the intended system of husbandry and the only method of controlling the unwanted behaviour is to use a harsh method of punishment then perhaps other lines and breeds should be chosen or the system of husbandry changed. Don't take this as a general criticism of your breeding programme, it is just a comment on the generality within your statement. Jon From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 04:45:45.60 To: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" Subj: RE: Quick into and re;electronic collars Following from what Robin said, I remembered the recent case of Stephen=20= Barry King in the UK: Dog Trainer Stephen King Convicted LONDON, U.K.=AD=AD"Yesterday, August 14, [dog trainer] Stephen Barry=20= King was found guilty" of two counts of animal abuse, with separate=20 trials on two similar sets of charges scheduled for September and=20 October, his former girlfriend Sarah Boat e-mailed to ANIMAL PEOPLE=20 from London. Boat and the British online animal advocacy publication Ooze both=20 reported that British news media were barred from publishing details of=20= the first verdict, pending completion of the second and third trials. =20= The cases were heavily publicized earlier. King, 41, became notorious in Portland, Oregon, during the late=20 1980s for allegedly brutal tactics including "helicoptering" dogs by=20 their chains. Disapproved by most humane societies, similar methods=20 are used by many other trainers, and are recommended by William=20 Koehler, author of The Koehler Method of Dog Training (1962, 1990, =20 1996). Thus King was not charged with abusing dogs in Oregon. But there are precedents for conviction in Britain. Former Essex =20 police dog trainers Andrew White, 41, and Kenneth Boorman, 46, were=20= fired and jailed in 1999 as result of November 1998 convictions for=20 abusing five German shepherds during training sessions in 1997. One=20 dog died after being hung by his chain and kicked. A third Essex=20 trainer, Stephen Hopkins, 45, was also convicted and barred from=20 working with dogs, but was allowed to remain a police officer. The=20 British Association of Chief Police Officers soon afterward introduced=20= six reforms of police dog training procedures, at recommendation of=20 the RSPCA and the National Canine Defence League. King claimed to have=20= worked with police canine units in Oregon and California. The police=20 departments in question told cruelty investigator Bobbi Michaels of the=20= Portland organization CAPER that they never hired him=AD=ADbut some knew = of=20 him. For the rest of this article follow the link to=20 http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/02/10/dogtrainer1002.html This was written by an animal welfare pressure group, but it makes an=20 interesting read. Jon On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 06:34 am, Robin Walker wrote: > I sense that the group has managed to "shock" itself enough to modify > its own behaviour! > Some of the output is best sorted with held breath and a stick. > > I will address one "dollop". > In 1961, a student at the Royal Veterinary College at Camden Town in > London was involved in a fracas with a member of the teaching staff.=20= > The > student became "hysterical". Professor James McCunn, Head of the=20 > Anatomy > Department and Vice Principal of the Veterinary Faculty was very = senior > and dually qualified as a medical practitioner and veterinarian. He = was > a good man and kindly. He was however, very much in the intuitive = mould > of Charles Dickens and Rudyard Kipling. Confronted with severely > distressed young woman he saw fit to smack her smartly across the = face. > She exploded with rage and punched his face before running franticly > through the corridors screaming, amongst other thing, "McCunn is a > Bastard". The professor was unassailable in status and repute. The > student was gone. > > This was a disaster. The outcome now would be the dismissal in = disgrace > of the academic and a very different approach to the young woman. And > rightly so. > > I have William Koehler's book open at page 52 of Part II. His > prescription for "The Real Hood" is no less repugnant. Had any of the > Police officers with whom I worked for 22 years served their charges = in > this fashion they would have been arraigned > before a court of law. Police officers have been discharged or removed > from their posts for such behaviour. And rightly so. > > Robin Walker From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 6-AUG-2003 05:35:54.40 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Dear All, I am not a dog trainer (but I can make my cat sit on command). I have never bred dogs (but my Border collie once had pups). I have never used a shock collar or seen one working (except in an episode of Jackass in which it appeared to cause great pain!). But... I strikes me that the use of shock collars to prevent dogs from barking is one of those practices in which laboratory animals are better protected than pet animals. The noise generated by barking dogs in laboratories can be horrendous. I am aware that some laboratories use surgical de-barking, but to my knowledge, electric shock collars are not used. I would go so far as to say I think it would be highly improbable that a research establishment (in the UK) would be granted the necessary license for this. Why? Because it could be so easily argued that a constantly barking dog is obviously not suited for that environment and that alternative arrangements should be made to improve the animal's welfare, because of the potential for misuse, because it inflicts repeated inescapable pain and is therefore unethical. So, why are pet dogs considered differently? ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 05:41:46.87 To: CC: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" Subj: RE: Quick into and re;electronic collars There is more about Stephen Barry King here: http://www.oozemagazine.co.uk/guilty.htm And here... http://www.oozemagazine.co.uk/obeyorbecorrected.htm for those who would like to know about the methods he used and his criminal convictions. Jon From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 6-AUG-2003 07:10:12.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick into and re;electronic collars Stephan Barry King was not practicing the Koehler Method of Dog Training. Nor did he learn his "Helicoptering" technique from any of the Koehler books. Stephan Barry King never apprenticed under Bill Koehler, nor Dick Koehler, nor Patrick Smith, nor me. If you folks in England are having a problem with Mr. King, and he's trying to hide behind the Koehler book to save himself ... please feel free to have the prosecutor contact me and I will offer some advice on how to proceed with shutting him down. Please note, not only did he take his training off the west coast of the USA ... he took it all the way over to your side of the pond. BTW- Does he even use an e-collar? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 6-AUG-2003 07:47:31.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars >>> Jon Bowen 08/06/03 03:38 AM >>> Another implied question was whether it is acceptable to use a shock collar to suppress barking when research shows the superiority of a gas type collar for this purpose. What research is this, can you give a citation? I have observed dogs who are very stressed by the citronella collar, a collar I deem quite aversive. The punishment lingers long after the trigger, and isn't continuing to punish for behavior long after the undesired behavior has ended abusing the dog? I often wonder at those who decide certain tools are cruel and dub other tools kind, regardless of how the dog reacts to the tools. If the dogs response is not considered in deciding what is and is not aversive, whose welfare is really at issue? Vicki Magnus From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 6-AUG-2003 08:06:38.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Jon wrote: I don't believe this is a recognised distinction. For one thing Mr. Ancheta recognises that his own definition of a 'shock' collar refers to a device that, to his knowledge, has never been made! Tony comments: No, Jon, what I wrote was that I have never seen one commercially made in the US. It may very well be that there are companies in the UK that produce them ... not here, though. Those individuals that use them here a fabricating them on a cases-by-case basis ... there are way too many variables to produce them in mass. Further, I am not sure that they would have any mass appeal, not in this country anyway - they are barbaric. And becuase of the potential for harm coupled to how quick some in the U.S. are to sue people, I just don't think that any manufacturer would stick his neck out. Keep in mind that we in there are those here that would sue a barber for a bad haircut, and McDonald's once got sued for serving their coffee too hot. The e-collar, on the other hand, there are plenty of commercial manufacturers for those devices. They are safe enough to put into the hands of the general pet public. That that is a good thing is debatable. I, like many here, am uncomfortable with the tool being used without professional instruction. My problem with your approach to the arguement is that you want to place this device (one that has saved a good many dogs and owners a lot of grief and expense) in the catagory of thumb-screws and the Iron Maiden. And that just ain't so. To wit, you wrote: "I don't wish to draw lurid or unnecessary comparisons between shock collars and instruments of torture, but the (1)->electric torture batons used by interrogators seem to be pretty painfu. they don't involve any earthing and they certainly do get applied to specific parts of the body! Localised shocks can have body-wide effects too; just look at (2)->the Tazer devices used for knocking out criminals. Before anyone gets furious I am not comparing the shock collar with a Tazer, merely pointing out that the presence or absence of earthing has very little to do with the experience of shock." Tony asks: Why, Jon, did you not discuss the Tens units used by Chiropractors and physicians for the mitigation of pain? Jon continued: Both the collars [made by well known companies] I have produce variable levels of discomfort depending on the setting used, the conductivity of the skin and individual pain sensitivity. At high settings the shocks are appear very unpleasant to most people, but, as I have said before on this topic, the problem is that others may be much less severe and there is no regulation on what constitutes a safe and reliable shock collar. Tony comments: But that's not to say that one can not take a stand against an unsafe product, Jon. At least not in the U.S.. The case I mentioned where McDonald's was sued because their coffee was too hot ... the plaintiff won. Trust me folks, if the e-collar proves to be unsafe in the hands of a reasonable person, the manufacture will alter or more likely quit it's production. Could be that in the UK, you folks have to take everything to your politicos to get anything done, I don't know. But here in the US, we can settle things in the court of law. Jon you can have the final word on this, but please know ... and Suzanne Hetts can confirm with Martin Deeley when he returns from the UK ... I have been very public about the need for certification of dog-trainers and what they do. I am not, however, too concerned with how they get it done. Why? Because in this country if criminal abuse laws can't protect the public from abusive training practice, then (if there is a genuine case of abuse) the civil courts can get another shot at it (and the burdon of proof in those courts is much easier to meet). One or the other is going to shut the abusive trainer down. To wit: Your Stephan Barry King is no longer training dogs in the U.S.. And then, of course, there is the nature of 'Product Liability.' No American manufacturer would knowingly put an unsafe product into the hands of the general public. One lawsuit could force them into bankruptcy. Those of you that want information on stim levels, and why it is not practical to standardize one, please contact me privately. This list is not for the discussion of training technique and philosophy, as many have pointed out. Though, as time permits, I am happy to clue you in on how to select, set-up, and use this device in a safe and sane manner (if it's appropriate to use it at all). Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 6-AUG-2003 09:32:33.13 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Electronic collars continued At 19:05 05/08/03 -0500, Maren Plagens wrote: > I >say stimulus because if you have ever felt a "shock" there are very few >levels on a good collar that hurt. They, startle, or sting. Kind of like >a nine-volt battery on the tongue (but most levels are even less) With >the technology and the new equipment I am cannot call a properly >administered 'shock' cruel or inhumane. Following on from my previous questions, how does one know what the same shock feels like to the dog? Surely it isn't enough to check it on oneself. Can we presume a shock that does not hurt you would also not hurt a dog? In any case, the shock must at least be unpleasant for the dog for it to work as a punisher. Or is that too simplistic? Francis From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 10:57:07.64 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick into and re;electronic collars Glad you don't support this guy, and i was pretty sure you wouldn't. The problem is that King used a 'common practice' defence in his trial in your country, in which he cited the practices of fellow trainers who used similar methods as well as the Koehler methods. This got him off prosecution but where should a line be drawn? Not a good result for anyone. Jon On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 02:10 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Stephan Barry King was not practicing the Koehler Method of Dog > Training. > Nor did he learn his "Helicoptering" technique from any of the Koehler > books. Stephan Barry King never apprenticed under Bill Koehler, nor > Dick > Koehler, nor Patrick Smith, nor me. > > If you folks in England are having a problem with Mr. King, and he's > trying > to hide behind the Koehler book to save himself ... please feel free > to have > the prosecutor contact me and I will offer some advice on how to > proceed > with shutting him down. Please note, not only did he take his > training off > the west coast of the USA ... he took it all the way over to your side > of > the pond. > > BTW- Does he even use an e-collar? > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" 6-AUG-2003 10:58:02.48 To: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Electronic collars continued This points quite directly to what is surely among the biggest problems in animal welfare: the divergence in interpretations of animal responses and what they mean with respect to the animal's state. IMHO, the difficulty of establishing which interpretations are (more or less) correct feeds the proliferation of Grand Theories of dog training, e.g., each based on a grain or two of insight and heaps of speculation. I have read a brief description of research in which methods have been or are being developed for making progress on this, by: (a) measuring physiological stress indicators such as cortisol levels, heart rate, perhaps even brain activity, etc., in animals of a particular kind, and (b) establishing correlations between such measures and readily observed behaviors (vocalizations, pacing, lip-licking, what have you) in animals of that kind -- and thereby giving solid ground for observation-based testing of the stress caused, or aleviated, by various ways of housing/training/etc. such animals, and finally (c) applying this to test, with some comparatively objective basis, claims about what does or doesn't stresses the animals, and to what degree. Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind as possible locations of the research I read about. Does anyone know more? Either about this kind of research in general, or about whether it has been applied to the use of e-collars, or anything relating it to barking in dogs? Thanks, Amanda --- Francis Burton wrote: > Following on from my previous questions, how does one know what > the same shock feels like to the dog? Surely it isn't enough > to check it on oneself. Can we presume a shock that does not > hurt you would also not hurt a dog? > > In any case, the shock must at least be unpleasant for the dog > for it to work as a punisher. Or is that too simplistic? > > Francis > ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." -Pema Chodron --------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 6-AUG-2003 11:06:24.68 To: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Electronic collars continued Amanda, Do you mean 'Does anyone know about animal welfare research in general'? Chris > > Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind as possible locations of > the research I read about. Does anyone know more? Either about this kind of > research in general, or about whether it has been applied to the use of > e-collars, or anything relating it to barking in dogs? > > Thanks, > Amanda > > > --- Francis Burton wrote: > > Following on from my previous questions, how does one know what > > the same shock feels like to the dog? Surely it isn't enough > > to check it on oneself. Can we presume a shock that does not > > hurt you would also not hurt a dog? > > > > In any case, the shock must at least be unpleasant for the dog > > for it to work as a punisher. Or is that too simplistic? > > > > Francis > > > > > ===== > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > -Pema Chodron > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 11:10:56.06 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hi Vicki, the reference is: Juarbe-Diaz, S.V., and Houpt, K.A. (1996): Comparison of two antibarking collars for nuisance barking. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 32. Pp 231-235. I believe there is another, or at least an update to this, but I cannot find it at the moment. i agree that citronella collars may cause stress, especially if used in situations in which the motivation for vocalisation is distress. This is why I raised the issue of standards for all collar types because as we all know, the electronics periodically fail and the animal may be subjected to unavoidable repeated aversive experiences. My opposition to shock collars is that they carry a risk of causing rather then resolving behavioural problems, which is borne out by papers such as that of Polsky, as well as my own experience with cases in which shock collars have been inappropriately used. I know people will jump on the issue of 'inappropriate', but the point here is that the speed with which animals learn about aversive experiences makes a powerful shock collar a more risky proposition than other forms of punishment [i would generalise this to other similar electronic devices]. Dogs can make strong aversive associations after just a single ill-timed powerful shock. Hence my desire to see these devices regulated in terms of design and use so that no collar is designed to cause excessive pain and such items may not be used by the untrained or unsupervised. I would disagree with your last comment because my experience is that I have seen cases in which the dog has found the use of a collar extremely aversive and has developed serious problems as a result. There is also plenty of research [from the experimental psychology field mainly] which demonstrates the effects of shock on learning, stress and welfare. jon On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 02:47 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: >>>> Jon Bowen 08/06/03 03:38 AM >>> > Another implied question was whether it is acceptable to use a shock > collar to suppress barking when research shows the superiority of a gas > type collar for this purpose. > > What research is this, can you give a citation? I have observed dogs > who are very stressed by the citronella collar, a collar I deem quite > aversive. The punishment lingers long after the trigger, and isn't > continuing to punish for behavior long after the undesired behavior has > ended abusing the dog? > > I often wonder at those who decide certain tools are cruel and dub > other > tools kind, regardless of how the dog reacts to the tools. If the dogs > response is not considered in deciding what is and is not aversive, > whose welfare is really at issue? > > Vicki Magnus > > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 11:32:33.41 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Hi Tony, the distinction you draw between shock and e-collars is not based in fact. If it is can you please direct me to any reliable and respected source which originates or supports this distinction? On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 03:05 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > To wit, you wrote: > "I don't wish to draw lurid or unnecessary comparisons between > shock collars and instruments of torture, but the (1)->electric torture > batons used by interrogators seem to be pretty painfu. they don't > involve any earthing and they certainly do get applied to specific > parts of the body! Localised shocks can have body-wide effects too; > just look at (2)->the Tazer devices used for knocking out criminals. > Before > anyone gets furious I am not comparing the shock collar with a Tazer, > merely pointing out that the presence or absence of earthing has very > little to do with the experience of shock." > > Tony asks: > Why, Jon, did you not discuss the Tens units used by Chiropractors and > physicians for the mitigation of pain? Very simply because TENS machines are designed to alleviate pain by blocking nerve conduction. This principle has nothing to do with the use of shock collars unless you are genuinely asserting that shock collars have their electrodes positioned and their electrical impulses designed to produce pain relief!!!! interestingly I have looked at the electrical properties of TENS designs when investigating the kinds of waveforms used in shock collars. The designers of TENS machines found that certain types of electrical pulses delivered at certain frequencies produced less localised stinging and other noxious sensations. They also found that others produced increased pain. The collar which I have electrically tested did not produce impulses that followed the TENS design. > Tony comments: > But that's not to say that one can not take a stand against an unsafe > product, Jon. At least not in the U.S.. The case I mentioned where > McDonald's was sued because their coffee was too hot ... the plaintiff > won. > Trust me folks, if the e-collar proves to be unsafe in the hands of a > reasonable person, the manufacture will alter or more likely quit it's > production. Could be that in the UK, you folks have to take > everything to > your politicos to get anything done, I don't know. But here in the > US, we > can settle things in the court of law. Our system must be at fault then...which is obviously why Stephen Barry King got off charges in America and came over here, where we successfully prosecuted him!!! Being serious though, nobody has the time or the money to go after shock collar companies when their equipment fails or is badly designed. Much better to make sure they satisfy standards so that prosecutions carry real weight and it is not matter of having to fight every battle from scratch. I don't see why pet dogs should be the beta-testing facility for the manufacturer of electrical products. Most other electrical goods have to satisfy basic manufacturing standards so why should shock collars be different. I resent the implication that we hide behind 'politicos'...regulation is a normal feature of a democratic process. > Jon you can have the final word on this, but please know ... and > Suzanne > Hetts can confirm with Martin Deeley when he returns from the UK ... I > have > been very public about the need for certification of dog-trainers and > what > they do. I am not, however, too concerned with how they get it done. > Why? > Because in this country if criminal abuse laws can't protect the > public from > abusive training practice, then (if there is a genuine case of abuse) > the > civil courts can get another shot at it (and the burdon of proof in > those > courts is much easier to meet). One or the other is going to shut the > abusive trainer down. To wit: Your Stephan Barry King is no longer > training > dogs in the U.S.. Because he was escaping his reputation..and it took a UK court to convict him. Perhaps I have an overdeveloped sense of natural justice but I don't see why animals should be subjected to potentially cruel training methods in the expectation that one day the perpetrator will be jailed. Do people value animals so little that they are willing to subject them to this? > > And then, of course, there is the nature of 'Product Liability.' No > American manufacturer would knowingly put an unsafe product into the > hands > of the general public. One lawsuit could force them into bankruptcy. I am afraid that this is not the way the world works. All the time companies make judgements about profit, cost of manufacture and the cost of liability. The US has many recent examples, from some recent problems with tyres on 4wd Fords right back to a US motor car that had a design fault and the manufacturer was found to have deliberately continued manufacturing it because it knew its profits would outweigh any liability damages. > Those of you that want information on stim levels, and why it is not > practical to standardize one, please contact me privately. This list > is not > for the discussion of training technique and philosophy, as many have > pointed out. Though, as time permits, I am happy to clue you in on > how to > select, set-up, and use this device in a safe and sane manner (if it's > appropriate to use it at all). Shame because that might be a useful discussion, especially as it was what was asked for at the beginning!! Jon From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 6-AUG-2003 11:54:35.25 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic Tony Ancheta: > Those of you that want information on stim levels, and why it is not > practical to standardize one, please contact me privately. This list is not > for the discussion of training technique and philosophy, as many have > pointed out. Though, as time permits, I am happy to clue you in on how to > select, set-up, and use this device in a safe and sane manner (if it's > appropriate to use it at all). > margory cohen wrote in --= I hope clearly, I'm wracked up with a back ache and filled with meds! Without any intended order I offer a few points: First of all, Tony Ancheta is one of the best trainers in any place, anywhere. Second, I think this topic >is< relevant to this list especially given the experience Tony that you bring. Because, as Suzanne Hetts pointed out (not just the flak that people get but) the various guidelines that have been proposed in this country -- not without dissent and disagreement and the politics such papers are bound to be tied up in -- but because the whole Dog Industry -- and it has become that -- an industry -- is very much under siege and dogs are getting put down by the day instead of being properly trained. And often those who set the rules for life or not are in academies where some of those authors have never trained a dog. Science is great and interesting and all well and good. But some of those who would decree how you or I live with >and study< our dogs are (1) not published in science journals; (2) not experienced in real life situations where dogs do any form of work beyond the job of companion; and (3) -- are just blinded by good intention and a wrong identification for what is real kindness, what is really humane. All this other stuff and especially some of the attacks on Mr. Koehler -- and Dr. Walker, you know I'm a huge fan and admirer -- but taking out of context from the Koehler book cheapens. It's just not on a higher level for the chance for real discussion that we have here. I think the Koehler attacks reveal 2 things: (1) that one is not really knowledgeable about the Koehler Method of Dog Training (KMODT), and (2) that one is completely not responding to the facts or truth of a situation. I believe Tony Ancheta wrote back about the fella who was used an example of one who operated using this as a credential when in fact what he was doing is NOT KMODT. In San Francisco 2 of the dogs who for years have caused problems with mine belong to a board member for the SPCA. Don't talk to me about kindness, we've been that route before here and my voice on that will not has not and won't change, 'cause I'm interested in the real thing. I am not going to sacrifice mine because the academies decree something is not appropriate and because vets would rather prescribe drugs than really treat a dog by telling an owner to find the proper training. Frankly, walking with a dog on a leash without knowing the possibilities for how to do that easily and without discomfort to dog or person, from where I sit often what passes for how to do that, is more cruel than any collar correction =- and I will use that word. Vicki Magnus, nice to see you here. (If you've been here and I just now realized it, then these meds I'm on are a bonus!). I appreciated what Amanda Vizedom wrote that Jon Bowen and I disagree in a civil way and also this that she wrote: "Attacking people is unnecessary and shuts down the development of knowledge. Please resist the temptation to attack and defend. Rather, go back to your usual model of discussing the substance of your disagreement, asking them to support their view, and offering support for yours. The shelter dogs and I thank you." I hope Tony that some of your experience in this can be seen in the list, and that Mr. Campbell will come in on it too. I think your voices on this in this forum -- well, for the likes of me, it's symphonic. -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 6-AUG-2003 12:06:15.49 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars <> Thank you. Here are an article you might be interested in reading: Vollmer PJ (1979a.) Electrical stimulation as an aid in training: Part 2. Bark training collars. Vet Med Small Anim Clin, Nov:1600-1601. Of course I wouldn't base my opinion on only one study. If the dogs reaction is not taken into account, then I am uncertain what is being dicussed from a training point of view. Certainly ecollars, rather used for training or as invisible fences have the potential for misuse, just as they have the potential for delivering a well timed and measured aversive event. The potential misuse of tools is a long discussion, though not perhaps a useful one. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" 6-AUG-2003 12:32:53.31 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Electronic collars continued Chris, No, I mean: Does anyone have specifics, e.g., citations, to work that ties behavioral observation (of which ethologists and trainers have a great deal, but interpret differently) to physiological signs of stress, so that questions (like Francis', below) about the *dogs'* experience of shock collars, gas collars or other things can be answered to greater satisfaction! -Amanda --- Chris Sherwin wrote: > > Amanda, > > Do you mean 'Does anyone know about animal welfare research in general'? > > Chris > > > > > > Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind as possible locations > of > > the research I read about. Does anyone know more? Either about this kind > of > > research in general, or about whether it has been applied to the use of > > e-collars, or anything relating it to barking in dogs? > > > > Thanks, > > Amanda > > > > > > --- Francis Burton wrote: > > > Following on from my previous questions, how does one know what > > > the same shock feels like to the dog? Surely it isn't enough > > > to check it on oneself. Can we presume a shock that does not > > > hurt you would also not hurt a dog? > > > > > > In any case, the shock must at least be unpleasant for the dog > > > for it to work as a punisher. Or is that too simplistic? > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > ===== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > > -Pema Chodron > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ............................................................. > Dr C.M. Sherwin > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > University of Bristol, > Langford House, > Langford, > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." -Pema Chodron --------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 13:00:07.85 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic > I think the Koehler attacks reveal 2 things: (1) that one is not > really knowledgeable about the > Koehler Method of Dog Training (KMODT), and (2) that one is completely > not > responding to the facts or truth of a situation. Knowing Robin I cannot imagine that he is not intimately familiar with virtually every word in the Koehler book and I am sure that he is also very well informed on Koehler training. Perhaps there is some general defensiveness because the Koehler method has been heavily criticised in the past and nobody likes to be branded a dog abuser. The problem is that one sets out one's stall when one writes a book. There is no taking anything back, qualifying it or asking for it to be reinterpreted. Rewrites do not take away what was once written. The original Koehler book is now pretty old and is written from the perspective of someone who lived in a different era...one in which slapping a hysterical girl had very different consequences, as Robin suggested. Times have changed and things have moved on but this book remains a relic. Koehler senior was obviously a smart man and if he were alive today I am sure he would write something completely different. If people use the term 'Koehler' as a description of their training methods then they have to accept the whole baggage that goes with that, good and bad. The name is a franchise that brings all kinds of publicity and opportunity, so those that use it need to be open and willing to defend themselves. To be challenged is a natural and desirable consequence of promoting a particular opinion. Jon From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 6-AUG-2003 13:09:29.25 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I think any discussion is useful especially where the prevention of misuse of a training might prevent harm being done to an animal. That applies to choke chains, shock collars and anything else you fancy. Thanks for the reference. I read the Vollmer piece a long time ago but don't consider it relevant as it is more of an educational article than a scientific paper. It was written at an early stage in the development of behavioural therapy and its content has been superceded. Many of the books from that period contain odd therapies and concepts which even the authors don't use any more. Jon On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 07:05 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: > < antibarking collars for nuisance barking. Journal of the American > Animal Hospital Association. 32. Pp 231-235.>> > > Thank you. Here are an article you might be interested in reading: > Vollmer PJ (1979a.) Electrical stimulation as an aid in training: Part > 2. Bark training collars. Vet Med Small Anim Clin, Nov:1600-1601. > > Of course I wouldn't base my opinion on only one study. > > If the dogs reaction is not taken into account, then I am uncertain > what > is being dicussed from a training point of view. Certainly ecollars, > rather used for training or as invisible fences have the potential for > misuse, just as they have the potential for delivering a well timed and > measured aversive event. The potential misuse of tools is a long > discussion, though not perhaps a useful one. > > Vicki Magnus > > > From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 6-AUG-2003 13:46:33.32 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Then and Now Jon wrote: Times have changed and things have moved on but this book remains a relic. Koehler senior was obviously a smart man and if he were alive today I am sure he would write something completely different. Tony comments: Nope. Bill had the opportunity to re-write the book in 1990. Instead, he added four new articles to the original work and out to press it went. It wasn't broke, so he didn't fix it. Relic? Two copies shipped today to Austrailia and one to Germany. Your sentence above should read: "Times have changed, yet this book remains in demand, worldwide. Why?" Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 6-AUG-2003 15:55:18.42 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars I'm late to this discussion, but would like to comment on Julie's question based on my own experiences. I had a wonderful Malinois service dog trained for me. I had him in NYC for several months before 9/11. He was fabulous. 9/11 freaked him out. He developed health and behavior problems. I had to retire him. Things went from bad to worse. He became people aggressive. I worked with trainers and behaviorists. Bottom line, I am not a skilled enough handler to deliver aversives in a humane and effective manner. And I don't think I have the temperament to do so. I consider this a flaw in my dog handling ability because it means there are tools that I cannot use. We were all living with an incredible level of stress and it certainly wasn't fair to the dog. I returned to dog to his trainer for evaluation and rehoming. Once he got out of this environment, he was fine and returned to his wonderful self and will be rehomed this week. This dog would have bitten and possibly been destroyed. I didn't have the skill to handle him. I'm a wincer. Maybe aversives would have helped him learn what was expected of him. It's not something I can do. Luckily, my first service dog, a Caucasian Ovcharka, handles R+, P- training just fine. I've put her back to work while I re-evaluate my handling/training skill levels and include that in my choice of another dog. "Wincers" as you so aptly called us, are out there in huge numbers. It doesn't help the situation that there's now an aura of superiority attached to it. A healthy, properly trained and handled temperament appropriate companion animal is basically stress free. They are few and far between. That's probably the saddest and most wide-spread abuse issue of all. Cissy Julie Alexander wrote: > Hand a tough minded dog whose destructive, overly boisterous or > dangerous behavior to a wincer and ask them what they will do to save > the dog's life. Would they take 16 weeks of demonstrating the desired > behavior, holding the dog accountable for it's decisions, testing and > proofing? From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 6-AUG-2003 16:14:07.62 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology@Skyway.Usask.Ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic Jon Bowen: > If people use the term 'Koehler' as a description of their training > methods then they have to accept the whole baggage that goes with that, > good and bad. > The name is a franchise that brings all kinds of publicity and > opportunity, so those that use it need to be open and willing to defend > themselves. > To be challenged is a natural and desirable consequence of promoting a > particular opinion. > margory: I think, Jon, that -- well 2 things: First of all, I don't know that Koehler is a 'franchise.' That's Tony Ancheta's realm to say. I can tell you that some trainers have been prosecuted and their defense as using Koehler Method was soundly knocked down in court in this country because it WAS NOT the Koehler Method of Dog Training that was being used. Noted trainer and author Carol Lea Benjamin was in a similar situation in recent years, when a fella tried to claim he handled a dog as he found in one of her books. Carol Lea Benjamin. Secondly, nobody admires Dr. Walker more that I -- howsoever, I think random selection of any text, out of context, and put in a context where the reality of the text is clearly used to distort, is not the standard one has come to expect. I don't think that shows anyone in their best light. Look - what also comes with anybody who studies something that is controversial are people who see what's really behind that issue. And finally, I find at least in some of the dog life that I experience, there are voices who will stand to say -- that's not so. That interpretation or application is not correct. I don't know about your experience, but mine in the internet is tired from reading in chat lists, consisting of owners or trainers, and sometimes here too, where the range is varied, I'm tired of reading "better dead than trained." I want to run my hounds fairly on public land that was promised for this use. I want to take my hounds in the town square. If the same vehemence that Mr. Koehler's method gets were applied to scofflaws who don't pick up, and don't honestly train so that when it's said "Bowser come!" and he doesn't but the owner continues to have excuses made for him or worse, not be taught training that works -- well, it would be for some of us an easier day. I can't sit anymore. Anymore than on some issues, where character is attempted to be sullied, I can be silent. -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 6-AUG-2003 17:40:21.79 To: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Cissy, Knowing your limitations and that you do not have the skill to apply any technique effectively doesn't fit you in the category of wincer. It makes you a realistic woman who compassionately did what was in the highest interest of a beloved animal partner. And you also accepted that it is a limitation for the type of partner that you can work with. Wincers are more the group who would literally put a dog down rather than use tough love and feel free to watch from a distance, shake their heads and mutter oh my! I could never do that! and kill a dog with kindness. Generally they seem to think that a dog that can't be managed with purely positive input is unfit to cohabitate with civilized humans. Those dogs that require some tough love mixed with positive lessons can only be handled by barbarians and neither are fit to share the planet with civilized people. For some dogs who are insensitive to touch and perhaps not auditorially sensitive either this means few people can find a way to effectively get their attention. I heard Labrador retrievers described as dogs willing to jump out of a perfectly good boat into cold water at the sound of a shotgun going off a few feet away. Should they be expected to be highly sound or touch sensitive? According to one well known Border Collie trainer, good sheepdogs are almost always thunderphobic. But the high attentiveness to auditory signals makes this seem to me like the price paid for such responsiveness. A Doberman or other protection dog who is too sensitive to touch might quit in a fight. A high pain tolerance can be good for a family dog because a child stepping on a dog's paw won't be bitten because the dog is in pain. And that also means that a light leash cue won't get through to that dog in the early stages of training because the dog just isn't aware of it. Several of our dogs love to heel most with a finger touch on the head, neck or withers, connecting us by feel. Others prefer to focus on us visually, some by listening to subtle cues like breathing. But all in the beginning required signals that were stronger and more distinct. While we use Bridge and Target training, we also integrate leash work that we developed after learning to have light hands on a bridle riding a horse. The leash became not a way to control but communicate. But we have strong willed dogs and each and everyone of them at sometime tries to either do something they are taught is forbidden or refuse to do something they have been taught that is mandatory for safety reasons like come when called. There is more motivation for them to try to do or don't whatever they want than comply. And for those mandatory safety issues we will apply consequences that lead to an understanding of do it because we tell you to. Yes we start all those behaviors with positive reinforcers, from play, praise, petting, toys, goodies. That may not be nearly as much of a draw as that coyote in the field. We live in an area with bear, cougar, bobcat, porcupine, and skunks. We believe that if a dog is taught carefully with some aversives the dog will understand that the word CAREFUL! means that something painful is nearby and it is in the dog's best interest look at us for information. A friend and her 8 year old son visited one summer. Aaron wanted to explore the aspen grove when we were tired. He had on shorts and sandals. I showed him what stinging nettles looked like and told him to be careful as they were scattered around. He dashed off and within 2 minutes shot back with a nettle rash. The next day when on a walk in the pasture he was running down the horse trail. I told him to be careful as there were ground squirrel holes. He immediately slowed to a walk. He just didn't have a gut understanding of being careful in a remote area until he got the nettle rash. Personally, I think he learned an invaluable lesson that he could not have learned without some unpleasant consequences. If I use an e collar on the lowest effective setting to get a dog to respond to CAREFUL! when I've put out skunk scent am I being brutal or teaching a dog that life in the real world can bite and how to avoid danger? I think that this type of tough love is true love. Some dogs will respond to such distractions and a vocal cue only. Some do not. Some children do not and many adults are oblivious to hazards. We choose to teach our dogs the coping skills needed to stay safe. We could use a long line/check cord but they get tangled in brush and are more likely to damage a neck. We start with tempting things close by and verbal reprimands or mild aversives like a squirt bottle but our dogs are prone to try things when we are further away to check the context--do you really mean it at 20', 50'? You know yourself and what you can and can't do. Matched up with a dog that suits your personality you are probably a first rate owner, trainer and handler. Compassionate and intelligent. And I'll bet that if your dog was about to say hello to a rattlesnake while you had a sore throat, you'd toss a rock at it or the snake to get the dog to boogie on out. You'd rather risk hurting the dog's feeling or bruise ribs than risk needing antivenin. take care Julie ----- Original Message ----- From: "cissy stamm" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:54 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars > I'm late to this discussion, but would like to comment on Julie's > question based on my own experiences. > > I had a wonderful Malinois service dog trained for me. I had him in NYC > for several months before 9/11. He was fabulous. 9/11 freaked him out. > He developed health and behavior problems. I had to retire him. > > Things went from bad to worse. He became people aggressive. I worked > with trainers and behaviorists. > > Bottom line, I am not a skilled enough handler to deliver aversives in a > humane and effective manner. And I don't think I have the temperament to > do so. I consider this a flaw in my dog handling ability because it > means there are tools that I cannot use. We were all living with an > incredible level of stress and it certainly wasn't fair to the dog. > > I returned to dog to his trainer for evaluation and rehoming. Once he > got out of this environment, he was fine and returned to his wonderful > self and will be rehomed this week. > > This dog would have bitten and possibly been destroyed. I didn't have > the skill to handle him. I'm a wincer. Maybe aversives would have helped > him learn what was expected of him. It's not something I can do. > > Luckily, my first service dog, a Caucasian Ovcharka, handles R+, P- > training just fine. I've put her back to work while I re-evaluate my > handling/training skill levels and include that in my choice of another dog. > > "Wincers" as you so aptly called us, are out there in huge numbers. It > doesn't help the situation that there's now an aura of superiority > attached to it. A healthy, properly trained and handled temperament > appropriate companion animal is basically stress free. They are few and > far between. > > That's probably the saddest and most wide-spread abuse issue of all. > > Cissy > > > Julie Alexander wrote: > > > Hand a tough minded dog whose destructive, overly boisterous or > > dangerous behavior to a wincer and ask them what they will do to save > > the dog's life. Would they take 16 weeks of demonstrating the desired > > behavior, holding the dog accountable for it's decisions, testing and > > proofing? > > From: IN%"lvann@nc.rr.com" "Laurie Vann" 6-AUG-2003 19:35:03.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Question... I have a question. I am just a dog owner ( not an animal behaviorist ) who has a major problem with her pet. I got my dog from the SPCA over a year ago. He was a stray and has never had a long term home till now. He is almost 2 years old and is a Great Dane/Lab mix. He has barked since day one. If someone outside walks by he barks. I mean.. hair standing up on it's back VICIOUS bark. So far he hasn't bitten anyone and I don't believe he will but my problem is this. I know he is scared and that is why he barks but he is very big and intimidating to others. I have tried the spray collars.. the shock collars... the remote control shock collars and nothing helps. I don't want to give up on this dog but I am running out of options... any suggestions would be helpful.. Thanks! Laurie From: IN%"L.Colledge@elsevier.nl" "Colledge, Lisa (ELS)" 7-AUG-2003 01:55:18.04 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca'" CC: Subj: Free colour figures in electronic papers published in Applied Ani mal Behaviour Science Dear All, I am writing to inform you about a new benefit for the authors and = readers of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, that Elsevier hopes will further support and enhance your scientific research.=20 The 'Colourful E-Products' initiative means that any colour figure = submitted with a manuscript will be published in colour FREE OF CHARGE in the electronic version of the article in Elsevier web products, including ScienceDirect=AE: http://www.sciencedirect.com, regardless of whether = it is published in black-and-white or colour in the printed copy (printed = colour figures will still be subject to a charge). We hope that this provides a welcome step forward now that scientists increasingly access information on line. Scientists in many disciplines = need to be able to publish their work in colour, but the cost of colour = printing may be prohibitive and we realise that not all scientists have = appropriate funds to cover the charges.=20 In order to ensure that your submitted material is directly usable, = please follow our guidelines. To view these, please visit the website of = Applied Animal Behaviour Science at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/applan and = click on the Author Gateway link in the left-hand, orange column. The Artwork Instructions link should answer any questions. Best wishes. Lisa=20 Dr Lisa Colledge=20 Publishing Editor=20 ********************************=20 Animal/Veterinary Sciences Section=20 Elsevier=20 P.O. Box 993=20 1000 AZ Amsterdam=20 The Netherlands=20 ********************************=20 Tel: +31-20-485-3850=20 Fax: +31-20-485-3249=20 E-mail: l.colledge@elsevier.com=20 From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 7-AUG-2003 02:48:52.44 To: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Electronic collars continued Hi Amanda, The problem here is that you appear to be relying on physiology to validate behavioural indicators of welfare. This is problematic because sometimes physiology might change dramatically, although the animal's welfare is not being compromised. Take, for example, deer. During rutting, stags can lose 30% bodyweight, they become dehydrated, corticosterone concentrations and deep body temperature, etc. go through the roof. But, the animal is following it's normal behaviour patterns and it's welfare (i.e. it's mental state) is probably very good if it has successfully defended it's harem and mated. I'm not saying that we can't use physiology as an indicator of welfare, but we need to be very careful about interpretation and (absence of) correlation with behaviour. My own approach here if you needed objective data on how aversive these collars are would be to measure the animal's motivation to avoid them. Having said this, there are decades of psychology studies showing that rats avoid electric shocks to the feet - argument by analogy would therefore suggest that electric shocks are aversive to dogs, and potentially painful. Incidentally, there are many studies on farm and laboratory animals in which the multifactorial approach of physiological and behavioural indicators has been taken. All the best, Chris On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Amanda Vizedom wrote: > Chris, > > No, I mean: Does anyone have specifics, e.g., citations, to work that ties > behavioral observation (of which ethologists and trainers have a great deal, > but interpret differently) to physiological signs of stress, so that questions > (like Francis', below) about the *dogs'* experience of shock collars, gas > collars or other things can be answered to greater satisfaction! > > -Amanda > > > --- Chris Sherwin wrote: > > > > Amanda, > > > > Do you mean 'Does anyone know about animal welfare research in general'? > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind as possible locations > > of > > > the research I read about. Does anyone know more? Either about this kind > > of > > > research in general, or about whether it has been applied to the use of > > > e-collars, or anything relating it to barking in dogs? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Amanda > > > > > > > > > --- Francis Burton wrote: > > > > Following on from my previous questions, how does one know what > > > > the same shock feels like to the dog? Surely it isn't enough > > > > to check it on oneself. Can we presume a shock that does not > > > > hurt you would also not hurt a dog? > > > > > > > > In any case, the shock must at least be unpleasant for the dog > > > > for it to work as a punisher. Or is that too simplistic? > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > > > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > > > -Pema Chodron > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ............................................................. > > Dr C.M. Sherwin > > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > > University of Bristol, > > Langford House, > > Langford, > > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > > > > ===== > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > -Pema Chodron > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 7-AUG-2003 02:52:23.18 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: electronic collars I should start by saying that I use various behavioural techniques, various psychotropic medications, and often do not use electronic collars. This article is part of a long running series of articles most of which have been published in the Australian Veterinary Journal or The Veterinarian. It is not meant to be comprehensive. The topic is far too involved to cover in anything short of a book! That should not stop us trying to have some meaningful exchange of ideas and experiences. And I suppose I assume too much when I write for the Australian Publications, because there are only two brands of collars available in my State and I use both. I mainly use the dog activated bark triggered devices. Each brand is programmed very differently. The two brands I use have exceeding low outputs and are not painful though they are unpleasant. They are vibration triggered so can only be triggered by the wearing dog and can not be false triggered by some other dog barking. One model of collar is triggered by a combination of noise and vibration so really can not false trigger. It is important to understand how a particular collar operates prior to using it as they can be very different. It is also important to understand why it is being used in any particular case and to provide the dog with suitable alternate activities and ensure it is leading a well rounded life. I can only say that I am very pleased this is generating so much input, but please try not to be personally abusive to anyone. Nothing is achieved by ad hominen attacks, and as we all well know, a positive state of mind enhances learning. Ignorance is a state of mind and not a poverty of facts, Cheers, Jackie Perkins From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 7-AUG-2003 03:06:08.28 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Does it make a significant difference whether the dog is aware that someone is causing the punishment or not? I'm thinking of the difference between electronic collars and, for example, shouting NO! or gripping the dog by the scruff and shaking. Also, it strikes me that one of the potential problems of the collars is that the person operating them doesn't have any kind of physical feedback (maybe what's needed is a dual collar that shocks the operator simultaneously with the dog!) ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 7-AUG-2003 03:21:22.39 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Take a long look at the list of side effects of the psychotropic medications..they are potentially very dangerous medicines. And some of them can worsen target behaviours especially if the wrong one is used. Jackie Perkins -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:12 PM To: Geiger Cc: carolineb@verticalmarkets.com.au; 'Behavioural Medicine Discussion List'; Robert Holmes; 'Simon Coghlan'; Ian Heighway; 'Dick Murray'; Jane Harper; 'Mike Harper'; Mandy Finnimore; Rachel Bowater; Ron Hyne; Owen Lavers; 'Steve Ireland'; Peter Lumsdale; Malcolm Mclennan; 'Le Hamer'; Linda Paton; 'Kevin Doyle'; kaye@k9collars.com.au; John Holliday; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca; Jo Toia Subject: Re: electronic collars Doesn't the only published comparison paper show that gas type collars are more effective for barking problems? ...and isn't it more important to work out why the dog is barking and address that first...surely you don't put shock collars on dogs with separation distress problems? ...and what about the risk of creating aggression as seen in Polsky's paper? I have seen cases like this and I don't feel comfortable with indiscriminate use of collars. ...and what about reliability? Any sound activated device like this can be falsely triggered by scratching or simply because it fails to work properly. this happens a lot with the non-shock collars. What are the consequences for shock collars? The trouble we have in the UK is that electric collars are available for use by anyone, [they can be bought in pet shops] and there is no standard on what power of discharge they produce. There are no standards for manufacture or reliability for any of the electronic training devices [shock, sonic or gas], which is a disgrace. The voltage/current/joules figures are meaningless because a lot depends on how the energy is supplied [over what area, duration of time, what kind of pulses or waveforms used]. If a drug used for treating nuisance barking had an 'adverse effect' profile like those of an electronic training aid, with the same kind of variations in quality and efficacy would it ever be licensed? It certainly would not be for sale in the supermarket. Anyone who supports the use of electric collars should ought to join the argument in favour of stopping sales to the general public and in favour of creating proper licensing and standards of manufacture. Jon On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 11:13 pm, Geiger wrote: I enjoyed reading the article entitled "collaring a tough issue". I will begin by stating my belief that the dog triggered electronic devices of the low output variety that I use are completely humane and approach 100% effectiveness. I could almost agree with Simon's views but I think we need a bigger picture perspective here. There are many stakeholders when dealing with problem dog behaviours that impact upon the community and not merely the health of the individual dog and the happiness of the owner. As Veterinarians we can not afford to ignore the bigger picture. We must also be sensitive to human health and welfare issues if we are to remain effective practitioners. That is the bottom line. I am beginning to believe that barking dogs are more of a problem in the warmer climates such asQueenslandand WA than in the more temperate climates of NSW and Victoria. The main reasons are because dogs are left outside more in warmer climates to avoid heatstroke, fencing is less substantial to improve breezes and utility, and there is a vast quantity of foot traffic and wildlife on the move attracting and stimulating the outdoor dog's territorial nature all leading to loads of nuisance barking. Perhaps nuissance barking must be experienced to be appreciated for the drain on societal health that it truly is. One dog can cause sleeplessness and anxiety for hundreds of humans. One dog can also trigger other dogs and teach them to nuisance bark. I find electronic collars to be both humane and highly effective but have no special fondness for them. They are merely another tool. I do not doubt the motives of those sincerely opposed to electronic collars, they are entitled to their ethical position and they must respect mine. I sometimes wonder if their position may become more mobile if they were personally subjected to the mind numbing toothache quality of a constant nuisance barker. To work through a list of alternative treatments takes weeks all the while people's health is badly affected and the dog's behaviour becomes increasingly entrenched. Why not just start with the electronic solution which is the most effective and humane treatment. It may be used concurrent with any other treatment. I can not agree with Simon that electronic collars should be lumped in together with surgical debarking. The two treatments effect the dog very differently. Dogs wearing electronic bark control collars can easily have their attentions redirected. I have seen only two surgically debarked dogs during practice and they continue the nuisance barking habit despite the volume being turned down. The collar modifies behaviour, surgical debarking does not. Yours sincerely, Dr Jacqueline Perkins Veterinary Behaviour Consultant GOOD DOG From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 7-AUG-2003 03:29:07.64 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: lighten up! Thanks Jon. The article you refer to (Juarbe?)does not describe the brand of collars used nor the settings used, was not double blinded, was apparently performed by someone seeking the outcome that was found. It is totally contrary to my experience. The participants were biased by the use of the incorrect term "shock collar". In my experience people may be easily biased one way or another in their attitudes depending on how something is presented. We really need lots of good quality research into the matter of behaviour modifying collars. Cheers, Jackie -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:29 PM To: Geiger Subject: Re: lighten up! Thanks for sending this, it is fantastic. Jon From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 7-AUG-2003 03:36:22.88 To: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Hi Rosemary, that is exactly, what i think is one central argument against e-collars fo= r debarking or dog training. Psychologically there would be a limiting of force used against the dog by= the owner. It's this feeling to be ashamed by own overreaction, which is regulating the owners behaviour against the dog (The thinking, i get him T= OO HARD punished. I have to correct myself and find a better way to work this= out...). Hope you get the idea. Most of us feeling very sensible/sensitive about beeing brutal against oth= er humans and our pets. There are examples of how much this differs in human social interaktion also: look at training methods used with guarddogs agai= nst gentle education in agility and look how the people involved react on each= others behaviour with their dogs. (seems to be the main issue between Jon and Tony either, is'nt it) One central problem with e-collars is, that there is no direct response to= finetune my behaviour against my dog. Especcially in remote controlled devices this is extremely dangerous for the dog, because also social contr= ol (for the dog owner) is not provided. (try to direct punish your dog in pub= lic and you will see ...) The ecollars bear a very high abuse potential- unknown or by cruel owners.= I believe more damage is done with them in hands of public than dogs will suffer or put down without this technic. Think alone of the consequence in= barking dogs: If a dog now is barkin a few times the day, neighbors ask th= e owner to by a antibark collar - since this technic was available they woul= d have accepted the barking (to a certain level, for shure) because they kno= w that some barking is normal for dogs. I believe, that if we cant ban the ecollars for the general public, at min= imum the use had to be restricted to dog training areas, in which a seniour tra= iner allways has an eye on the dogs (and their owners) - also if i would prefer= the first (ban them all). By the way, last is the legal practice in germany to= day. sorry again and again for my poor english, esp. when ambitous Andreas > Does it make a significant difference whether the dog is aware that > someone is causing the punishment or not? I'm thinking of the difference > between electronic collars and, for example, shouting NO! or gripping th= e > dog by the scruff and shaking. Also, it strikes me that one of the > potential problems of the collars is that the person operating them > doesn't have any kind of physical feedback (maybe what's needed is a dua= l > collar that shocks the operator simultaneously with the dog!) > > ---------------------------------------- > Rosemary Rodd > Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre > Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Beha= viour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments= !) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 7-AUG-2003 03:49:01.19 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "'heather mcmurray'" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems in Brisbane is dogs barking at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example moving to a lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties have a footpath at the front and a walkway at the back. There is nowhere "safe" to put the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer heatstroke. Not everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or they would never finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a dog they often still bark when you approach. Most of this barking is territorial and the reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog thinks it has successfully defended its territory. These barking habits continue to worsen until the dog barks at the slightest provocation. It also triggers waves of barking throughout the neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any time of the day or night. Human health is a real issue. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:26 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of concern about dogs barking. Here is my view/2-cents: My experience living in the city, and living now in a very hot climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance. Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water. AND this seems to be the biggie -- dog barks when it is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend and the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house. Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed. If you are breeding dogs, then you should be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed urban neighborhood. If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let you make friends with the dog. There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by the humans, not the dog. In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough. From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 7-AUG-2003 04:34:15.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars So - having designed an environment that is, by this description, unsuitable to the behavioural characteristics of dogs, aversive therapy has to be used to modify that behavior. Perhaps I'm missing the point somewhere (or perhaps I might be that most pusillanimous of all things - a wincer!) but there appears to be a total lack of either ethics or critical reasoning in this scenario. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 9:48 p.m. To: 'heather mcmurray' Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems in Brisbane is dogs barking at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example moving to a lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties have a footpath at the front and a walkway at the back. There is nowhere "safe" to put the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer heatstroke. Not everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or they would never finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a dog they often still bark when you approach. Most of this barking is territorial and the reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog thinks it has successfully defended its territory. These barking habits continue to worsen until the dog barks at the slightest provocation. It also triggers waves of barking throughout the neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any time of the day or night. Human health is a real issue. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:26 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of concern about dogs barking. Here is my view/2-cents: My experience living in the city, and living now in a very hot climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance. Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water. AND this seems to be the biggie -- dog barks when it is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend and the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house. Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed. If you are breeding dogs, then you should be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed urban neighborhood. If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let you make friends with the dog. There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by the humans, not the dog. In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough. From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 7-AUG-2003 05:18:51.61 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: OT: HTML posting Please, please, PLEASE could people send messages to this list in plain text format! Why HTML is a bad idea (not just impolite) is explained here: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Turning off HTML is really easy - instructions for doing so are given on the web page above. Thank you... Francis -- Dr Francis L Burton, | F.L.Burton@udcf.glasgow.ac.uk West Medical Building, | University of Glasgow, | Tel +44-141-330-6598 Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Scotland. | Fax +44-141-330-4612 From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 7-AUG-2003 05:42:41.94 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I think it was Sue Sternberg in the US that came up with a design in shelter situations to reduce barking. The design included pens with solid walls instead of open fence-like materials. (In the shelter context, the side for viewing the dogs consisted of a horizontally split door). The runs accessible from the pens were also solid part of the way up on the walls so dogs couldn't see each other. Sorry for the inelegant description. Keeping dogs from seeing each other and/or other triggers greatly reduced the noise. Perhaps visual barriers might be helpful in the environment you described. Being able to have some peace could overcome the aesthetic issues - or - you could make a fortune designing something. Cissy Geiger wrote: > Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems in Brisbane is dogs barking > at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example moving to a > lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties have a footpath at > the front and a walkway at the back. There is nowhere ?safe? to put the > dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer heatstroke. Not everyone can > stop to make friends with each dog or they would never finish their > walk. Even if you are friends with a dog they often still bark when you > approach. Most of this barking is territorial and the reward is in that > the walkers walk on so the dog thinks it has successfully defended its > territory. These barking habits continue to worsen until the dog barks > at the slightest provocation. It also triggers waves of barking > throughout the neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any > time of the day or night. Human health is a real issue. > > Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:26 AM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > > > I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of concern > about dogs barking. Here is my view/2-cents: > > My experience living in the city, and living now in a very hot climate > is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs > bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance. Dogs bark if > they are hungry or run out of water. AND this seems to be the biggie -- > dog barks when it is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend and the > dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house. Pet dogs > should be neutered/spayed. If you are breeding dogs, then you should be > responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a > small house in a packed urban neighborhood. > > If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you > everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you in > your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let you > make friends with the dog. > > There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by the > humans, not the dog. > > > > In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who keeps > a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to sink his > teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough. > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 06:55:51.87 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Then and Now Terrible choice of words on my part. I meant that if he were born some decades later and had begun his work today he might have written a very different book. This is not an insult but my way of saying that I do not attack the man but I feel comfortable to attack his ideas because the two are not the same. I do believe that the Koehler method is a product of his time, and that whilst Koehler's work ought to be read widely by people interested in dog training and behaviour in most areas it has been eclipsed by more modern thinking. I also could not admire anybody who is incapable of taking on new ideas and developing an ever greater consideration for the welfare of the animals he or she trained rather than merely measuring success by the final product of the animal's obedience regardless of how that result was achieved. Given that high level obedience can be achieved by a number of routes and we frequently put the dog into a demanding working role over which it can exercise no choice I feel that it is our responsibility to do the work and the thinking, whilst making the experience as enjoyable and simple for the animal to understand as possible. The sales of a book do not indicate whether the ideas within it have been taken up. In fact it may be the opposite. I once bought and read 'Mein Kampf', and I have a copy of 'The Prince' but this had nothing to do with wishing to live my life according to either set of 'principes' [I do not choose these titles to imply anything about the works of Koehler]. When I order a copy of the later edition of Koehler perhaps I should request that my purchasing a copy should not be used as an endorsement ;-) Jon On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 08:46 pm, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Jon wrote: > Times have changed and things have moved on but this book > remains a relic. Koehler senior was obviously a smart man and if he > were alive today I am sure he would write something completely > different. > > Tony comments: > Nope. Bill had the opportunity to re-write the book in 1990. > Instead, he > added four new articles to the original work and out to press it went. > It > wasn't broke, so he didn't fix it. > > Relic? Two copies shipped today to Austrailia and one to Germany. > Your > sentence above should read: "Times have changed, yet this book remains > in > demand, worldwide. Why?" > > > > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 07:04:48.86 To: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Hi Cissy, I don't know why you refer to yourself as a wincer? To move your dog from an environment he clearly found distressing to one where he is happy is a brave choice not a cowardly one. There is absolutely no reason to think that aversive methods would have helped your dog, and every reason to assume they would not. I don't remember anyone using aversive methods to heal the emotional scars of humans who survived that tragedy. Best wishes, Jon On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 10:54 pm, cissy stamm wrote: > I'm late to this discussion, but would like to comment on Julie's > question based on my own experiences. > > I had a wonderful Malinois service dog trained for me. I had him in > NYC for several months before 9/11. He was fabulous. 9/11 freaked him > out. He developed health and behavior problems. I had to retire him. > > Things went from bad to worse. He became people aggressive. I worked > with trainers and behaviorists. > > Bottom line, I am not a skilled enough handler to deliver aversives in > a humane and effective manner. And I don't think I have the > temperament to do so. I consider this a flaw in my dog handling > ability because it means there are tools that I cannot use. We were > all living with an incredible level of stress and it certainly wasn't > fair to the dog. > > I returned to dog to his trainer for evaluation and rehoming. Once he > got out of this environment, he was fine and returned to his wonderful > self and will be rehomed this week. > > This dog would have bitten and possibly been destroyed. I didn't have > the skill to handle him. I'm a wincer. Maybe aversives would have > helped him learn what was expected of him. It's not something I can > do. > > Luckily, my first service dog, a Caucasian Ovcharka, handles R+, P- > training just fine. I've put her back to work while I re-evaluate my > handling/training skill levels and include that in my choice of > another dog. > > "Wincers" as you so aptly called us, are out there in huge numbers. It > doesn't help the situation that there's now an aura of superiority > attached to it. A healthy, properly trained and handled temperament > appropriate companion animal is basically stress free. They are few > and far between. > > That's probably the saddest and most wide-spread abuse issue of all. > > Cissy > > > Julie Alexander wrote: > >> Hand a tough minded dog whose destructive, overly boisterous or >> dangerous behavior to a wincer and ask them what they will do to save >> the dog's life. Would they take 16 weeks of demonstrating the desired >> behavior, holding the dog accountable for it's decisions, testing and >> proofing? > > From: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" 7-AUG-2003 07:07:15.57 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Electronic collars continued Ah, yes, I do see what you mean. And I do see that of course, the combination of behavioral and physiological indicators is needed. Thank you for the well-made point. I am so eager for the physiological, I think, because I see so many behavioral-only arguments that rest on differing interpretations of how the animal experiences an event or condition. And it seems like these are rarely being backed up by careful, multifactorial study, so people -- very much including behavior and welfare professionals -- clash repeatedly over their interpretations. There is a pattern of limited progress and constant mistrust based very much on differences in people's larger view of "what it's like to be a dog," for example. What I find myself constantly wishing is that I could find more research on which to base our actions (in working with the shelter dogs, particularly). Do you think this research is out there, and just not making it from the academic space to the public space? Or is it not yet there, for dogs in particular anyway? I guess that is what I was meaning to ask in my original post. I feel that as an individual working with shelter dogs to try to improve their chances at a quality life, I need this information in order to sort out arguments like this ongoing one on collars. There is great insight and information in the current conversation, yes, but it still feels like there is too much guessing about the animals' experience going on, even if it is informed guessing. -Amanda --- Chris Sherwin wrote: > > > Hi Amanda, > > The problem here is that you appear to be relying on physiology to validate > behavioural indicators of welfare. This is problematic because sometimes > physiology might change dramatically, although the animal's welfare is not > being > compromised. Take, for example, deer. During rutting, stags can lose 30% > bodyweight, they become dehydrated, corticosterone concentrations and deep > body > temperature, etc. go through the roof. But, the animal is following it's > normal > behaviour patterns and it's welfare (i.e. it's mental state) is probably very > good > if it has successfully defended it's harem and mated. I'm not saying that we > can't > use physiology as an indicator of welfare, but we need to be very careful > about > interpretation and (absence of) correlation with behaviour. > > My own approach here if you needed objective data on how aversive these > collars are would be to measure the animal's motivation to avoid them. > Having said > this, there are decades of psychology studies showing that rats avoid > electric > shocks to the feet - argument by analogy would therefore suggest that > electric > shocks are aversive to dogs, and potentially painful. > > Incidentally, there are many studies on farm and laboratory animals in which > the > multifactorial approach of physiological and behavioural indicators has been > taken. > > All the best, > > Chris > > > On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Amanda Vizedom > wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > No, I mean: Does anyone have specifics, e.g., citations, to work that ties > > behavioral observation (of which ethologists and trainers have a great > deal, > > but interpret differently) to physiological signs of stress, so that > questions > > (like Francis', below) about the *dogs'* experience of shock collars, gas > > collars or other things can be answered to greater satisfaction! > > > > -Amanda > > > > > > --- Chris Sherwin wrote: > > > > > > Amanda, > > > > > > Do you mean 'Does anyone know about animal welfare research in general'? > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind as possible > locations > > > of > > > > the research I read about. Does anyone know more? Either about this > kind > > > of > > > > research in general, or about whether it has been applied to the use of > > > > e-collars, or anything relating it to barking in dogs? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Amanda > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Francis Burton wrote: > > > > > Following on from my previous questions, how does one know what > > > > > the same shock feels like to the dog? Surely it isn't enough > > > > > to check it on oneself. Can we presume a shock that does not > > > > > hurt you would also not hurt a dog? > > > > > > > > > > In any case, the shock must at least be unpleasant for the dog > > > > > for it to work as a punisher. Or is that too simplistic? > > > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > > > > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > > > > -Pema Chodron > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ............................................................. > > > Dr C.M. Sherwin > > > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > > > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > > > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > > > University of Bristol, > > > Langford House, > > > Langford, > > > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > > > > > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > > > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > > > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > > > > > > > > ===== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > > -Pema Chodron > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ............................................................. > Dr C.M. Sherwin > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > University of Bristol, > Langford House, > Langford, > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." -Pema Chodron --------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 07:19:07.72 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: lighten up! Hi Jackie, On two issues...firstly about drugs. I was trying to point out that regulation is demanded in other areas where there is a risk of adverse effect, a comment which your statement clearly supports. I agree about the deficiencies of the Juarbe paper but I believe that a similar study is in progress. I am sure that information about settings and equipment used in the study may be easily obtained from the authors and there is nothing to be hidden there. The aim was clearly to compare two standard off the shelf devices, otherwise one would have to look at all sorts of aspects of design of the devices including shock and gas jet 'intensity. Certainly the test was not double blinded but that would be near to impossible in a domestic trial given the kind of equipment. I don't have the paper in front of me now but I think the protocol involved swapping the collar used on each case to see whether there was a different effect. This is always going to be a tough thing to properly assess and the most important issue is probably case selection. I doubt that anyone in the UK could get a license to do comparative trials of this kind on lab animals because the procedure might be regarded as cruel? On a slightly different note, Mathijs Schilder [hope i got that right] has done some work on stress effects of shock so he might be a good person to ask about this. Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 10:28 am, Geiger wrote: > Thanks Jon. The article you refer to (Juarbe?)does not describe the > brand of collars used nor the settings used, was not double blinded, > was > apparently performed by someone seeking the outcome that was found. It > is totally contrary to my experience. The participants were biased by > the use of the incorrect term "shock collar". In my experience people > may be easily biased one way or another in their attitudes depending on > how something is presented. We really need lots of good quality > research > into the matter of behaviour modifying collars. Cheers, Jackie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:29 PM > To: Geiger > Subject: Re: lighten up! > > Thanks for sending this, it is fantastic. > > Jon > > > > From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 7-AUG-2003 07:19:25.18 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Wouldn't barriers tend to defeat the object of leaving the dogs outside, though? I would have thought anything substantial enough to act as a sight barrier would also prevent cooling by circulating airflow. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 08:26:14.18 To: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars This is a really good point. I think that use of a shock collar within a training context that is not dissimilar to that in Milgram's experiments in people. I will summarise this for those who may not be familiar with the work, but I would recommend anyone to read Milgram's book because it is fantastic. In those experiments a trainer and a subject were apparently chosen at random from a group of volunteers who had been told that they were to be involved in an experimental investigation of the effects of punishment on learning. The trainer asked questions and had to give successively more powerful shock, the later ones being indicated on the dial as potentially dangerous or harmful. In fact the subject was a stooge who would imitate [convincingly] the effects of being shocked by crying out and pleading with the trainer to stop. This experiment was done to investigate the effect of authority and the conditions in which individuals might be persuaded to voluntarily carry out acts of 'violence' upon each other in order to understand the appalling behaviour of previously normal German people during the Nazi era. Milgram found that trainers were more often willing to administer potentially lethal shocks to a subject than was ever predicted. They had supposed that only psychopaths would do this, but this was not what they found. In fact many people would continue delivering shocks throughout the screams of the subject and even after they had become silent as if comatosed or dead. There were a number of explanations for this, but some are relevant to the present discussion: 1. As a result of some kind of cognitive dissonance the trainer came to firmly believe that it was the fault of the subject, who 'should have answered the questions correctly'. This is the process of depersonalisation that often precedes violence: my enemy is has no value as a human being so I have no responsibility to him. 2. The trainers often justified their behaviour by convincing themselves that they had performed the task to the best of their ability by following the rules of the experiment and the instructions of the supervisor to the letter. They could not be blamed for the failures of the person who designed the procedure...the traditional 'I was only following orders' defence. 3. The aversive event was initiated by a relatively mundane event such as the turning of a knob and the pushing of a button. The trainer did not directly attack or harm the person but did so through a piece of technology which distanced them form their actions. There are many other conclusions from the experiments, so please don't jump on me for trying to condense what was a significant body of work.. Many of the trainers were very traumatised by what they had done when the conditions of the experiment was fully explained to them, and they took a long time to recover. It would be impossible to carry out the same experiments today for obvious ethical reasons. Connection with use of shock collars might be that they enable people to deliver a level of punishment that they would be too squeamish to deliver were they to attempt to do so manually. Back to the same argument about how severe a shock such devices should be able to deliver. The member of the general public may be placed into a similar situation to the 'trainer' in Milgram's experiment: "The dog had a choice, so it was his fault he got shocked". " I had to shock him because he wouldn't do what I told him'. "I did exactly what it said in the instructions/video or what the trainer told me to do" "All i did was to press a button" I do think that Milgram's work has relevance in many situations such lab research. In fact any place where animals fail to comply with human instruction. Best wishes, Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 10:05 am, R. Rodd wrote: > Does it make a significant difference whether the dog is aware that > someone is causing the punishment or not? I'm thinking of the > difference > between electronic collars and, for example, shouting NO! or gripping > the > dog by the scruff and shaking. Also, it strikes me that one of the > potential problems of the collars is that the person operating them > doesn't have any kind of physical feedback (maybe what's needed is a > dual > collar that shocks the operator simultaneously with the dog!) > > ---------------------------------------- > Rosemary Rodd > Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre > Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 08:28:42.03 To: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars People like Robert Hubrecht also produce designs for low-noise kennels and a NCDL shelter local to me has found that full height glass fronts reduce barking, perhaps because of reflected sounds? It isn't difficult to alter design to reduce barking, especially if your trade is breeding dogs. Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 12:42 pm, cissy stamm wrote: > I think it was Sue Sternberg in the US that came up with a design in > shelter situations to reduce barking. The design included pens with > solid walls instead of open fence-like materials. (In the shelter > context, the side for viewing the dogs consisted of a horizontally > split door). The runs accessible from the pens were also solid part of > the way up on the walls so dogs couldn't see each other. > > Sorry for the inelegant description. Keeping dogs from seeing each > other and/or other triggers greatly reduced the noise. Perhaps visual > barriers might be helpful in the environment you described. Being able > to have some peace could overcome the aesthetic issues - or - you > could make a fortune designing something. > > Cissy > > Geiger wrote: > >> Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems in Brisbane is dogs >> barking at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example >> moving to a lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties >> have a footpath at the front and a walkway at the back. There is >> nowhere ?safe? to put the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer >> heatstroke. Not everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or >> they would never finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a >> dog they often still bark when you approach. Most of this barking is >> territorial and the reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog >> thinks it has successfully defended its territory. These barking >> habits continue to worsen until the dog barks at the slightest >> provocation. It also triggers waves of barking throughout the >> neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any time of the >> day or night. Human health is a real issue. >> Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE >> -----Original Message----- >> From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:26 AM >> To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >> Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars >> I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of >> concern about dogs barking. Here is my view/2-cents: >> My experience living in the city, and living now in a very hot >> climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the >> neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some >> disturbance. Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water. AND >> this seems to be the biggie -- dog barks when it is left alone >> outside on a vacation/weekend and the dog expects that the dog should >> be let inside the house. Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed. If you >> are breeding dogs, then you should be responsible enough to keep >> unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed >> urban neighborhood. >> If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you >> everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you >> in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let >> you make friends with the dog. >> There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by >> the humans, not the dog. >> In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who >> keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to >> sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough. > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 08:31:50.31 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" CC: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "'heather mcmurray'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Are there any other natives of Brisbane who can confirm this nightmare=20= of barking related stress disorder in humans? I hope not for their sake, as I find the sound of repetitive barking=20 very unpleasant. Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 10:48 am, Geiger wrote: > Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems inBrisbaneis dogs barking=20= > at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example moving to a=20= > lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties have a footpath=20= > at the front and a walkway at the back. There is nowhere =93safe=94 to = put=20 > the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer heatstroke. Not=20 > everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or they would never=20 > finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a dog they often still=20= > bark when you approach. Most of this barking is territorial and the=20 > reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog thinks it has=20 > successfully defended its territory. These barking habits continue to=20= > worsen until the dog barks at the slightest provocation. It also=20 > triggers waves of barking throughout the neighbourhood. In some=20 > regions there is no peace at any time of the day or night. Human=20 > health is a real issue. > > Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE > > =A0 > > -----Original Message----- > From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent:Wednesday, August 06, 200310:26 AM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars > > =A0 > > I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of=20 > concern about dogs barking.=A0 Here is my view/2-cents: > > My experience living in the city, and living now in=A0a very hot = climate=20 > is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs=20= > bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance.=A0 Dogs bark if=20= > they are hungry or run out of water.=A0 AND this seems to be the = biggie=20 > -- dog barks when=A0it=A0is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend = and=20 > the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house.=A0 Pet = dogs=20 > should be neutered/spayed.=A0 If you are breeding dogs, then you = should=20 > be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a=20= > small house in a packed urban neighborhood. > > If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you=20 > everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you=20= > in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let=20= > you make friends with the dog. > > There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by=20 > the humans, not the dog. > > =A0 > > In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who=20 > keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to=20 > sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough.=A0 From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 7-AUG-2003 08:40:31.11 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Thanks Jon, for making anyone familiar with Milgrams experiment. I thought to mention= it in my previous comment about distance treatment of "wrong" behaviours, but= considered it to be a to long story to be told (which means to time consuming for a non native speaker). Thank you again Andreas Date sent: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:25:42 +0100 From: Jon Bowen Subject: Re: electronic collars To: "R. Rodd" Copies to: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > This is a really good point. > I think that use of a shock collar within a training context that is > not dissimilar to that in Milgram's experiments in people. I will > summarise this for those who may not be familiar with the work, but I > would recommend anyone to read Milgram's book because it is fantastic. > In those experiments a trainer and a subject were apparently chosen at > random from a group of volunteers who had been told that they were to > be involved in an experimental investigation of the effects of > punishment on learning. The trainer asked questions and had to give > successively more powerful shock, the later ones being indicated on the > dial as potentially dangerous or harmful. In fact the subject was a > stooge who would imitate [convincingly] the effects of being shocked by > crying out and pleading with the trainer to stop. > > This experiment was done to investigate the effect of authority and the > conditions in which individuals might be persuaded to voluntarily carry > out acts of 'violence' upon each other in order to understand the > appalling behaviour of previously normal German people during the Nazi > era. > Milgram found that trainers were more often willing to administer > potentially lethal shocks to a subject than was ever predicted. They > had supposed that only psychopaths would do this, but this was not what > they found. In fact many people would continue delivering shocks > throughout the screams of the subject and even after they had become > silent as if comatosed or dead. > > There were a number of explanations for this, but some are relevant to > the present discussion: > 1. As a result of some kind of cognitive dissonance the trainer came to > firmly believe that it was the fault of the subject, who 'should have > answered the questions correctly'. This is the process of > depersonalisation that often precedes violence: my enemy is has no > value as a human being so I have no responsibility to him. > 2. The trainers often justified their behaviour by convincing > themselves that they had performed the task to the best of their > ability by following the rules of the experiment and the instructions > of the supervisor to the letter. They could not be blamed for the > failures of the person who designed the procedure...the traditional 'I > was only following orders' defence. > 3. The aversive event was initiated by a relatively mundane event such > as the turning of a knob and the pushing of a button. The trainer did > not directly attack or harm the person but did so through a piece of > technology which distanced them form their actions. > > There are many other conclusions from the experiments, so please don't > jump on me for trying to condense what was a significant body of work.. > Many of the trainers were very traumatised by what they had done when > the conditions of the experiment was fully explained to them, and they > took a long time to recover. It would be impossible to carry out the > same experiments today for obvious ethical reasons. > > Connection with use of shock collars might be that they enable people > to deliver a level of punishment that they would be too squeamish to > deliver were they to attempt to do so manually. Back to the same > argument about how severe a shock such devices should be able to > deliver. > > The member of the general public may be placed into a similar situation > to the 'trainer' in Milgram's experiment: > > "The dog had a choice, so it was his fault he got shocked". > " I had to shock him because he wouldn't do what I told him'. > "I did exactly what it said in the instructions/video or what the > trainer told me to do" > "All i did was to press a button" > > I do think that Milgram's work has relevance in many situations such > lab research. In fact any place where animals fail to comply with human > instruction. > > Best wishes, > > Jon > > On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 10:05 am, R. Rodd wrote: > > > Does it make a significant difference whether the dog is aware that > > someone is causing the punishment or not? I'm thinking of the > > difference > > between electronic collars and, for example, shouting NO! or gripping > > the > > dog by the scruff and shaking. Also, it strikes me that one of the > > potential problems of the collars is that the person operating them > > doesn't have any kind of physical feedback (maybe what's needed is a > > dual > > collar that shocks the operator simultaneously with the dog!) > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Rosemary Rodd > > Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre > > Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Beha= viour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments= !) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"V.Sandilands@au.sac.ac.uk" 7-AUG-2003 09:21:46.46 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Laurie - barking dog Hi Laurie, It seems that if your dog is fearful (and this should be confirmed by a speacialist), then using punishment techniques will not help, and may indeed make him worse if he associates the fearful stimulus (strangers, people on street, etc) with your punishment technique (citrus spray, electric shocks, etc). Many others out there will be better able to guide you than I will, but it sounds like you should be exploring the systematic desensitisation route (with a suitable trainer, of course). This essentially requires exposing the dog to the lowest severity of the thing he is fearful of without evoking a response, and praising him for his good behaviour. For example, you might take him to more neutral territory (the park?) and play with a favorite toy while people are walking about. All the time that he doesn't bark or react fearfully, you will tell him what a good boy he is, feed him titbits, play with the toy etc. You then slowly build up the intensity of the stimulus, only to the level at which the dog can 'take it' i.e. doesn't react. There is much more detail invovled, but this might give you an idea of the approach! Someone I recently met at a conference, who is a dog trainer in England, had to use this technique on her own dog, which she got from a rescue centre and was aggressive towards all adults. It took her 2 years to desensitise him, and a lot of patience, but she got there in the end. Best of luck, Vicky Dr. Victoria Sandilands Avian Science Research Centre/Animal Nutrition & Health Animal Health Group Scottish Agricultural College Ayr, KA6 5HW, UK tel +44 (0)1292 525421 fax +44 (0)1292 525098 http://www.sac.ac.uk/animal/External/ABDWeb/Avian/Default.htm The information in this e.mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e.mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this e.mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client engagement letter. From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 7-AUG-2003 09:58:13.25 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I would think it depends on the amount of space the dog is in. What's the area we're talking about? A typical yard in the US wouldn't have that problem. And they also often have sight barriers for privacy reasons. Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut until I understood the physical aspects of the situation. Cissy R. Rodd wrote: > Wouldn't barriers tend to defeat the object of leaving the dogs outside, > though? I would have thought anything substantial enough to act as a sight > barrier would also prevent cooling by circulating airflow. > > ---------------------------------------- > Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre > Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 > > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 7-AUG-2003 10:04:06.20 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars I can entirely understand why people are opposed to a ban. Would you be happy to see the use of shock collars restricted to trained individuals only, or would you be happy for the general public to continue to be able to buy them? Would you prefer that some kind of limitations were placed on the type and intensity of shock that collars may deliver? These seem logical steps to limit harm and maximise any 'benefit', which should surely always be our intention. Best wishes, Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:04 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: > It may be there is a bit of cultural and political dissonance going on > among the various views. While generally not a fan of the slippery > slope arguments, seeing the ban on tools and methods in countries > abroad > being followed by bans on dog breeds certainly got my attention. I > assume all those reading an ethology list have a common interest in > preventing the extinction of animals. While I agree that many tools > should be used in conjunction with competent instructors, I believe > that > end is best accomplished through education rather than via legislative > fiat. > > Vicki Magnus > From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 7-AUG-2003 10:48:58.79 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars How would/should one determine what the training is required, and who gives the passing grade? We have no federally regulated licensing/certification of dog trainers or behaviorists in the US. Cissy Jon Bowen wrote: > I can entirely understand why people are opposed to a ban. > Would you be happy to see the use of shock collars restricted to trained > individuals only, or would you be happy for the general public to > continue to be able to buy them? Would you prefer that some kind of > limitations were placed on the type and intensity of shock that collars > may deliver? > These seem logical steps to limit harm and maximise any 'benefit', which > should surely always be our intention. > > Best wishes, > > Jon > > > On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:04 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: > >> It may be there is a bit of cultural and political dissonance going on >> among the various views. While generally not a fan of the slippery >> slope arguments, seeing the ban on tools and methods in countries abroad >> being followed by bans on dog breeds certainly got my attention. I >> assume all those reading an ethology list have a common interest in >> preventing the extinction of animals. While I agree that many tools >> should be used in conjunction with competent instructors, I believe that >> end is best accomplished through education rather than via legislative >> fiat. >> >> Vicki Magnus >> > > From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 11:16:38.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars >>> Jon Bowen 08/07/03 12:04 PM >>> <> I do not believe limits on the collars themselves would have an effect on misuse. There are several pieces of equipment I would like to see limited to use with a competent trainer at ones side. The problem with legislation is that once the legislative genie is invoked it is awfully hard to fit it back into the bottle. Do you truly suppose politicians with their myriad reasons for supporting various bills are the very best hope for societal change? I can not answer for Great Britain but here in the United States prohibition has proved singularly ineffective in changing things for the better. Then too I do not agree electronic collars are always abusive. I don't use one, don't know how. I am not certain why the electronic collars evoke such deep emotions, as my own experience with abuses in the guise of training involve very few incidences with an electronic collar being the abusive tool. I noted in your own example of an abusive trainer the trainer had the dog on a slip collar, and I assume the trainer would have been perfectly able to helicopter the dog with a flat buckle collar. (Though I'd have had the owner in the dock right next to the trainer, who is actually responsible for the dogs welfare?) I suspect it is the emotional twinge that accompanies the "shock" collar name that proves the collar so useful for those seeking bans of tools. After all, how bad can banning shock collars be, only good can follow, right? Well, except for all those dead dogs, but better dead than potentially abused. Value laden political arguments on good versus bad tools seldom do more than solidify positions, never have I known of a single mind be changed or even opened a bit as a result of these discussions. I would wager that rather than the specific case of ecollars we are looking at a divide over training philosophy. Is correction a part of training, or is it abuse. Second question, does the human define aversive, or should the dogs point of view count? Vicki Magnus From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 7-AUG-2003 11:26:52.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: kennelling and working dogs Iain I tried to point out that our family protection dogs do not show separation anxiety when left alone while people are working say 9-10 hours if left in the home. For someone who works double shifts, they need to go somewhere else for a dog. Would this be a good trait for a military dog, doubtful but for a family dog we believe so. We do not want a dog that is an anybody's dog. We do have kennel runs and the dogs are taught the coping skills like being crated, separated from the group, traveling overnight with us to new locations and so on that they need when we sell a trained dog. When kept overnight at the vet's which is rare, they actually show less stress than when kenneled at home. So near but yet so far! I'm glad you mentioned the US military. There was program televised a few days ago, I think K9 boot camp. It showed the training of new K9 handlers and some training of patrol and detection dogs. We were appalled at the lack of good training of the handlers and the general conditions the dogs were kept in. The newbies did not seem to have been taught enough on how to read dog behavior, establish rapport, did not care for their assigned dogs and dogs were passed from handler to handler many times during their working lives. They are muzzled routinely for vet care, one dog appeared not fearful but furious at the way he was handled for a vet exam and would have inflicted serious damage had he not been muzzled. Dogs have people who feed and clean the kennel runs, the typical sterile, noisy chain link frustration building kind, others who groom them, still more who do vet exams monthly, and are passed around like a commodity. One dog was reacting aggressively to gunfire. The training to desensitize him was primitive to say the least. Instead of progressive cycles of coming closer and retreating or having the dog move laterally and concentrate on heeling while shots were fired, the dog was forced to sit while the handler picked up the gun and fired overhead. He reacted aggressively and received physical corrections for it quite a few times. It could have been done probably faster and with less stress to break it into smaller pieces. While having a dog hold a sit while a gun is fired is a sensible expectation, the training was crudely done. For reference, below is our website, there is a link to a yahoo groups with video clips of our dogs, you do have to subscribe temporarily to view them but this way streaming video is supported. One clip shows a dog voluntarily staying near us while a new pistol is being tested nearby. We literally do target practice from the front deck. We link the sound early on with food, games, and at times simply ignore it. Training them to work around gunfire takes little time with such a start. That the dogs can take what they do without more problems speaks highly of their genetics. However they reminded us of horses used as rentals, rather dulled to humans jerking them around and not taking the time to treat them as individuals. So how could this be improved? First have the newbies in a dormitory with kennel runs attached to each room. Have them live, eat, sleep, and spend almost 24/7 with the dogs so they get to know each other. Have the handlers feed, clean kennels and groom the dogs. Put the handlers on the collar end of the leash and make them lead each other around so they know how it feels to have the leash jerked roughly. Try to teach them some better handling skills. And when a new handler comes along, have the previous one spend time helping the transfer. While the military try these things, probably not, too costly in time and money. The way many Schutzhund, Ringsport and other dogs going for high in trial are managed also appalls us. The handlers purposely restrict them socially and deprive them of an enriched environment. The dogs come out only to be trained and to the trial field. This way the dogs are very pumped up and crave the training or trials. Some high in trial obedience dogs are also handled this way. Never permitted to socialize with any dog or human but the handler. For dogs kept in these conditions or other sterile, unenriched environments, having a bitch in season nearby probably would be unbearable. The stress they are already under either due to over or under stimulation is incredible. By contrast, our dogs live in an enriched environment with varied social interactions 24/7. We are in a rural environment with wildlife, horse, cattle, sheep, poultry and a cat. They have free exercise areas that are pasture or mixed trees and brush to romp in. They have consistent human contact and personal attention. They have balanced stimulation and relaxation. The stress level is low but they are taught coping skills when they are exposed to stressors like vet exams. And do not need a muzzle! I did not say we used an e collar for training them to focus while working around a bitch. I said we used a bark collar for non training times when they wanted to sing love songs. As I mentioned, we do not want an anybody's dog. We want a dog that will not take orders from just anyone holding the leash. We want it to work for family members old enough to be taught how and perhaps a friend or vet who the dog is handed over to. The dogs we sell take up to 2 weeks to start to develop a strong bond with the new owners. Selling or rehoming a dog means we spend detailed time with the new owner showing them how to handle the dog while we are present--the dog can check back with us to see if we really want him/her to do this as well as time on the phone or email to check for questions. If distance permits, the owners are encouraged to come back often for evaluation and more training. Will selecting for dogs with the traits of strong bonding lead to the possibility of separation anxiety? Yes if overselected for and mishandled. In the right balance and handled well, it gives a dog that chooses to be around the owners, expresses pleasure in this, is hard to sweet talk or steal and won't wander looking for something more enticing. There's no place like home! By contrast to our breeding and handling, what the military selects for and how they manage the dogs seems like fuel for animal rights groups. We were truly disappointed in what we saw. And calling it not only the largest dog training facility in the world but the best was quite sad. The criticism of our management did annoy me as by comparison we see so much that is commonly accepted and we feel deprives the dogs of quality of life. Jon's saying that we are choosing the better of two evils made me laugh. Choosing to do it our way Vs the army way or the way some dogs are deprived in order to get points is choosing between evils. And what in life doesn't have the choice of good, less good? Military and police work for dogs is an area that is vital. I'm not saying it should be stopped but the quality of life for the dogs could be improved. It is too similar to the conditions zoo animals of previous decades lived in. Note, for anyone who watches the clips on protection work. We do things differently than many trainers. We do not want the dog to take a stick hit but to dodge and re bite the weapon hand. If anyone has any questions about how or why, I'll answer as time permits. The clips are far from being everything we teach but as video files are large and time consuming, the best examples are there. Also watch the clip of obedience at the fair. The 2 males being worked in brace have had extensive training alone but only 2 weeks in brace and we hadn't done any showing for over a decade, too boring. In the background are the sounds of a semi truck, cattle auction and the fair's midway rides. The boys look relaxed and nearly in lockstep with each other. You tell me how stressed they seem. http://talismandogs.homestead.com/ Julie Alexander From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 13:05:19.22 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars If the human can not know the effect the collar will have with any given application the collar is no longer a training tool. If you are seeing collars which are not performing as advertised you have a defective product which should be regulated by commerce departments and consumer protection agencies. The trainers I know who use ecollars use quite expensive and extensively tested collars; none of them are experiencing the problems with collars such as the ones you describe. I am uncertain about the ecollar causing the dog attack. While it is certainly true that you can cause displacement behaviors in dogs including aggression, it does not hold true that hurting dogs then "turns" the dog into a killer. Could you expound on the circumstances of this event? We see legislative prohibition differently. In reading my remark on ecollars I see it came off as flip. I have indeed been shocked with a collar, and didn't care for it but also learned it was not going to burn. I am attending an ecollar seminar this September. While I am happy enough with my training methods I am always interested in seeing other trainers and other methods. I can unequivocally say that the trainers I know who use ecollars are ethical trainers who are not abusing the dogs, indeed, many a dog slated for "blue juice" has been able to live a long and happy life among a family solely due to the intervention of these trainers. You asked: Do you thing it is acceptable to train a normally motivated dog to sit, recall or perform other basic commands using a shock collar if another non-aversive method is equally as effective? Yes. As I asked, who defines aversive? I understand many people have visceral reactions to ecollars, which is fine, I know of no movement to force any trainer to use any particular piece of equipment. How I want to judge any tool, method or trainer for that matter is what do the dogs think of it? I have seen dogs being trained with a tool which has never been the subject of a great debate completely shut down and cringing, just horrifically miserable. I have seen dogs happily engaged and obviously having a great time out and about with an ecollar on, which dog is being mistreated? I rather think some of the distaste dislike for ecollars among us academics comes from reading rather nasty studies where animals were abused with electricity. One particular study on learned helplessness, recounted on page 338 of Principles of Animal Learning and Motivation, Roger M. Tarpy, 1982, actually made me rather ill. Pavlov wasn't nice to the dogs either, though it interests me that so few seem to be aware of the effect the flood in the lab had on the dogs. It's a useful tid bit to share with pet owners. I digress, my point is that a properly tested and properly functioning ecollar in the hands of competent training is a communication device between human and dog, not an instrument of torture in the name of either science or sadism. Vicki Magnus >>> Jon Bowen 08/07/03 14:05 PM >>> > I do not believe limits on the collars themselves would have an effect > on misuse. The collar I tested produced shocks that varied each time it was used, despite the fact that the setting remained the same. The highest settings were very aversive. Aversive enough to cause two dogs to attack and kill another. I would hope that any humane individual would at least want collars to be designed so that they were safe and reliable? > There are several pieces of equipment I would like to see > limited to use with a competent trainer at ones side. The problem with > legislation is that once the legislative genie is invoked it is awfully > hard to fit it back into the bottle. Do you truly suppose politicians > with their myriad reasons for supporting various bills are the very > best > hope for societal change? I can not answer for Great Britain but here > in the United States prohibition has proved singularly ineffective in > changing things for the better. I would argue the opposite for my country. In the UK Shock collars are not widely used so it would be best for us to legislate and control usage before the devices become so widely used that it is impossible to control them. To allow shock collar companies to use marketing to spread the use of shock collars so that they could not be controlled...THAT is letting a genie out of a bottle. The reason for the failure of prohibition is usually because use of the prohibited substance or object is already too widespread to be controlled. That was the case for alcohol; people liked it and did not see its use as a crime so why should they stop using it. Alcohol is also addictive so some people will always be willing to pay the kind of prices that will sustain a bubbling black market. > Then too I do not agree electronic collars are always abusive. I don't > use one, don't know how. I find this fascinating. Those of us who are generally against the use of shock collars would get furiously attacked if we made a comment like that! I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the experience of being shocked with a shock collar and, if you wish, seeing one used. You are perfectly entitiled to an opinion without doing this of course but I think you would find it educational. I would say that to use a shock collar to teach a perfectly normal dog to perform normal tasks that it is able to learn without the use of punishment is, by definition, to cause unnecessary suffering. This is abuse. To use a shock collar to suppress normal behaviour that might otherwise be redirected or avoided by environmental modification and non-aversive training is also abuse. These kinds of abuses are most likely if > I am not certain why the electronic collars > evoke such deep emotions, as my own experience with abuses in the guise > of training involve very few incidences with an electronic collar being > the abusive tool. I noted in your own example of an abusive trainer > the > trainer had the dog on a slip collar, and I assume the trainer would > have been perfectly able to helicopter the dog with a flat buckle > collar. (Though I'd have had the owner in the dock right next to the > trainer, who is actually responsible for the dogs welfare?) It is uncharitable to criticise the owner in this instance. In the cases taken to court the trainer inflicted this cruelty without the owner's permission or knowledge that he was about to do this. One of the people immediately took her dog and left the class, and reported the man to the police. What else could she do? > I suspect it > is the emotional twinge that accompanies the "shock" collar name that > proves the collar so useful for those seeking bans of tools. After > all, > how bad can banning shock collars be, only good can follow, right? > Well, except for all those dead dogs, but better dead than potentially > abused. WHAT DEAD DOGS? Can you show me any proof at all that dogs are euthanased because someone did NOT use a shock collar on them??!!!? I have never seen any. > Value laden political arguments on good versus bad tools seldom do more > than solidify positions, never have I known of a single mind be > changed > or even opened a bit as a result of these discussions. I would wager > that rather than the specific case of ecollars we are looking at a > divide over training philosophy. Is correction a part of training, or > is it abuse. I don't think it is about training. I do dog training as part of what I do but I am not in competition with dog trainers and other than the issues of efficacy and animal welfare I have no comment to make on their activities. This is not a dog trainers chat room and the people who are commenting on the use of shock collars are not necessarily dog trainers. they may be animal welfare scientists, ethologists, behaviourists, vets, all sorts. Every one of their opinions is valid, and I don't think any of them have a vested interest in the use or banning of shock collars. The only people who can be accused of that are those whop stake their reputation and livelihood on using them. Who is going to make any money out of getting rid of them? Reinforcement and punishment do not exist independently of each other. To withold a reward in order to reduce future expression of a behaviour is negative punishment. To take away an aversive stimulus in order to increase future performance of a behaviour is negative reinforcement.. all good trainers know how to manipulate learning using punishment and reinforcement. Whether we choose to use positive punishment is something different. It very much depends upon whether the punishment is excessive or not. I think that the use shock collars as they are currently designed and manufactured is likely to produce excessive punishment in many cases. Since I have answered so many of your questions perhaps you will answer one of mine? A simple yes or no is enough. Do you thing it is acceptable to train a normally motivated dog to sit, recall or perform other basic commands using a shock collar if another non-aversive method is equally as effective? Jon From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 7-AUG-2003 13:09:06.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars I don't know about dogs. But, with companion rabbits -- if you have a really mean rabbit or a rabbit with bad habits you don't use punishment. Distraction (water sprays) yes, but not punishment. Punishment never works for a rabbit, ever. They never forget. They remember for years (no exageration) and they do not trust. The only thing that works with a mean rabbit (unlike dogs, rabbits can learn new habits however old they get) is love and patience. The only thing that works with a rabbit with bad habits is to substitute better habits, gradually. An electrical collar on a rabbit? I would say it was an extremely cruel idea how mild the shock and I'd rather that rabbit be euthanized than stay with a family who required it to endure such a thing. A rabbit would be chronically stressed by such control. So, I don't know about dogs. But that is my feeling regarding the subject with a different pet. Heather From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 7-AUG-2003 13:10:50.18 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: different take on reward and punishment Originally posted on bridge and target list Message 1180 of 1896 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # From: "Julie Alexander" The real question is "are > you willing to use punishment at all"? If The Standards For Professional Dog Trainers document that I mentioned earlier has a flow chart that can be used as a decision making guide of when to use an aversive that brings up some of the same points in Gerry's post. Dr. Pam Reid came up with the basic structure, and it was modified slightly during the development of the Standards. I think it's an excellent device to encourage objective thinking about when punishment should be used, rather than "cos I've always done it that way" or because one doesn't really know how to use non-aversive methods to change behavior or if one thinks punishment is never ever justified for any reason period. There are two flow charts actually = one on establishing a behavior and one on eliminating a behavior. Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Please change my email to: Suzanne@AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com Go to www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com to subscribe to our monthly free ezine (first issue August) 303-932-9095 fax 303-932-2298 From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 7-AUG-2003 13:25:38.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Jon Bowen wrote: > I think that is a complex issue, but one that I hoped other people would > want to contribute to which is why I presented the issue. > How would you suggest it be done? I've struggled with the issue in a different context - the certification/licensing of service animals in the US. I ended up being stuck on the the following issues: 1. There are a myriad of tasks service dogs can be trained to do and contexts in which service dogs may be working. How does one construct a test which represents the kinds of stresses a service animal is required to deal with while being asked to do his/her job? 2. How does one determine who is qualified to train the evaluators if the above issue is resolved? And who does the determining? 3. How does one appeal a determination of an evaluator? 4. Who will administer the program and pay for it? 5. Who will incur the liability if a licensed/certified dog causes damage to persons or property? I ended up opposing certification/licensing. Actually, it was my own experiences with my service dog that was the final determining factor. She developed on lead dog aggression with any large female who eyeballed her. This is something that would be very difficult to screen for but is totally unacceptable behavior for a service dog. One can't design a test that screens for every possible trigger. I've come to think that education is the key component. Public education on how service animals are expected to behave in public and education for service dog users to help them identify problematic behavior and direct them to resources that might be helpful without threatening them with the loss of their service animal. Now, from the perspective of someone who is quite ignorant of how other cultures work, I'll try to respond to some of the issues you raise as I see them working in the US. > > In the UK there is going to be an accredited scheme for non-vet > behaviourists with quite stringent requirements on experience and > education. This is supported by the British Psychological Society and > Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons although the body is itself > independent of both. > For vets there is also the opportunity for specialisation in Europe > through the postgraduate Diploma. I think that these could be starting > places for us, but as for other countries I don't know. I hope you manage to avoid the pitfalls of credentialing described on the following site: http://users.snip.net/~drsteve/Articles/Dr_Zoe.htm > > Another way is that licensing might be of individuals in the same as for > scientific procedures licenses. This is a system that has a good record > and the means to run it already exists. The number of people wishing to > use the things is likely to be limited in the UK, and there is no reason > why their abilities could not be assessed individually, with reference > to some basic criteria. The person would then keep records of how and in > what cases the shock is used and can be held to account if they use it > improperly. I don't think this is practical for the US. The number of persons wishing to and/or already using electronic training devices is already quite large - if one can draw any conclusions from the number of retail sources that sell such items to the general public or trainer. Who will determine if electronic devices are being used improperly? There's such disagreement on these pages on how one would even go about determining how much of an aversive is being delivered. An equivalent strength would certainly vary in its effect dog to dog. Electric fences are routinely used to keep (train) livestock as well as livestock guardian dogs from wandering off territory.Would use of these devices be recommended for special licensing and oversight as well? > > What do others think? Perhaps you have a solution? We here in the US have made a mess of trying to license anything, IMHO. Tens of thousands of us are killed on the highway each year in cars driven by licensed drivers. No one is jumping up and down praising how well the licensing of anything has worked out - from physicians to prescription drugs to firearms, to name a few. > > People keep saying that these devices are necessary for certain really > serious cases, and whilst I disagree it does mean that the number of > collars needed ought to be quite small doesn't it? Surely there can be > no justifiable reason to use a shock collar to train a normal dog to > sit, wait, lie down or recall so these things do not need to be > accessible to the average dog trainer or member of the public? They are in fairly widespread use in the US - I believe - based on what I posted above. > > If the need for behavioural services is generally increasing I would > consider this an issue for more appropriate selective breeding of pet > dogs and education of prospective owners rather than increased > availability of aversive training devices. I don't think that there's any post that I've read on this issue that indicates that anyone would not enthusiastically support this. Like I said in an earlier post, in my mind, this is the fundamental abuse issue to be dealt with. And education of the public on these issues can go a long way toward changing breeding patterns to meet a demand for more suitable companion animal breeds. > > On another issue, I think Vicky made a reference to 'extinction'. The > domestic dog is a single species so removing a few breeds cannot be > extinction. Selectively breeding for traits ideal for pet ownership > would not be genocide, it would be another phase in the selection of > dogs for their working role. In the western world the domestic dog's > biggest working role is as pet and companion and yet very little effort > is made to adapt dogs to this and we keep trying to fit all sorts of > other working dogs into that role. I certainly don't agree with breed > specific legislation and there are people on this list, such as Rudy, > who have spent a lot of time and effort successfully fighting it. It > isn't fair to lump the two issues together because they are not related. Very well stated, I think. > Banning things is not infectious! I think it is infectious. There seems to be a tendency to try to legislate a bad result into extinction rather than deal with the causes of a problem. > > As we all know, governments often make stupid knee jerk legislation in > response to public outrage over incidents such as dog attacks. They just > want to be seen to be doing something, even if what they propose is self > defeating and authoritarian. That was how the Dangerous Dogs Act came > about in the UK, and no amount of professional lobbying could do > anything about it once the government had the bit in its teeth. This is > one very good reason to support regulation of shock collars while you > have the chance, because if there is a serious incident involving a > shock collar [which there have been already but the newspapers have > missed the stories] the government might well simply ban them. In > countries like the UK is small and there is no fear of significant > economic loss if shock collars were to be banned. What's to stop it? Don't know about other countries, but we can't even stop people from finding ways to kill their own children - even though they can be put to death for it. How one chooses to deal with other sentient beings is an issue of education, cultural norms and individual sensitivity. It can't be legislated. We can't keep people from abusing animals unless we know it's going on. If we remove a possible tool of intentional or unintentional abuse like an electronic collar, those who believe that aversives of escalating proportions are necessary for training will continue to find ways of using them. > > Lastly, in those countries where shock collars have already been banned > have we seen a surge in dog attacks or problems related to dogs? > Not that I have heard, but I am happy to be proved wrong. So where is > the evidence that they are so essential? Have we seen a decrease in reports of animal cruelty? I don't think anyone has said e-collars are essential. A substitute aversive can be designed if that is one's training philosophy. I'm not a scientist. I'm John Q public. I don't train with aversives. I'm a clicker trainer. But every time my dog doesn't get what she wants, or is forced to something she doesn't want to do (swim therapy for ortho problems) I've delivered an aversive. One that I can live with because I know it's my responsibility to teach her to live successfully in the environment I've chosen. Growing up we are rarely taught anything about either responsible parenting, pet ownership (or guardianship depending on your sensibilities) or responsible stewardship of anything. That's where I put my energies. OK. Off soap box. Cissy > > Jon > > > > On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 05:47 pm, cissy stamm wrote: > >> How would/should one determine what the training is required, and who >> gives the passing grade? >> >> We have no federally regulated licensing/certification of dog trainers >> or behaviorists in the US. >> >> Cissy >> >> Jon Bowen wrote: >> >>> I can entirely understand why people are opposed to a ban. >>> Would you be happy to see the use of shock collars restricted to >>> trained individuals only, or would you be happy for the general >>> public to continue to be able to buy them? Would you prefer that some >>> kind of limitations were placed on the type and intensity of shock >>> that collars may deliver? >>> These seem logical steps to limit harm and maximise any 'benefit', >>> which should surely always be our intention. >>> Best wishes, >>> Jon >>> On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:04 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: >>> >>>> It may be there is a bit of cultural and political dissonance going on >>>> among the various views. While generally not a fan of the slippery >>>> slope arguments, seeing the ban on tools and methods in countries abroad >>>> being followed by bans on dog breeds certainly got my attention. I >>>> assume all those reading an ethology list have a common interest in >>>> preventing the extinction of animals. While I agree that many tools >>>> should be used in conjunction with competent instructors, I believe that >>>> end is best accomplished through education rather than via legislative >>>> fiat. >>>> >>>> Vicki Magnus >>>> >> >> > > From: IN%"chris.gotman@sympatico.ca" 7-AUG-2003 13:38:12.09 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: (Applied-Ethology) Re: OT: HTML posting Thank you for the link ( http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ). I followed the browser-specific instructions for turning off HTML and now it looks like I no longer have to remember to specify a "text only" reply every time. It's much better this way. These over-sexed operating systems and browsers pandering plug-ins and updates ad-nauseum really gets my goat. sincerely, Chris Gotman Quebec, Canada From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 7-AUG-2003 13:51:36.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: (Applied-Ethology) Re: OT: HTML posting I am on several lists where it is important to be able to use HTML. I can understand, having worked with a text based information service for many years, the frustration at people liking HTML; but, I do now. It is getting increasingly harder and less convenient to diseminate information on non-html email. Just an opinion. I expect that I'll be flamed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "chris gotman" To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: (Applied-Ethology) Re: OT: HTML posting > Thank you for the link ( http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ). I followed > the browser-specific instructions for turning off HTML and now it looks > like I no longer have to remember to specify a "text only" reply every > time. It's much better this way. These over-sexed operating systems and > browsers pandering plug-ins and updates ad-nauseum really gets my goat. > > > sincerely, > Chris Gotman > Quebec, Canada > > > From: IN%"ceann-icrc@lycos.com" 7-AUG-2003 15:26:28.88 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Heather, Coyotes must be a lot like rabbits, because everything that you say would also apply to my coyotes. I can't imagine ever punishing a coyote. It would destroy my relationship with that coyote and would probably take the rest of my life to ever get back it's trust. It would just simply stay away from me. It's flight distance would increase to just beyond my reach. We would both lose. CeAnn -- --------- Original Message --------- DATE: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:08:51 From: heather mcmurray To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Cc: >I don't know about dogs. But, with companion rabbits -- if you have a >really mean rabbit or a rabbit with bad habits you don't use punishment. >Distraction (water sprays) yes, but not punishment. Punishment never works >for a rabbit, ever. They never forget. They remember for years (no >exageration) and they do not trust. The only thing that works with a mean >rabbit (unlike dogs, rabbits can learn new habits however old they get) is >love and patience. The only thing that works with a rabbit with bad habits >is to substitute better habits, gradually. > >An electrical collar on a rabbit? I would say it was an extremely cruel >idea how mild the shock and I'd rather that rabbit be euthanized than stay >with a family who required it to endure such a thing. A rabbit would be >chronically stressed by such control. > >So, I don't know about dogs. But that is my feeling regarding the subject >with a different pet. >Heather > > > From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 16:00:50.08 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars >>> "ceann lambert" 08/07/03 17:39 PM >>> Do you mean displacement behavior or are you talking about redirected behavior in this instance? Can you differintiate the differanc for me? I was speaking of displacement behavior as redirected aggression. Generally redirected aggression is when the animal can not reach the object of his aggression, so directs the aggression toward something or someone he can reach. The displacement behavior also occurs in another context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in status. Case study example, a mother is preparing food, the dog jumps up to the counter top, the mother pushes the dog down, the dog turns and bites a child standing in the kitchen. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 7-AUG-2003 16:01:34.12 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: lighten up! Sorry - I agree with Andreas on this one - nothing amusing about = watching animals (or people come to that) getting hurt - just cheap 'reality' TV presumably intended for those who have little empathy. I must be missing = the point yet again - in what way is the video an appropriate posting to an Applied Ethology mail list?=20 Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =20 -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au]=20 Sent: Friday, 8 August 2003 8:41 a.m. To: 'Andreas Briese' Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: lighten up! I believe these video clips came from a multitude of viewers who sent in their home videos to a TV show. Nothing contrived about them.=20 Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Briese [mailto:Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de]=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:52 PM To: Geiger; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: lighten up! funny cat video Also beeing impressed by the acrobatic and comedian abilities of these=20 cats, i'm always asking myself, how come that somebody had had his=20 camcorder ready. I'm living with dogs ten years and more and there=20 happened funny and not so funny things time by time, but i do not have any=20 videos or photographs covering these events. On the other side there are commercial videotapes, TV-shows and so on covering animals doing "funny" or funny seeming things or accidental.=20 If i want to videotape or photo something like shown in the funny cat video i=20 have to arrange a situation or it had to happen more than once. But i would=20 not let my dog stumble down or break into an table, jump onto polished=20 surfaces and so on only to have it videotaped. Setting up a scenery which i=20 know is proving risks for my animals without some very good reasons seems=20 to me beeing as indirect cruel to my to the pet.=20 On the other side, there is an industry for funny accidents in humans also=20 which isn't funny at all to me. kids stumbling, women falling on icy grounds,=20 men slipping on mud - nobody would like to be this person either - so what is=20 funny in it? Science fiction pioneer A. Heinlein wrote in his early work "the=20 man from another world" that people laugh (loudest) for two reasons: beeing=20 ashamed or asking a higher authority / fortune for not beeing the next=20 affected. =20 Smile and laughter as snarl and bark towards kismet - i like this=20 interpretation. Zeitgeist (is this really an english word? Goethe?) is=20 unmasking the very thin layer of culture that covers human nature, isn't it.=20 Andreas Date sent: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:50:13 +1000 From: Geiger Subject: lighten up! To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >=20 >=20 > An amusing cat video guaranteed to make you laugh!=20 > Regards,=20 > Jackie Perkins=20 > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant=20 > GOOD DOG > BRISBANE QLD AUSTRALIA > Ph 07 33510600 > Fax 07 3351 0611 >=20 >=20 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail:=20 andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 16:28:55.81 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars << On another issue, I think Vicky made a reference to 'extinction'. The domestic dog is a single species so removing a few breeds cannot be extinction. Selectively breeding for traits ideal for pet ownership would not be genocide, it would be another phase in the selection of dogs for their working role. In the western world the domestic dog's biggest working role is as pet and companion and yet very little effort is made to adapt dogs to this and we keep trying to fit all sorts of other working dogs into that role. I certainly don't agree with breed specific legislation and there are people on this list, such as Rudy, who have spent a lot of time and effort successfully fighting it. It isn't fair to lump the two issues together because they are not related.>> Didn't you just relate them in the above paragraph? I doubt you would find many dog trainers who would tell you that every dog breed is the best choice for every home; dogs are not fungible. There are differences among breeds as well as differences between dogs within a specific breed. "Removing" a few breeds would be the extinction of that breed, while pigeons remain among us the carrier pigeon is gone and the term used for that is extinct. Or are you arguing that the species being "removed" from the earth by man should be an effort that is supported by ethologists? Vicki Magnus From: IN%"Shetts@aol.com" 7-AUG-2003 16:41:54.83 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars In a message dated 08/07/2003 4:05:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time, vickim@csmd.edu writes: > The displacement behavior also occurs in another > context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is > inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in > status. Displacement behaviors are not the same as redirected behavior. Displacement behavior is a type of conflict behavior in which the animal displays a behavior that is irrelevant to the situation and is displaced out of its normal context. Yawning, grooming and lip licking are common displacement behaviors in dogs. Displacement behaviors can become ritualized displays such as the grass pulling behavior of gulls that is a territorial display. The situation you describe above remains redirected aggression, and it is true that dogs will commonly redirect to those lower in the social hierarchy. Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Please change my email to: Suzanne@AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com Go to www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com to subscribe to our monthly free ezine (first issue August) 303-932-9095 fax 303-932-2298 From: IN%"ceann-icrc@lycos.com" 7-AUG-2003 17:08:32.06 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars/Motivation of behavior Vicky, Displacement behavior and redirected behavior are two differen t and separate behaviors. I think that both of your examples are redirected behaviors. Vicky, Here is my understanding of Displacement behavior: it is observed when two drives are in conflict. Example: A rooster fighting with another who is too fearful to attack but too brave to retreat will peck on the ground as if eating, much as a person will scratch his head when he does not know what to do. Dispacement behavior may also occur when a specific activity is thwarted in some way. Redirected behavior: is behavior directed at an animal or object other than the one who triggered the bahvior in the first place, but which is not accessible for some reason. An example is a dog behind a fence trying to get at another, but instead bites the owner who is standing next to him. Redirected behavior is something that I always have to be aware of when I am in with coyotes. Not that one might redirect on me, but because they know that they can't, they may redirect on to another coyote in the area. Then there could be a big confrontation with injuries. If I have this wrong, someone please tell me. CeAnn -- --------- Original Message --------- DATE: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:00:34 From: Vicki Magnus To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Cc: >>>> "ceann lambert" 08/07/03 17:39 PM >>> >Do you mean displacement behavior or are you talking about redirected >behavior in this instance? Can you differintiate the differanc for me? > > >I was speaking of displacement behavior as redirected aggression. >Generally redirected aggression is when the animal can not reach the >object of his aggression, so directs the aggression toward something or >someone he can reach. The displacement behavior also occurs in another >context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is >inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in >status. Case study example, a mother is preparing food, the dog jumps >up to the counter top, the mother pushes the dog down, the dog turns and >bites a child standing in the kitchen. > >Vicki Magnus > From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 17:09:25.84 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars The situation you describe above remains redirected aggression, and it is true that dogs will commonly redirect to those lower in the social hierarchy. I stand corrected in my wording. I am still interested in hearing how the ecollar shock caused two dogs to fight to the death, and for that matter, why the humans on the other end of the leashes let it happen. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 7-AUG-2003 17:19:49.18 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars It is possible for an e-collar to cause the escalation of aggression. It is not possible for a properly set up shock collar to ... not even by accident. You folks are just trying to get me back into this discussion, I can tell. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 7-AUG-2003 17:47:02.16 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars OK. Bad trainers can cause an escalation of aggression without using aversives. R+ can do it as well. When we sent our aggressive Malinois back to his trainer for evaluation and rehoming, she told me about one incident early on when he did bark/lunge at a kid bouncing a ball, then sat and looked up at her for a treat/reward. Looks like my husband created a chain rather than counter-conditioning. Timing is everything. Without the benefit of an experienced trainer/handler, a dog can end up dead as a result of ignorance and/or poor timing in reward or aversive. A bad handler is a bad handler is a bad handler. Doesn't matter in my book what causes the animal to cause damage and end up dead. It's dead. A couple of years ago I was dealing with a barking problem with my livestock guardian dog at our rural cabin. She was allowed off lead and patrolled our territory. We had lots of turkey hawks (vultures) circling our fields as well as our neighbors'. She barked to keep them from landing. (Hard wired). I liked the sound of her barking. My neighbors hated it. He suggested an e-collar. Notoriously ineffective with livestock guardian breeds. We chose to keep her on lead for walks, on a tie out when we could supervise, and put up curtains to block her view when she was inside. After extensive questioning of other lgd owners in similar situations, I decided if these things didn't work, I would have de-barked her rather use e-collars or citronella collars or rehome. (I guess I could have always taken an "I don't care" attitude toward my neighbor as well). There really aren't any simple answers that I've been able to find. There are so many ways to create dogs that can't cope with their environments. Aversives don't have a monopoly. Cissy Tony Ancheta wrote: > It is possible for an e-collar to cause the escalation of aggression. > > It is not possible for a properly set up shock collar to ... not even by > accident. > > You folks are just trying to get me back into this discussion, I can tell. From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 7-AUG-2003 18:21:28.85 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "'margory cohen'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic Well now Marjory, what can I do to retain your good opinion of me? For I would be loathe to lose it! Remember I am just "flanking" you for your own good! Here in the text of a letter to my own profession is my standpoint on a related matter. This letter was published in the Veterinary Record. "Check chains" Sir, - In reply to Mr. Davidson's letter of March 12, I would like to point out that on page 29 of her book, Handling a Problem Dog, Barbara Woodhouse tells us that the cure for vicious behaviour in a dog is "to return violence with violence". She continues "...put the dog on a long piece of string attached to its choke chain (sic). When it attempts to bite...pick up the string and suspend the dog for a few seconds off its front legs, leaving its back feet on the ground, and at the same time using a thunderous tone of voice ...the dog when suspended thus will feel like choking and will quickly realize who is master of the situation. Do not put the dog back on its front legs until it shows signs of discomfort (usually after about ten seconds). Now the dog will be subdued, and you should caress and praise it. Repeat this process every time the dog persists in the habit; you will certainly have to do so two or three times if the vice is deeply ingrained".(1) Here Mrs. Woodhouse uses the term choke chain and is presumably using it (the chain) properly. The list of injuries that can be caused by repeatedly hanging a dog, for a slow count of ten is impressive. From the Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we learn that "It is never appropriate to recommend to an owner to hang a dog from a choke collar to subdue aggression. If the owner cannot back the dog down, and this may take a fight to the death, they are at risk of being injured. Furthermore, the dog is at risk of injured ocular vessels, tracheal and oesophageal damage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. In the few cases of the latter due to hanging by a choker seen at VHUP, all have died despite therapy that included a respirator". (2) In 30 years of practice (including 22 as veterinary advisor to a police dog section) I have seen numerous severely sprained necks, cases of fainting, transient foreleg paresis and hind leg ataxia after robust use of the "check" chain. When the practice of slamming the dog sideways with a jerk that brought the foreparts clear of the ground and two or three feet towards the handler, became popular in the 1970's the resulting painful condition was known as 'Woodhouse neck' in this Practice. Some of these cases exhibited misalignment of cervical vertebrae on radiographs. My ophthalmology colleagues have decided views on the relation between compression of the neck, intraocular pressure disturbances and damage to the cervical sympathetic nerve chain resulting in Horner's syndrome. I have personally seen a case of swollen eyes with petechial scleral haemorrhage (strangled in a boarding kennel) and a number of temporarily voiceless dogs. USING PUNISHMENT TO TRAIN DOGS, HORSES OR CHILDREN WORKS TO THE SATISFACTION OF DRILL SERGEANTS, TRADITIONAL SCHOOLMASTERS, HORSE BREAKERS, DOG "CHOKERS AND JERKERS" IN A BROAD MAJORITY OF CASES. IT FAILS DISASTROUSLY WHEN IT CREATES ANXIOUS CASUALTIES OR VIOLENTLY DEFIANT REBELS. THE QUESTION IS VERY SIMPLE. WHEN A PUNISHMENT FAILS WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT? DO YOU RELENTLESSLY INCREASE THE PUNISHMENT, OR TRY ALTERNATIVE METHODS? It is the ambition of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the Association of Pet Behaviour Counselors and of many other groups interested in the welfare of children as well as pets, to persuade us to try the alternative method first. I hope that I am not alone in believing that the veterinary profession should embrace these issues as part of a general concern with animal Welfare. R. E. Walker, 78, Bromyard Road, Worcester, WR2 5DA (1) Handling a Problem Dog, B. Woodhouse, Ring Press, 1992 (2) K. Overall, Canine Aggression, Master class, B.S.A.V.A. Congress, Birmingham 1993." Marjory - this is so clear to me from my experience as a child, a soldier, a veterinarian, an employer, and a father. Before everybody starts digging their little foxholes of defiance -there is more! I gained first can experience of military penal discipline in a detention centre as a SUS (soldier under sentence). In the mid-50s, military gaols only occasionally killed their inmates but discipline was enforced with axe handles if the staff deemed it necessary. Universal conscription to National Service filtered the nation's 18-year-old manhood. The criminal element discovered by old-fashioned schooling passed into the stockade, emerged harder, fitter, and endowed with military skills but largely unreformed. On release, I was promoted to the regimental police and joined the staff of our little jail. So I was on the other end of the axe handle. In times that are more recent, I assisted at a school for children with learning and behavioural problems. A distressing number of the kids had been offered the pin 'em down, timely smack routines of what parents intuitively thought was "tough love". There seems to be primate trait to bite, pinch and thump group members to induce subservience and conformity. This kind of constructive bullying may well be adaptive in the group dynamics of wolf packs, howling hominids chasing bears or horse herds in co-coordinated flight. I say we can (and should) try to do better than the stranglers and shockers. Fear and punishment can distort the organism in profound ways. The products of harsh disciplines are notorious. The care and nurturing of children young adults and singly mothers has been exposed in shame and notoriety. Close examination of the literature of punishment reveals casualties, distortions and perversions at every turn. The panoramic photographs of the graduation from schools and training centers confirm that the old methods produce satisfactory numbers of recruits. The casualties, (the imploded neurotics and the explosive reactives) have been eliminated. The former are in psychic traction and the latter expelled or cashiered. The delayed reaction problems are ticking. -----Original Message----- From: margory cohen [mailto:margory@rcn.com] Sent: 06 August 2003 18:57 To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: electronic collars - list topic All this other stuff and especially some of the attacks on Mr. Koehler -- and Dr. Walker, you know I'm a huge fan and admirer -- but taking out of context from the Koehler book cheapens. From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 18:27:24.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars I don't know about dogs. But, with companion rabbits -- if you have a really mean rabbit or a rabbit with bad habits you don't use punishment. Distraction (water sprays) yes, but not punishment. I am uncertain how you are defining "punishment". I would suspect the rabbit views the water spray as something to be avoided, hence the presumed effectiveness of the spray bottle as "distraction". If you are using "punishment" as a term defining one of the operant conditioning quadrants, then the spray bottle is in fact positive punishment. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 7-AUG-2003 18:52:55.67 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic <> Using discipline as a synonym for abusive punishment is a misunderstanding of both the word and the concept. I suggest looking up the etymology of the word. To be more specific, I say your determination that the use of a slip collar must be abuse would be akin to stating that the axe handle was the reason the guards were sadistic, so if axe handles were eliminated from the planet the guards would have been kindly folk that truly worked to rehabilitate those under their care and guidance. If you indeed find that to be true, I understand your abhorrence of slip collars, if you suspect the guards might in fact have found another tool to use in their abuse, I say your argument against slip collars founders. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 7-AUG-2003 19:25:25.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic Vicki Magnus wrote: To be more specific, I say your > determination that the use of a slip collar must be abuse would be akin > to stating that the axe handle was the reason the guards were sadistic, > so if axe handles were eliminated from the planet the guards would have > been kindly folk that truly worked to rehabilitate those under their > care and guidance. If you indeed find that to be true, I understand > your abhorrence of slip collars, if you suspect the guards might in fact > have found another tool to use in their abuse, I say your argument > against slip collars founders. Vicki, I grew up in a rural area in the US where hunting for food (year round despite restrictions) was and is common. It's one of those "notorious" red neck localities where people keep shot guns on racks in their pick up trucks - wear baseball style caps and plaid shirts. When I moved to NYC I couldn't understand all the fuss about guns. We were taught gun safety at an early age. Guns weren't for use against people. If you got pissed off enough to want to kill someone, maybe you would use the butt of a gun to club someone to death. But a bullet from a gun? Too impersonal. Knives, fists, rocks, clubs were the tools fueled by human fury. I used to be amazed when people in the city spoke about how lucky I was to grow up in a rural environment. I would always ask them if they had seen the movie "Deliverance". These were the people I grew up with. No guns against people. So what. Rape, incest, domestic violence, child abuse, assault, murder, violence were part of every day life. And invisible if one chose not to see. That's why I think that it isn't any particular tool that's to blame. It's our values as human beings. So remove the axe handle, the gun, the e-collar as tools of intimidation and you still have the fundamental pathology that causes abusive behavior. I couldn't agree more with what you've said. Cissy > > > > > > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 7-AUG-2003 23:58:46.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars -- the water bottle does not involve PAIN. Rabbits dislike being wet (although many can and like to swim) but water doesn't hurt them. Electrical shock of any intensity, heat, the pulling of ears or any part of the body, the holding of a rabbit by the scruff of its neck (sorry folks, I know that many are trained to hold commercial rabbits this way) or its legs upside down, some noises, substances/things in their eyes, bites -- these are painful to a rabbit. They don't forget these things and if you adopt a rabbit who has experienced them, it takes years for the rabbit to trust/forget. The quadrant you are referring to is a MODEL or THEORY. Maybe it isn't exactly the best one for house rabbits who live for over ten years and interact closely with people. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicki Magnus" To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars > I don't know about dogs. But, with companion rabbits -- if you have a > really mean rabbit or a rabbit with bad habits you don't use punishment. > Distraction (water sprays) yes, but not punishment. > > I am uncertain how you are defining "punishment". I would suspect the > rabbit views the water spray as something to be avoided, hence the > presumed effectiveness of the spray bottle as "distraction". If you are > using "punishment" as a term defining one of the operant conditioning > quadrants, then the spray bottle is in fact positive punishment. > > Vicki Magnus > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 8-AUG-2003 00:08:29.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction Theoretically because breeds are not species you could over time get the same breed of dog BACK after its "extinction". It is not gone/vanished just because that dog is no longer being bred. It is not as easy to get a passenger pigeon back as the creation of a species involves a great deal more evolutionary time and mutations/characteristics not usually present in the genome of closely related species. That's why species can't interbreed viable offspring whereas dog breeds can. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicki Magnus" To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:28 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars > << On another issue, I think Vicky made a reference to 'extinction'. The > domestic dog is a single species so removing a few breeds cannot be > extinction. Selectively breeding for traits ideal for pet ownership > would not be genocide, it would be another phase in the selection of > dogs for their working role. In the western world the domestic dog's > biggest working role is as pet and companion and yet very little effort > is made to adapt dogs to this and we keep trying to fit all sorts of > other working dogs into that role. I certainly don't agree with breed > specific legislation and there are people on this list, such as Rudy, > who have spent a lot of time and effort successfully fighting it. It > isn't fair to lump the two issues together because they are not > related.>> > > Didn't you just relate them in the above paragraph? I doubt you would > find many dog trainers who would tell you that every dog breed is the > best choice for every home; dogs are not fungible. There are > differences among breeds as well as differences between dogs within a > specific breed. "Removing" a few breeds would be the extinction of that > breed, while pigeons remain among us the carrier pigeon is gone and the > term used for that is extinct. Or are you arguing that the species > being "removed" from the earth by man should be an effort that is > supported by ethologists? > > Vicki Magnus > > From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 8-AUG-2003 03:30:28.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars At 12:23 PM Tuesday 8/5/2003, you wrote: >I do not think anyone would disagree in saying that using a e/shock >collar can lead to abuse and welfare problems if it is used >incorrectly, whether or not the misuse is intentional. Indeed, I fully agree. I also think one could say this of any dog training tool or method. Again, for clarification, when I refer to an e-collar I'm talking about a manually operated device, that has a handheld transmitter (as per the subject line of this thread). I'm not referring, as some seem to be, to automatically activated anti-bark collars...which I have never seen advertised as "electronic collars". I have used an e-collar on a dog as a manually-operated anti-bark collar. She would otherwise bark aggressively at anyone who walked past our suburban property, including small children. The reason I haven't used an automatic anti-bark collar is because I don't want her to be shocked if she starts barking while playing with our other dogs... that's acceptable barking IMO. Incidentally, my experience with this dog, for this application, is that the e-collar is far more humane than is any sort of verbal correction. The latter did not work well, but caused considerable stress on the dog. I've found that the e-collar is far more effective and also far less stressful on the dog. My dog is no longer a nuisance to my neighbors AND she's happier. I measure abuse from the dog's perspective. In this instance, verbal corrections became abusive and the e-collar application is humane. >Therefore >would it not be better to have a licensed product that can be >prescribed by a vet, behaviourist or certified trainer, when they come >into existence, that can determine the correct setting for that >individual dog. IMO, one learns how to properly use e-collars by seeking out the advice of experienced practical dog trainers with demonstrated expertise in the use of e-collars. Easy to do these days, given all the working dog email lists. Vets, certified dog trainers and behaviorists are not necessarily going to know about the proper use of e-collars, and will likely know far less than those with experience achieving practical results with e-collars. >It may mean trying the collar several times in >different contexts to ascertain the best setting. I believe it's a bit easier to learn how to achieve the proper e-collar setting to use for a given dog for a given training task, then it is to learn how to properly administer a correction with a conventional training collar (flat, choke, pinch, etc.). I also think it's easier to abuse a dog with an e-collar than with most other training tools. So indeed, I think warnings and guidance are called for. But not to the point of banning or regulating sales to the public, IMO. > The mechanism controlling the setting could then be disabled to prevent > the owner >from increasing it. But a different setting is required, even for a given dog, depending on the context. Is the dog in drive, and if so, how high in drive? Are we trying to teach an aversion (e.g. snake proofing), or assist in obedience training (e.g. compliance to a recall command)? Even for the same dog, these will require quite different settings. >It is far too easy to misinterpret animal >behaviour and many people who do not have an interest in behaviour or >training do just that. Would it not be better to have some with >experience ascertaining the correct setting? There are training seminars given by experienced e-collar experts, for those who feel it's necessary. There are at least two 'dog training with e-collars' email lists. One of the high end e-collar manufacturers packages a videotape with their e-collars to demonstrate how to use it. These are some of the available avenues for learning how to use e-collars. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 8-AUG-2003 04:19:02.94 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "'heather mcmurray'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars All this frantic "text pecking" is itself of interest. What is its origin? Is it the teachers? What does it avail us to squabble over the school book definitions if we pepper our posts with phrases such as "a really mean rabbit" or "a rabbit with bad habits". We are perilously close to notions of "evil" and "wrong doing". I recently defended my assistant of 14 years from a negligence complaint over a rabbit which shrieked when handled and suffered a broken spine. It was saga of dental disaster, nutritional failure, simple ignorance and of course the culture of blame and notions of monetary gain. Heather makes the pertinent points. -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: 08 August 2003 06:59 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: electronic collars -- the water bottle does not involve PAIN. Rabbits dislike being wet (although many can and like to swim) but water doesn't hurt them. Electrical shock of any intensity, heat, the pulling of ears or any part of the body, the holding of a rabbit by the scruff of its neck (sorry folks, I know that many are trained to hold commercial rabbits this way) or its legs upside down, some noises, substances/things in their eyes, bites -- these are painful to a rabbit. They don't forget these things and if you adopt a rabbit who has experienced them, it takes years for the rabbit to trust/forget. The quadrant you are referring to is a MODEL or THEORY. Maybe it isn't exactly the best one for house rabbits who live for over ten years and interact closely with people. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vicki Magnus" To: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars > I don't know about dogs. But, with companion rabbits -- if you have a > really mean rabbit or a rabbit with bad habits you don't use punishment. > Distraction (water sprays) yes, but not punishment. > > I am uncertain how you are defining "punishment". I would suspect the > rabbit views the water spray as something to be avoided, hence the > presumed effectiveness of the spray bottle as "distraction". If you are > using "punishment" as a term defining one of the operant conditioning > quadrants, then the spray bottle is in fact positive punishment. > > Vicki Magnus > From: IN%"lking@hsus.org" "Lesley King" 8-AUG-2003 05:04:11.82 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "ethology" CC: Subj: electronic collars - discuss off list? Hi, If the discussion is still about electronic collars, is it possible for those interested to talk off list? Please don't flame me, but my inbox can't take it and I have noticed a lot of unsubscribers in the last couple of days. Lesley From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 05:34:33.57 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Dear Gerrard, Thanks for that scholarly input. I meet all of the stated criteria for effective humane use of punishment in my behaviour work. Perhaps that is why I have such high success rates with behaviours that are normally difficult to work with such as nuisance barking even when entrenched. I never look forward to choosing punishment as a method on principle, but there is little choice when dealing with long term nuisance barkers in impossible environments such as I am faced with multiple times per day. Working breeds are popular in Australia too which accounts for some of the trouble. I always emphasise the importance of instituting the behaviour strategy for the dog and taking advantage of the phone support I offer. The vast majority of nuisance barkers I see are just that...nuissance barkers. A small number have separation anxiety, OCD, grief, chronic pain, CDS etc. Jacqueline Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Gerflannigan@aol.com [mailto:Gerflannigan@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:38 AM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: electronic collars I really wanted to stay out of this.... The use of punishment in learning is emotional and has been argued for teaching children and, more recently, for use in dogs. Is it ethical? abusive? or even effective? Does it have harmful side effects? The real question is "are you willing to use punishment at all"? If the answer is no (on ethical or any other grounds), there is no real point discussing it further. That is not a good or bad thing. Many believe that punishment just doesn't work. The actual truth is that it works but is difficult to put into practice. (some of the areas below are paraphrased- as Jon put it, the section below is not an endorsement of the principles) "In order to maximize punishment (from Barry Schwartz; Physiology of Learning and Behavior, 1989- I realize there are newer editions- chapter 6): 1. The punishing stimulus should be as intense as possible (large enough to be effective without inducing learned helplessness). 2. The delay between response and punishment should be as short as possible. 3. The punishing stimulus should not be introduced in a mild form and gradually increased in intensity (the animal can adapt to the gradual increasing intensity). 4. Punishment should be a certainty (not on an irregular pattern, the absence of punishment can act as an intermittent reinforcer). 5. Have delivery of punishment serve as a signal that reinforcement is not available for the punished response. 6. Decrease the frequency with which the reinforcer is available as a consequence of the response. 7. Arrange a dependency between the reinforcer and an alternative response." If you cannot follow these factors, you shouldn't be using punishment. Another question for the use of shock collars (or e-collars, if you wish) is "how do you feel about using electricity as a form of punishment"? What I am really asking is, "if you are willing to use punishment, is the alternative more or less humane." If your definition of welfare is how the animal will avoid something (Dr. Sherman) then the Juarbe-Diaz (spelling?) et al. paper showed that the citronella collar was more effective at reducing barking so did it have a poorer effect on welfare of the dogs? (I agree with the earlier poster that felt there may be some bias by the experimenters- I know two of the authors). Just some rambling thoughts, Gerry _________________________________________________________________ Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc Carolina Veterinary Specialists Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina 336-632-0605 (Voice) 336-632-0703 (Fax) gerflannigan@aol.com From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 05:34:36.46 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Off the top of my head=85.why yes! Phone the vet at Northgate Veterinary Surgery 0732669992 (sorry do not know international codes but it is Australia). I recently attended to one of their neighbours with incessant barkers. Quite a few of my neighbours too. Some do not make complaints because they do not wish to be bad neighbours. They just suffer and hope someone else will do their dirty work. My parents have two nasty barking border collies next door making it impossible to sit downstairs in the cool and eat together. It is absolutely rife around here. Last year when I was on TV with a couple of cattle dogs that had successfully had their noise abatement notice problem solved using static pulse collars, the Brisbane City Council complained that they spend something like 17 million dollars per year attending to dog related complaints mostly to do with barking, and they take just three million dollars per year in dog registration revenue.=20 Dr Jacqueline Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant AUSTRALIA =A0 -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com]=20 Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:31 AM To: Geiger Cc: 'heather mcmurray'; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars =A0 Are there any other natives of Brisbane who can confirm this nightmare of barking related stress disorder in humans? I hope not for their sake, as I find the sound of repetitive barking very unpleasant. Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 10:48 am, Geiger wrote: Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems inBrisbaneis dogs barking at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example moving to a lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties have a footpath at the front and a walkway at the back. There is nowhere =93safe=94 to put = the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer heatstroke. Not everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or they would never finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a dog they often still bark when you approach. Most of this barking is territorial and the reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog thinks it has successfully defended its territory. These barking habits continue to worsen until the dog barks at the slightest provocation. It also triggers waves of barking throughout the neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any time of the day or night. Human health is a real issue. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE =A0 -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent:Wednesday, August 06, 200310:26 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars =A0 I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of concern about dogs barking.=A0 Here is my view/2-cents: My experience living in the city, and living now in=A0a very hot climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance.=A0 Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water.=A0 AND this seems to be the biggie = -- dog barks when=A0it=A0is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend and = the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house.=A0 Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed.=A0 If you are breeding dogs, then you should = be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed urban neighborhood. If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let you make friends with the dog. There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by the humans, not the dog. =A0 In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough.=A0 From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 05:34:38.87 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars The point is that the climate does not allow for solid fencing. It is too hot!!! This point is apparently lost on those who have never experienced living in a part of the world with a very long hot humid summer. Queensland is tropical and sub-tropical. That is also why dogs should not be left inside. Did you know that it is actually illegal to leave a dog in a car where I live...at any time of year? The reason is because dogs fry in cars here and it is placing them at risk. We recently had Dr Ian Dunbar over at the Gold Coast talking and he promoted approaching a dog in its car as a sort of temperament test. Ian is of course from the UK and just can not imagine how different life is in the sub tropics. Dr Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:28 AM To: stammwood@rcn.com Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars People like Robert Hubrecht also produce designs for low-noise kennels and a NCDL shelter local to me has found that full height glass fronts reduce barking, perhaps because of reflected sounds? It isn't difficult to alter design to reduce barking, especially if your trade is breeding dogs. Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 12:42 pm, cissy stamm wrote: > I think it was Sue Sternberg in the US that came up with a design in > shelter situations to reduce barking. The design included pens with > solid walls instead of open fence-like materials. (In the shelter > context, the side for viewing the dogs consisted of a horizontally > split door). The runs accessible from the pens were also solid part of > the way up on the walls so dogs couldn't see each other. > > Sorry for the inelegant description. Keeping dogs from seeing each > other and/or other triggers greatly reduced the noise. Perhaps visual > barriers might be helpful in the environment you described. Being able > to have some peace could overcome the aesthetic issues - or - you > could make a fortune designing something. > > Cissy > > Geiger wrote: > >> Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems in Brisbane is dogs >> barking at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example >> moving to a lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties >> have a footpath at the front and a walkway at the back. There is >> nowhere ?safe? to put the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer >> heatstroke. Not everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or >> they would never finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a >> dog they often still bark when you approach. Most of this barking is >> territorial and the reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog >> thinks it has successfully defended its territory. These barking >> habits continue to worsen until the dog barks at the slightest >> provocation. It also triggers waves of barking throughout the >> neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any time of the >> day or night. Human health is a real issue. >> Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE >> -----Original Message----- >> From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:26 AM >> To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >> Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars >> I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of >> concern about dogs barking. Here is my view/2-cents: >> My experience living in the city, and living now in a very hot >> climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the >> neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some >> disturbance. Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water. AND >> this seems to be the biggie -- dog barks when it is left alone >> outside on a vacation/weekend and the dog expects that the dog should >> be let inside the house. Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed. If you >> are breeding dogs, then you should be responsible enough to keep >> unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed >> urban neighborhood. >> If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you >> everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you >> in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let >> you make friends with the dog. >> There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by >> the humans, not the dog. >> In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who >> keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to >> sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough. > > From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 05:34:41.88 To: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "'R. Rodd'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Dear Rodd, that is the very point!! In Brisbane the environmental stimuli for barking are many and some of the ways to cut them down are not suitable. Hence electronic bark control collars are very necessary. Dr Jacqueline Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Brisbane Australia -----Original Message----- From: R. Rodd [mailto:rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:19 PM To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars Wouldn't barriers tend to defeat the object of leaving the dogs outside, though? I would have thought anything substantial enough to act as a sight barrier would also prevent cooling by circulating airflow. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 8-AUG-2003 05:43:41.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars >>> heather mcmurray 08/08/03 02:00 AM >>> <<-- the water bottle does not involve PAIN. Rabbits dislike being wet (although many can and like to swim) but water doesn't hurt them. Electrical shock of any intensity, heat, the pulling of ears or any part of the body, the holding of a rabbit by the scruff of its neck (sorry folks, I know that many are trained to hold commercial rabbits this way) or its legs upside down, some noises, substances/things in their eyes, bites -- these are painful to a rabbit. They don't forget these things and if you adopt a rabbit who has experienced them, it takes years for the rabbit to trust/forget. The quadrant you are referring to is a MODEL or THEORY. Maybe it isn't exactly the best one for house rabbits who live for over ten years and interact closely with people.>> Many ethologists use models and theories, especially learning theories. Not a requirement though, certainly one is free to disagree with any or all theories and models, if you do not believe learning theory applies to the acquisition of knowledge, that's fine. Perhaps you could explain in your model or theory why the spray bottle is effective in what I assume is an attempt to redirect or extinguish a behavior? I can assure you that one can use an ecollar to be less aversive than a spray bottle. It could very well be that the rabbit could be much more humanely trained with a quick gentle stim that achieves the effect of startling him as does the water, and as that event can be timed to coincide only with the undesired behavior, rather than lingering for some time, the rabbit could learn what behavior was or was not acceptable to the human. Of course the presupposition underlying your post is mistaken, albeit common among some who imagine there is only their idea of what they find nonaversive and the other possibility is a violent, vicious, and brutal attack on the animal, that those are the only two options. Attacking animals is not training, if common sense does not suffice ethologists in the field can confirm animals do not learn well in the midst of panic over an attack. Humans also experience the fight or flight rush of physiological responses to fear which make concentration impossible. I do wonder about those who are convinced if they ever did give a correction the animal would hate them forever and never recover. I can only assume people with that belief system do not obtain medical care for their animals, and certainly would never dream of doing to an animal what I just did, which was have a tumor removed from a dogs leg. Let's see, there is the general unhappiness at the smells and sounds at the veterinary hospital, there was poking and measuring of the tumor, while I held her still, which was uncomfortable at the least, then the actual operation which I am certain was very scary, and then of course upon waking the dog finds herself in pain with her leg bandaged and to top it off I am preventing her from ripping off the bandage and licking the wound. I have to disappoint those who expect the ending of this to be that the dog hates and mistrusts me for the remainder of her time on earth, in actuality she was quite happy to see me. When the bandages are changed she cringes and even snaps, I know it hurts her little face but am willing to hurt her so that she can have full use of her leg and go back to running and jumping and marking the corners of her farm. I am uncertain where people picked up the idea that if they gave a correction of some kind the animal would hate them forever, that kind of long lasting grudge strikes me as a peculiarly human trait. People can train as they please but I would urge those with that view to at least consider vet care, even to the point of operations for painful tumors. Yes it will hurt, but I think you will be quite surprised to find that the animal will still love and trust you. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 05:44:49.66 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars I agree. But the environment in large part is natural ie the heat and wildlife. It is suitable to certain breeds of dog more than others but people continue to choose unsuitable breeds. What I do often saves dogs lives. I think they are worth saving. Some may not.=20 Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant=20 AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz]=20 Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:33 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars So =96 having designed an environment that is, by this description, unsuitable to the behavioural characteristics of dogs, aversive therapy has to be used to modify that behavior. Perhaps I=92m missing the point somewhere (or perhaps I might be that most pusillanimous of all things - a wincer!) but there appears to be a total lack of either ethics or critical reasoning in this scenario.=20 =A0 =A0 Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =A0 -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au]=20 Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 9:48 p.m. To: 'heather mcmurray' Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: Quick intro and re:electronic collars =A0 Hello Heather, one of the biggest problems in Brisbane is dogs barking at passers by on walkways. Many people end up for example moving to a lovely new suburb with lots of walkways so properties have a footpath at the front and a walkway at the back. There is nowhere =93safe=94 to put = the dog. An indoors dog in the heat will suffer heatstroke. Not everyone can stop to make friends with each dog or they would never finish their walk. Even if you are friends with a dog they often still bark when you approach. Most of this barking is territorial and the reward is in that the walkers walk on so the dog thinks it has successfully defended its territory. These barking habits continue to worsen until the dog barks at the slightest provocation. It also triggers waves of barking throughout the neighbourhood. In some regions there is no peace at any time of the day or night. Human health is a real issue.=20 Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE =A0 -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:26 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: Quick intro and re:electronic collars =A0 I am not a dog trainer and am a bit bewildered at the amount of concern about dogs barking.=A0 Here is my view/2-cents: My experience living in the city, and living now in=A0a very hot climate is that dogs bark if someone walks by/through the neighborhood; dogs bark at night if there are sirens or some disturbance.=A0 Dogs bark if they are hungry or run out of water.=A0 AND this seems to be the biggie = -- dog barks when=A0it=A0is left alone outside on a vacation/weekend and = the dog expects that the dog should be let inside the house.=A0 Pet dogs should be neutered/spayed.=A0 If you are breeding dogs, then you should = be responsible enough to keep unspayed females inside or not live in a small house in a packed urban neighborhood. If you live next to someone with a dog and that dog barks at you everytime you or friends go in or out of your house, or barks at you in your yard then maybe that is a problem if your neighbor won't let you make friends with the dog. There is the exception, a problem dog - but it is usually caused by the humans, not the dog. =A0 In my mind a more serious problem than barking is the neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, who doesn't bark, and who would dearly like to sink his teeth into you -- and, the fencing is not high enough.=A0=20 From: IN%"rheikkin@hytti.uku.fi" 8-AUG-2003 05:54:08.95 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: PLEASE! Could you please write directly to the person you want to and leave the rest of us ignorant! I´m tired of my mail box beeing stuffed all the time. Reija From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 8-AUG-2003 06:59:36.64 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Hmmmm....scientific terminology abuse again. In ethology, a displacement behaviour is one that occurs when an animal is apparently in conflict and performs a behaviour apparently unrelated to the context. For example, when birds are performing a courtship dance and appear uncertain whether mating will occur, one of them might suddenly break away and start preening, or, humans scratching their heads when they are puzzled by something. Regards to All, Chris On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:00:34 -0400 Vicki Magnus wrote: > >>> "ceann lambert" 08/07/03 17:39 PM >>> > Do you mean displacement behavior or are you talking about redirected > behavior in this instance? Can you differintiate the differanc for me? > > > I was speaking of displacement behavior as redirected aggression. > Generally redirected aggression is when the animal can not reach the > object of his aggression, so directs the aggression toward something or > someone he can reach. The displacement behavior also occurs in another > context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is > inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in > status. Case study example, a mother is preparing food, the dog jumps > up to the counter top, the mother pushes the dog down, the dog turns and > bites a child standing in the kitchen. > > Vicki Magnus > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"ceann-icrc@lycos.com" 8-AUG-2003 07:24:23.51 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Chris, Why does a post with useful information in it, have to start it's first sentence with such a negative, put down, wording? CeAnn -- --------- Original Message --------- DATE: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:57:19 From: Chris Sherwin To: Vicki Magnus Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > >Hmmmm....scientific terminology abuse again. In ethology, a displacement >behaviour is one that occurs when an animal is apparently in conflict and performs >a behaviour apparently unrelated to the context. For example, when birds are >performing a courtship dance and appear uncertain whether mating will occur, one of >them might suddenly break away and start preening, or, humans scratching their >heads when they are puzzled by something. > >Regards to All, > >Chris > >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:00:34 -0400 Vicki Magnus wrote: > >> >>> "ceann lambert" 08/07/03 17:39 PM >>> >> Do you mean displacement behavior or are you talking about redirected >> behavior in this instance? Can you differintiate the differanc for me? >> >> >> I was speaking of displacement behavior as redirected aggression. >> Generally redirected aggression is when the animal can not reach the >> object of his aggression, so directs the aggression toward something or >> someone he can reach. The displacement behavior also occurs in another >> context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is >> inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in >> status. Case study example, a mother is preparing food, the dog jumps >> up to the counter top, the mother pushes the dog down, the dog turns and >> bites a child standing in the kitchen. >> >> Vicki Magnus >> > >............................................................. >Dr C.M. Sherwin >UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) >Centre for Behavioural Biology, >Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, >University of Bristol, >Langford House, >Langford, >BS40 5DU, U.K. > > >Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 >Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 >email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 8-AUG-2003 07:47:44.28 To: IN%"ceann-icrc@lycos.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars CeAnn, Historically, this bulletin board was set up to be used as a communication forum on the science of applied animal behaviour, hence it is called the 'applied ethology network'. Ethologists have gone to great pains to carefully define behaviours, phrases, etc. relating to their professional scientific research. On several occasions in the discussion of 'e-collars/shock collars', 'punishment', 'aversion learning' over the last few days, ethological terminology has been incorrectly used in a way to apparently validate personal hypotheses, ideas, perhaps even peoples' business interests. The misuse of such scientific terminology leads to misinformation and generates confusion, rather than clarifying ideas or hypotheses. So, my message was intended to suggest that if this discussion is to remain in the realms of scientific discourse, we should attempt to be clear in our use of terminology. Respectfully yours, Chris On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:24:05 +0000 ceann lambert wrote: > Chris, > Why does a post with useful information in it, have to start it's first sentence > with such a negative, put down, wording? > CeAnn > -- > > --------- Original Message --------- > > DATE: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:57:19 > From: Chris Sherwin > To: Vicki Magnus > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > > > >Hmmmm....scientific terminology abuse again. In ethology, a displacement > >behaviour is one that occurs when an animal is apparently in conflict and performs > > >a behaviour apparently unrelated to the context. For example, when birds are > >performing a courtship dance and appear uncertain whether mating will occur, one > of > >them might suddenly break away and start preening, or, humans scratching their > >heads when they are puzzled by something. > > > >Regards to All, > > > >Chris > > > >On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:00:34 -0400 Vicki Magnus wrote: > > > >> >>> "ceann lambert" 08/07/03 17:39 PM >>> > >> Do you mean displacement behavior or are you talking about redirected > >> behavior in this instance? Can you differintiate the differanc for me? > >> > >> > >> I was speaking of displacement behavior as redirected aggression. > >> Generally redirected aggression is when the animal can not reach the > >> object of his aggression, so directs the aggression toward something or > >> someone he can reach. The displacement behavior also occurs in another > >> context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is > >> inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in > >> status. Case study example, a mother is preparing food, the dog jumps > >> up to the counter top, the mother pushes the dog down, the dog turns and > >> bites a child standing in the kitchen. > >> > >> Vicki Magnus > >> > > > >............................................................. > >Dr C.M. Sherwin > >UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > >Centre for Behavioural Biology, > >Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > >University of Bristol, > >Langford House, > >Langford, > >BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > > > >Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > >Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > >email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > > > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"Juan.Pratdesaba@aventis.com" 8-AUG-2003 08:29:25.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: lighten up! Answering to your question in what way?? well in the way that not = everything is work or science or discussion, we must have little times of joy and laughter. By the way, i saw the video and not a cat or human was hurt, = so there's nothing to complain about. Regards, Juan Jos=E9 -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:01 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: lighten up! Sorry - I agree with Andreas on this one - nothing amusing about = watching animals (or people come to that) getting hurt - just cheap 'reality' TV presumably intended for those who have little empathy. I must be missing = the point yet again - in what way is the video an appropriate posting to an Applied Ethology mail list?=20 Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =20 -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au]=20 Sent: Friday, 8 August 2003 8:41 a.m. To: 'Andreas Briese' Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: lighten up! I believe these video clips came from a multitude of viewers who sent in their home videos to a TV show. Nothing contrived about them.=20 Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Briese [mailto:Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de]=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:52 PM To: Geiger; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: lighten up! funny cat video Also beeing impressed by the acrobatic and comedian abilities of these=20 cats, i'm always asking myself, how come that somebody had had his=20 camcorder ready. I'm living with dogs ten years and more and there=20 happened funny and not so funny things time by time, but i do not have any=20 videos or photographs covering these events. On the other side there are commercial videotapes, TV-shows and so on covering animals doing "funny" or funny seeming things or accidental.=20 If i want to videotape or photo something like shown in the funny cat video i=20 have to arrange a situation or it had to happen more than once. But i would=20 not let my dog stumble down or break into an table, jump onto polished=20 surfaces and so on only to have it videotaped. Setting up a scenery which i=20 know is proving risks for my animals without some very good reasons seems=20 to me beeing as indirect cruel to my to the pet.=20 On the other side, there is an industry for funny accidents in humans also=20 which isn't funny at all to me. kids stumbling, women falling on icy grounds,=20 men slipping on mud - nobody would like to be this person either - so what is=20 funny in it? Science fiction pioneer A. Heinlein wrote in his early work "the=20 man from another world" that people laugh (loudest) for two reasons: beeing=20 ashamed or asking a higher authority / fortune for not beeing the next=20 affected. =20 Smile and laughter as snarl and bark towards kismet - i like this=20 interpretation. Zeitgeist (is this really an english word? Goethe?) is=20 unmasking the very thin layer of culture that covers human nature, isn't it.=20 Andreas Date sent: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:50:13 +1000 From: Geiger Subject: lighten up! To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >=20 >=20 > An amusing cat video guaranteed to make you laugh!=20 > Regards,=20 > Jackie Perkins=20 > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant=20 > GOOD DOG > BRISBANE QLD AUSTRALIA > Ph 07 33510600 > Fax 07 3351 0611 >=20 >=20 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail:=20 andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"haleyderek@hotmail.com" "Derek Haley" 8-AUG-2003 08:49:38.51 CC: Subj: AE discussion list Wes, Is there any way we that we could have the instructions on how to unsubscribe from the applied ethology list automatically attached to the bottom of each message that people send in to the network? Seems nobody ever bothers to keep the instructions, as you may know and are continually sending their unsubscribe messages to the entire list. Perhaps providing the unsubscribe instructions with each message might be useful. Do you think? Can we do this? (I know other lists I am on have automatic footers or the list name in the subject line. Maybe we can do something similar with the unsubscribe instructions.) Derek Derek B. Haley Ph.D. Student Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine University of Saskatchewan 52 Campus Drive Saskatoon, SK Canada, S7N 5B4 Telephone: 306-966-7056 Facsimile: 306-966-7159 E-mail: derek.haley@usask.ca _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 8-AUG-2003 09:11:49.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars >>> Chris Sherwin 08/08/03 09:49 AM >>> <> As my apology to the list for miswording seems insufficient, I am happy to extend the same apology to you as well. No need for a tortured search for a reason I misspoke however, the term "displacement aggression" is used, (and used incorrectly for those who study ethology), in many dog training articles to account for what should properly be termed "redirected aggression". Someone earlier mentioned the American Dog Trainers Network web site, if you look at the link I've provided, (or do a search on "displacement aggression"), you will see "displacement" often listed as one of the types of aggression, when of course this is behavior an ethologist would properly classify as "redirected". One is of course responsible for knowing ones audience, and I agree I should have used correct wording, more than willing to apologise again to those who felt abused or traumatised. I am interested in the other alleged misuses of correct terminology, especially "punishment", could you expand on that? http://www.inch.com/~dogs/aggression.html Vicki Magnus From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 8-AUG-2003 09:26:34.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: lighten up! throwing a cat up to the ceiling is not humane ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: RE: lighten up! Answering to your question in what way?? well in the way that not everything is work or science or discussion, we must have little times of joy and laughter. By the way, i saw the video and not a cat or human was hurt, so there's nothing to complain about. Regards, Juan José -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:01 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: lighten up! Sorry - I agree with Andreas on this one - nothing amusing about watching animals (or people come to that) getting hurt - just cheap 'reality' TV presumably intended for those who have little empathy. I must be missing the point yet again - in what way is the video an appropriate posting to an Applied Ethology mail list? Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Friday, 8 August 2003 8:41 a.m. To: 'Andreas Briese' Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: lighten up! I believe these video clips came from a multitude of viewers who sent in their home videos to a TV show. Nothing contrived about them. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG BRISBANE -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Briese [mailto:Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:52 PM To: Geiger; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: lighten up! funny cat video Also beeing impressed by the acrobatic and comedian abilities of these cats, i'm always asking myself, how come that somebody had had his camcorder ready. I'm living with dogs ten years and more and there happened funny and not so funny things time by time, but i do not have any videos or photographs covering these events. On the other side there are commercial videotapes, TV-shows and so on covering animals doing "funny" or funny seeming things or accidental. If i want to videotape or photo something like shown in the funny cat video i have to arrange a situation or it had to happen more than once. But i would not let my dog stumble down or break into an table, jump onto polished surfaces and so on only to have it videotaped. Setting up a scenery which i know is proving risks for my animals without some very good reasons seems to me beeing as indirect cruel to my to the pet. On the other side, there is an industry for funny accidents in humans also which isn't funny at all to me. kids stumbling, women falling on icy grounds, men slipping on mud - nobody would like to be this person either - so what is funny in it? Science fiction pioneer A. Heinlein wrote in his early work "the man from another world" that people laugh (loudest) for two reasons: beeing ashamed or asking a higher authority / fortune for not beeing the next affected. Smile and laughter as snarl and bark towards kismet - i like this interpretation. Zeitgeist (is this really an english word? Goethe?) is unmasking the very thin layer of culture that covers human nature, isn't it. Andreas Date sent: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:50:13 +1000 From: Geiger Subject: lighten up! To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > > An amusing cat video guaranteed to make you laugh! > Regards, > Jackie Perkins > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > GOOD DOG > BRISBANE QLD AUSTRALIA > Ph 07 33510600 > Fax 07 3351 0611 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut für Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie Bünteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments!) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"stefano@mindspring.com" "Steven Bentley" 8-AUG-2003 09:29:22.26 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: PLEASE! Hi all, I want to read the postings of others; that's why I'm on this list. Peace, Steven Bentley On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 07:53 AM, rheikkin@hytti.uku.fi wrote: > Could you please write directly to the person you want to and leave = the=20 > rest > of us ignorant! I=B4m tired of my mail box beeing stuffed all the = time. > > Reija > From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 8-AUG-2003 09:32:17.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Methods for unsubscribing Hi Everyone, If you are wanting to unsubscribe from the network you need to send a request to me or to: applied-ethology-request@sask.usask.ca (Note that the word "request" is part of the address of the server you need to contact. It is a machine not a person. Do not try to talk to it. Just send it the command.) In the body of your message you must type the unsubscribe command, identify the list you want removed from and provide your e-mail address. For example, to unsubscribe myself I would type on the first line of my message (not the subject header): unsubscribe applied-ethology joseph.stookey@usask.ca Many of you are sending a message to the entire list and it has no effect other than everyone now knows that you want off the list. If you are having trouble unsubscribing, send me a message. Joe -- Joseph M. Stookey Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences Western College of Veterinary Medicine 52 Campus Drive University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B4 From: IN%"joseph.stookey@usask.ca" 8-AUG-2003 09:53:48.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied ethology list" CC: Subj: [Fwd: technical question/animal behaviour] Hi Everyone, I received the following message from a graduate student in neuroscience. Some of the mice pups are being killed by the mother after surgury. I have sent the student a response, but I was only speculating based on what I know about basic maternal behaviour that might apply across a variety of mammalian nesting species, but I also mentioned that someone on this list might have a better answer. If anyone on the list has some experience in maternal behaviour of mice perhaps you could provide this student with some insight? You could send your response directly to the student's e-mail address, and to this list if you like. Thanks, Joe -------- Original Message -------- Subject: technical question/animal behaviour Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:30:27 +0000 From: gbbsea wedfaokd To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca CC: jclavelle@lycos.com Dear Dr. Joseph Stookey: I am a graduate student at LSU that is doing a work with mice. the problem is that i am doing some surgery in cortex (injection of BDA LABELING with hamilton syringe), then seal the wound with threat and return the pups (P5) to the cage. the situation is that after many hours or days, some animals are killed. I found mutilation. I am a neuroscientist (bach in Psychology) not ethologist, but I think it could be a protective response of the mother (Euthanasia??) for protect the pups of extremely pain. I did the surgery and the procedures under normal conditions. I would appreciate if you could give me an explanation to that behaviour of Killer, or if you can refer me to a person expert in mice. I am not ethologist. If there is any solution to this, I would appreciate, because the loose of animals represent less sample to my research thanks and have a nice day. G.QUINTERO LSU _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 8-AUG-2003 10:08:55.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Terms and Phrases Chris wrote: Ethologists have gone to great pains to carefully define behaviours, phrases, etc. relating to their professional scientific research. On several occasions in the discussion of 'e-collars/shock collars', 'punishment', 'aversion learning' over the last few days, ethological terminology has been incorrectly used in a way to apparently validate personal hypotheses, ideas, perhaps even peoples' business interests. The misuse of such scientific terminology leads to misinformation and generates confusion, rather than clarifying ideas or hypotheses. So, my message was intended to suggest that if this discussion is to remain in the realms of scientific discourse, we should attempt to be clear in our use of terminology. Tony comments: And when those terms and definitions relating to professional scientific research conflict with practitioners in the field, then what? Obviously there are those that assume the term 'shock collar' and 'e-collar' to be synonymous, and perhaps in the field of scientific research they are. If so, then a change in the nomenclature needs to be considered. The two collars are distinctly different. I don't mean to suggest a subtle difference that can be argued as semantics. I mean to suggest a monumental difference in design, intent, and application. (To satisfy Jon's request for a citation from the scientific community ... on my next occasion to speak with Dr. Tortora, I shall impose upon him to qualify why when discussing shock therapy he uses the term "shock," but when discussing behaviour control using an e-collar - he uses the term "Electrical simulation. Best I can do, Jon.) In the meantime ... I don't know how many here actually work with shock collars, I have. They are not an item to be let loose to the general public. They are, in the hands of a skilled and experience professional, safe, only if properly set up. "IF" is not a comfortable word for me ... not when there is a dog at the qualifying end of the proposition. I, therefore, will support any movement to keep these collars out of the hands of the general public. Jon, these collars can not be made 'safe' to a standard that should allow for their commercial production - which is why they are not. E-collars, on the other hand, at least the one's I am familiar with, are as safe as any other training device where the designed purpose it to employ a measured (call it noxious to acutely noxious) amount of discomfort. They can be used as a punisher or as a reinforcer (two of the five motivating stimuli). And yes, they can be abused if the intention of the end user is to abuse his dog. I don't know of any training device that is safe in the hands of such an individual. On the matter of bark collars which work independent of the trainer or handler ... The one that I use can not be activated by any other stimulus than the bark of the dog wearing it. Another safety feature is that on the tenth activation, it will shut itself off. The logic is simple, an effective punisher will not need repeated application; therefore, if the dog is barking through the discharge of the collar, then someone needs to go find out why. If no one does, or if no one moves to correct the problem, then the collar in the best interest of the dog - shuts itself off. The above describes a bark collar used as punishment stimulus. The very same collar can be used as reinforcement as well. I should like to illustrate this point by discussing how the bark collar can be used to produce a discriminate barker (thereby moving it into the use as a reinforcer). But to do that I will have to drift a little off topic for this list. Is it of interest? Some comments indicate otherwise. Also, the term "redirected aggression" is a total misnomer. What you are actually discussing is a mechanism for relief ... it's not aggression at all. For this, btw, I would use a shock collar, only because it is a behaviour worthy of extreme attention. Lastly, 'displacement behaviour' can actually be a very good thing ... if captured and then properly (with purpose and intent) motivated. Moving it then into the category of modified response to either a discriminative, eliciting, or previously neutral stimulus. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 8-AUG-2003 10:49:42.94 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Vicki, I was not asking for an apology. Perhaps it is I who should apologise for sending out a repeat of other people's messages. Unfortunately, their messages and your apology were held up on the server and I didn't receive them until after I had sent my own message. Regarding the term 'punishment'. I can not remember the exact context in which it was used and I have deleted most emails relating to this subject. However, I seem to remember wondering why the far less emotive term 'negative reinforcement' wasn't used. Regards, Chris On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:11:36 -0400 Vicki Magnus wrote: > >>> Chris Sherwin 08/08/03 09:49 AM >>> > < 'punishment', 'aversion learning' over the last few days, ethological > terminology has been incorrectly used in a way to apparently validate > personal hypotheses, ideas, > perhaps even peoples' business interests. The misuse of such scientific > terminology leads to misinformation and generates confusion, rather than > clarifying ideas or hypotheses. So, my message was intended to suggest > that if this discussion is to remain in the realms of scientific > discourse, we should attempt to be clear in our use of terminology.>> > > As my apology to the list for miswording seems insufficient, I am happy > to extend the same apology to you as well. No need for a tortured > search for a reason I misspoke however, the term "displacement > aggression" is used, (and used incorrectly for those who study > ethology), in many dog training articles to account for what should > properly be termed "redirected aggression". Someone earlier mentioned > the American Dog Trainers Network web site, if you look at the link I've > provided, (or do a search on "displacement aggression"), you will see > "displacement" often listed as one of the types of aggression, when of > course this is behavior an ethologist would properly classify as > "redirected". One is of course responsible for knowing ones audience, > and I agree I should have used correct wording, more than willing to > apologise again to those who felt abused or traumatised. > > I am interested in the other alleged misuses of correct terminology, > especially "punishment", could you expand on that? > > http://www.inch.com/~dogs/aggression.html > > Vicki Magnus > > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 8-AUG-2003 11:03:29.77 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases Tony, When I sit at my desk writing a scientific paper, I am being a practitioner of ethology in the field, albeit an indoors field. Therefore, I should use words, definitions, phrases, etc. as they were intended or defined, meaning there is no conflict between science and the practitioner (they are one and the same). If you are referring to eg. dog trainers as practitioners in the field, then if specialised language is borrowed from an area of study, the 'borrowers' shouldn't be surprised if confusion arises when words are misused during communications with the originators of the words and phrases. Respectfully yours, Chris On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:08:38 -0400 Tony Ancheta wrote: > Chris wrote: > Ethologists have gone to great pains to carefully define behaviours, > phrases, etc. relating to their professional scientific research. On > several occasions in the discussion of 'e-collars/shock collars', > 'punishment', 'aversion learning' over the last few days, ethological > terminology has been incorrectly used in a way to apparently validate > personal hypotheses, ideas, perhaps even peoples' business interests. The > misuse of such scientific terminology leads to misinformation and generates > confusion, rather than clarifying ideas or hypotheses. So, my message was > intended to suggest that if this discussion is to remain in the realms of > scientific discourse, we should attempt to be clear in our use of terminology. > > Tony comments: > And when those terms and definitions relating to professional scientific > research conflict with practitioners in the field, then what? > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 8-AUG-2003 11:04:49.01 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Terms and Phrases Chris wrote: Regarding the term 'punishment'. I can not remember the exact context in which it was used and I have deleted most emails relating to this subject. However, I seem to remember wondering why the far less emotive term 'negative reinforcement' wasn't used. Tony, who has also deleted much of this discussion, offers: Perhaps because in the realm of practical application, the two terms "punishment" and "negative reinforcement" are not the same; not in effect nor intent. Therefore, the two terms (with no regard for emotive disposition) are not interchangeable. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 8-AUG-2003 12:26:52.81 To: IN%"rheikkin@hytti.uku.fi", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: PLEASE! So hit the delete key. There are other discussions which have gone on ad=20 nauseum on this list which have bored me to tears and "stuffed my mailbox"= =20 but I just looked at the subject line and hit the delete key. I AM interested in this discussion, and it seems there are at least a dozen= =20 others who are as well and it seems selfish to ask that the discussion be=20 halted because you're not interested. At 02:53 PM 8/8/03 +0300, rheikkin@hytti.uku.fi wrote: >Could you please write directly to the person you want to and leave the= rest >of us ignorant! I=B4m tired of my mail box beeing stuffed all the time. > >Reija Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT, therapy dog NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, therapy dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies http://catatonic.freeservers.com/penny/thedogs.html From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 8-AUG-2003 12:59:47.53 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars I looked up a few other sites studies for the use of electronic collars on livestock and on wild animals, such as the wolves being reintroduced into the northern United States. Used to keep wolves from livestock: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1511/6_21/62277744/p5/article.jhtml?term= http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers/viewnews.cfm?ID=856 Used in Mitigating Livestock Abuse of Riparian Areas: http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/behave/projects/riparian_howery.html Used to keep foxes from birds: http://filebox.vt.edu/users/colfenbu/my_other_fieldwork.htm Also here is the Cornell study on citronella versus electronic collars for barking: http://www.nomorebarking.com/pages/jaahastudy.html Vicki Magnus From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 8-AUG-2003 13:12:37.78 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases Hi, Just to make sure there is no terminological misunderstanding: Negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. This is learning/animal psychology terminology and there is no confusion in the literature that I know of. There is a clear distinction between punishment and reinforcement, and whether they are positive or negative: as I explain to my students, the "positive" refers to "giving" (a cookie, reinforcer OR a shock, punishment); the "negative" refers to "taking away" (taking away the food: punishment; taking away the muzzle: reinforcement). Recap: Positive reinforcement: giving a cookie (as long as perceived as a reinforcer) Negative reinforcement: taking away the muzzle (as long as the muzzle experience is perceived negatively by the dog) Positive punishment: you give a shock Negative punishment: you take away the food The examples are not great, but they make the point that negative reinforcement does not mean punishment. A negative reinforcement is still reinforcing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ Department of Psychology/Neuroscience Dalhousie University Halifax, NS B3H 4J1 On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 14:04 Canada/Atlantic, Tony Ancheta wrote: > Chris wrote: > Regarding the term 'punishment'. I can not remember the exact context > in > which it > was used and I have deleted most emails relating to this subject. > However, > I seem > to remember wondering why the far less emotive term 'negative > reinforcement' > wasn't used. > > Tony, who has also deleted much of this discussion, offers: > Perhaps because in the realm of practical application, the two terms > "punishment" and "negative reinforcement" are not the same; not in > effect > nor intent. Therefore, the two terms (with no regard for emotive > disposition) are not interchangeable. > > Tony Ancheta, NBR > www.koehlerdogtraining.com > Westpoint, California > Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"Shetts@aol.com" 8-AUG-2003 13:30:18.35 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases In a message dated 08/08/2003 1:19:13 PM Mountain Daylight Time, simon@gadbois.org writes: > but they make the point that negative > reinforcement does not mean punishment. A negative reinforcement is > still reinforcing. > I agree completely, however, it is possible that in the same situation, one behavior is being punished while another is being negatively reinforced.- e.g. tighten a choke chain on a dog's neck and tell him to sit. Not sitting is being punished (tight choke), and sitting is negatively reinforced ((tight choke is removed). Don't know if this type of thing is what Chris was thinking of in previous post or not. Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Please change my email to: Suzanne@AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com Go to www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com to subscribe to our monthly free ezine (first issue August) 303-932-9095 fax 303-932-2298 From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 8-AUG-2003 13:47:18.05 To: IN%"Shetts@aol.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases O.k., I see what you mean. Yes, it may be what Chris meant. Good point. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ Department of Psychology/Neuroscience Dalhousie University Halifax, NS B3H 4J1 On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 16:29 Canada/Atlantic, Shetts@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 08/08/2003 1:19:13 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 > simon@gadbois.org writes: > > but they make the point that negative > reinforcement does not mean punishment. A negative reinforcement is > still reinforcing. > > > I agree completely, however, it is possible that in the same=20 > situation, one behavior is being punished while another is being=20 > negatively reinforced.- > e.g. tighten a choke chain on a dog's neck and tell him to sit.=A0 Not=20= > sitting is being punished (tight choke), and sitting is negatively=20 > reinforced ((tight choke is removed).=A0 Don't know if this type of=20 > thing is what Chris was thinking of in previous post or not. > > Suzanne Hetts, Ph.D. > Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist > Please change my email to: > Suzanne@AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com > Go to www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com to > subscribe to our monthly free ezine (first issue August) > 303-932-9095 > fax 303-932-2298 From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 8-AUG-2003 15:42:56.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology@Skyway.Usask.Ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - list topic Robin Walker: > Well now Marjory, what can I do to retain your good opinion of me? For I > would be loathe to lose it! Remember I am just "flanking" you for your > own good! > > Here in the text of a letter to my own profession is my standpoint on a > related matter. This letter was published in the Veterinary Record. > // > USING PUNISHMENT TO TRAIN DOGS, HORSES OR CHILDREN WORKS TO THE > SATISFACTION OF DRILL SERGEANTS, TRADITIONAL SCHOOLMASTERS, HORSE > BREAKERS, DOG "CHOKERS AND JERKERS" IN A BROAD MAJORITY OF CASES. > Marjory - this is so clear to me from my experience as a child, a > soldier, a veterinarian, an employer, and a father. Before everybody > starts digging their little foxholes of defiance -there is more! // > I say we can (and should) try to do better than the stranglers and > shockers. > > Fear and punishment can distort the organism in profound ways. The > products of harsh disciplines are notorious. The care and nurturing of > children young adults and singly mothers has been exposed in shame and > notoriety. Close examination of the literature of punishment reveals > casualties, distortions and perversions at every turn. margory replied: Hi Dr. Walker, dear Robin, and thank you for writing back. I don't disagree with much of what you write. I further don't think any of us endorse cruel and unusual training techniques or barbaric use of equipment or heavy-handed arbitrary gratuitous 'punishment'. I did read your example, the way it was written, using as you did Mr. Koehler, as actually akin to an "unfair correction." [And I do turn to Mr. Koehler, not only because of personal associations I've been fortunate to have, but because when one reads with a fair eye what Mr. Koehler was writing about and what that method is, there is no correction (and he writes only of fair corrections), there is no correction until it is clear to owner and dog that the dog understands what he has been taught. A foundation has been laid in. Not shaped, managed. It's >taught<. The dog wouldn't reply as he does were he abused to get a response.] I also think that beating a dead horse, or in this case, blaming dead writers and trainers, is not the way to go forward. I see your byline and memory and heart hark to yours on hamster enrichment for instance, or when you invoke from Shakespeare, ah! how happy you make me. (Mr. Shakespeare -- one dead writer thankfully we all need to keep alive -- and a poacher he was! Imagine if he were caught today -- aye!) I understand the bloom is off the Barbara Woodhouse rose -- but in her time, I bet what she offered was helpful to many. How others take liberties with interpretations of that, that responsibility lies at those feet, not on a person who's gone who may or may not be accurately represented. At the RSPCA website I saw in this year a note of increase in violence amongst children and teens in the U.K. It's the same here. "The voices made me do it," said the mass murderer -- same difference it occurs to me. So mine and others are the voices that say -- hold on. Some accusations are not based on fact or accuracy. I caught a little this morning Chris Sherwin writing about defined terms, and Tony Ancheta's reply, which invokes thoughts I also consider, because I come to this forum in the same position for a long time as one who pays attention to the Academy at the same time I see what's happening on the Street -- and it's very frightening to me, the disconnects between the 2. I don't know about your daily walks, but I seldom see trainers swing dogs or jerk them. I do see every day people who have not learned how to walk with a dog on a loose lead. I see dogs in buckle collars, those nose loops, harnesses of all sizes and description and more than most are being tugged, pulled, yanked, jerked, all on short tight leads, not people setting out to harm and damage the dog and the relationship they'll never have, but people who have not been taught how to walk with a dog -- and with the proliferation of phony training information and the discrediting of others who should be studied and listened to -- well, how could I be silent. I've heard canine chiropractors express the same concern about those nose rings that you write to about "choke" collars (halters, leaders in various forms that now pass as leads and walking tools -- walking tools -- what happened to teaching a dog to walk on a loose lead?). It's not equipment that doesn't train or wreck a dog. It's improper use. I tell you nothing new when I say more dogs die of love than disease. I also sympathise with something I caught in one of yours today -- when you had to speak for an assistant. Vets here (in the U.S.) now also are faced with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. Incompetence is one thing. Pain and suffering -- that's a slippery walk in cases involving people. And how all this relates to >this< forum? Because in this forum are where Academy and Street meet, and I think we have to find a way to discuss this because frankly, some of the stuff that comes out of the Academies really makes life on the street unsafe. When I meet a Koehler method trained dog, mine are safe; that is a reliable dog. When I meet dogs who have been clicked/treated/managed -- I've had to protect my dogs from attack. [This is not written to "flank" various kinds of training; rather, the point I want to make is the reliability of dogs by a method of training about which I believe there is alot of misinformation.] I don't think some of the people who want to legislate and/or ban and also who so loudly criticise, I don't think there is really the knowledge there of what the words mean -- punishment, aversive, come, sit, stay, positive, not positive, lure! I don't think they know who dogs are. Even in this group, those words trip up every time. My hounds, incidentally, run naked -- I don't even put on a leather collar to interfere with the sight of that exquisite line in the neck as that body propels itself thru space. Dear Robin, I hope we keep meeting this way for a long time to come. I don't mean to go on - -margory Margory Cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco, CA, US From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 16:35:50.70 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Ce-ann; Please tell me about coyotes Why are you unsubscribing? Recall the email you sent me when I first posted the initial article about electronic collars? I got over it. You never did appologise to me. You need to be thick skinned to survive in this world let alone on this discussion list. I think it is admirable that you love your work and your coyotes so much. Do not cut off your nose to spite your face. Many of the people on this discussion list normally charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their services (so may come over as arrogant at times), and they are giving it to us for free! Live and learn. You too can help others to understand what you do. It does sound unique. What is it by the way? Please educate the rest of us about coyotes. I have wild dingoes (yes, real dingoes) in my neighbourhood. Dr Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting Australia From: IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" 8-AUG-2003 18:23:15.63 To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Ce-ann; Please tell me about coyotes And I have coyotes in my Sullivan Country, NY area. They are reviled. Shot off season. Blamed for feral or packing domestic dog kills. I love them. Their sound, their site, their contribution to the environment. The sound of them at night exchanging messages with my livestock guardian dog. I want to learn more about them. I agree with Jackie. Please don't unsub. Coyotes are reintroduced, misunderstood at risk because of it. Cissy Geiger wrote: > Why are you unsubscribing? Recall the email you sent me when I first > posted the initial article about electronic collars? I got over it. You > never did appologise to me. You need to be thick skinned to survive in > this world let alone on this discussion list. I think it is admirable > that you love your work and your coyotes so much. Do not cut off your > nose to spite your face. Many of the people on this discussion list > normally charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their services (so may > come over as arrogant at times), and they are giving it to us for free! > Live and learn. You too can help others to understand what you do. It > does sound unique. What is it by the way? Please educate the rest of us > about coyotes. I have wild dingoes (yes, real dingoes) in my > neighbourhood. > Dr Jackie Perkins > GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting > Australia > > > > From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 8-AUG-2003 19:48:04.99 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Laurie - barking dog At 08:20 AM Thursday 8/7/2003, you wrote: >It seems that if your dog is fearful (and this should be confirmed by a >speacialist), Yes, she is fearful... of many things. If she had more courage, she could be a fear biter. > then using punishment techniques will not help, and may indeed >make him worse if he associates the fearful stimulus (strangers, people on >street, etc) with your punishment technique (citrus spray, electric shocks, >etc). My own limited experience is that it does work, certainly if one defines success narrowly as correcting the nuisance barking. Her former behavioral response was see strange people walk by our fenceline => bark aggressively at them now it is see strange people walk by our fenceline => run back down into the house and come to me I didn't intend to train the recall part of this, it's just something that she started doing after the e-collar corrections for barking, so I praised her when she ran back to me. One might claim that she's in avoidance with respect to the strangers... simply a different fear response. Perhaps, though her body language when she runs back to me is upbeat and happy, not cringing with avoidance. >Many others out there will be better able to guide you than I will, but it >sounds like you should be exploring the systematic desensitisation route >(with a suitable trainer, of course). This essentially requires exposing the >dog to the lowest severity of the thing he is fearful of without evoking a >response, and praising him for his good behaviour. For example, you might >take him to more neutral territory (the park?) and play with a favorite toy >while people are walking about. I tried that, at a local park. First, I used food rewards for good behavior. This was marginally successful during a training session, but no long term learning occurred between training sessions. We always were starting over from scratch. Next, I tried effusive praise for good behavior instead of food. Some call it "the jolly routine". This was more successful than the food rewards. I could walk her right past strangers and she was fine, as long as I kept looking at her and dishing out a continual stream of warm words in an exaggerated sweet upbeat "jolly" voice. But alas, there was again no learning between training sessions. We always seemed to be starting over from scratch. I have no doubt that desensitization methods work with many dogs. And in those cases, I imagine it may have a wider/deeper effect than merely suppressing undesirable behavior ala an e-collar, anti-bark collar, or other punishment method It took this dog more than 1 year to stop fearing my harmless husband who has never shown her anything but love and kindness. Three years later her fear of him still recurs at times, for no apparent reason. I expect her fears are rather deeply engrained. >There is much more detail invovled, but this might give you an idea of the >approach! Someone I recently met at a conference, who is a dog trainer in >England, had to use this technique on her own dog, which she got from a >rescue centre and was aggressive towards all adults. My dog is also a rescue. > It took her 2 years to desensitise him, and a lot of patience, but she > got there in the end. Therein may lie the problem. I don't have the patience to do "the jolly routine" for 2 years, simply so I can then walk her out in public. We have an even closer by, wild grassy park, where she almost never sees strangers as no one else uses it. There she can run free and hunt field mice to her heart's content... pure bliss. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 8-AUG-2003 21:38:22.98 To: IN%"ceann-icrc@lycos.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: (No Subject) Appology fully accepted. I do not think our dingoes are directly abused because they are fairly quiet and invisible. But then maybe I just do not know. My immediate neighbourhood is significant to the dingoes because it has a food source; the dump. They are often starving I think. I have not often seen any of them. One Sunday morning around 8am I witnessed a red dingo bitch extremely thin walking down the footpath of the main local thoroughfare, with a bread stick in her mouth. My son recently saw three dingo pups on his way home from school. The local council has a ranger who monitors them. He knows them all by name but does not encourage them to become used to human contact. Did you know that dingoes come into heat only once per year? Dogs cycle twice per year, and hybrids cycle twice per year. You probably heard about the dingoes on Fraser Island, which is nearby. The Island is also a popular tourist camping destination. Some of the dingoes become too tame. Not long ago a 10 year old boy was killed by dingoes on Fraser Island. Tragic. It is not a common occurrence, but lead to dingo culls. I do not know what the solution is on Fraser Island. People really should not touch or feed them perhaps. Perhaps a dingo fence would work. There is a dingo fence along inland Australia. What works for coyotes? Are they ever aggressive toward people? Regards, Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting Ps I am certain there are a lot of people on the discussion list who want to know about such things. AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: ceann lambert [mailto:ceann-icrc@lycos.com] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:48 AM To: gooddog@dodo.com.au Subject: (No Subject) Hi Jackie, Heather forwarded your email to me. I am so sorry about being so curt and disrespectful to you. I was having a really bad day. The animal that I have chosen to work with is subjected to inhumane acts by people in the U.S. I imagine that it is the same with the dingoes. I have also worked as a Psychiatric Technician where I have seen lots of abuse of children. I was on another list where some of the people advocated things like pulling all of the teeth from a monkey so that it couldn't bite it's owner. They also thought it was a good idea to cut off the tail so that a diaper would fit better. My best friend is Erich Klinghammer. He is a wolf Ethologist. He would never use punishment to get a wolf or a coyote to do what he wanted it to do. I thought that when I joined the Ethology list, that I would come in contact with more people like him. You can access my web site by going to www.Wolf Park.org I am a sub heading, not a link. Scroll down to almost the bottom of the first page. I think that I am under the Junior Volunteer Program. Click on Indiana Coyote Rescue Center. I hope that we can keep in touch. I would sure like to know about Dingoes. CeAnn From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" 9-AUG-2003 11:14:59.76 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois", IN%"Shetts@aol.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 16:29 Canada/Atlantic, Shetts@aol.com wrote: I agree completely, however, it is possible that in the same situation, one behavior is being punished while another is being negatively reinforced.- e.g. tighten a choke chain on a dog's neck and tell him to sit. Not sitting is being punished (tight choke), and sitting is negatively reinforced ((tight choke is removed). Don't know if this type of thing is what Chris was thinking of in previous post or not. From: IN%"slvnhld@ix.netcom.com" "OBi Fox" 9-AUG-2003 12:29:23.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases On Friday, Aug 8, 2003, at 16:29 Canada/Atlantic, Shetts@aol.com wrote: I agree completely, however, it is possible that in the same situation, one behavior is being punished while another is being negatively reinforced.- e.g. tighten a choke chain on a dog's neck and tell him to sit. Not sitting is being punished (tight choke), and sitting is negatively reinforced ((tight choke is removed). Don't know if this type of thing is what Chris was thinking of in previous post or not. Suzanne, The sequence you describe is an excellent description of the manner in which most humans (including trainers and behaviourists) use a leash and a choke. 1) tighten choke (punish) 2) give command (cue) 3) loosen choke when dog sits (negative reinforcement) Why would the application of an aversive (punishment) prior to the cue (command) condition a the desired response (sit) to the cue? Wouldn't the response become conditioned to the pull on the leash (punishment)? (aversive stimulus becomes the cue) If the dog is standing quietly by your side, wouldn't the punishment be associated with that behaviour, not with failure to sit? Are you, by applying the aversive stimulus first, increasing the motivation to avoid the stimulus and thereby increasing the probability of response to the cue? If and when I use aversives (and I do use them) I have always tried to insure that they were avoidable - hence I train the behaviour I want, put it on cue, and then insert the aversive after the cue. Performance of sit in response to cue avoids pull on leash. I am trying to understand how the sequence you describe would work. OBi Fox From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 9-AUG-2003 14:04:41.21 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases In a message dated 8/9/2003 1:32:45 PM Central Daylight Time, slvnhld@ix.netcom.com writes: > The sequence you describe is an excellent description of the manner in which > most humans (including trainers and behaviourists) use a leash and a choke. > > 1) tighten choke (punish) > 2) give command (cue) > 3) loosen choke when dog sits (negative reinforcement) I'll let Suzanne tell you the order of the sequence that she meant. However to be a punishment, the cue would come first (or not at if trying to teach and automatic "sit" when you stop walking during a heal). With traditional obedience training, the "sit" command at heal position was taught by pulling up on the leash with the right hand and pushing down on the rear (or some cupped the rear legs) with the left hand. The right hand was kept taut (actually not a choke) to keep the dog in position during the teaching phase. As a result, the pull up on the leash became a second command as well as a punishment if the sit wasn't fast enough. The correction was only used once the dog understood the command and what a tight leash meant. If the leash was kept tight (I actually didn't do this when I used these methods in the early 80's), it would act as a negative reinforcer once the sit was performed. That is how I saw it. Gerry _________________________________________________________________ Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc Carolina Veterinary Specialists Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina 336-632-0605 (Voice) 336-632-0703 (Fax) gerflannigan@aol.com From: IN%"sheltie1@ix.netcom.com" 9-AUG-2003 23:19:57.75 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"stammwood@rcn.com" CC: Subj: Solving problems, Laurie - barking dog, Malinois service dog >It took this dog more than 1 year to stop fearing my harmless >husband who has never shown her anything but love and kindness. >Three years later her fear of him still recurs at times, for no >apparent reason. I expect her fears are rather deeply engrained. I agree that most treat-based training is insufficient to turn a really fearful dog into a happy well-trained dog. Electric collars aren't the answer either. I recommend that everyone with a dog training question join this: http://www.yahoogroups.com/list/bridgeandtarget2 Its the best resource I have found to date for dog training and behavior modification. I wish I knew about this method years ago. -L.M.M. From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 10-AUG-2003 03:46:22.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: Group Health Check for AE Addicts Something I shared with you in 1995: A slightly shorter thesis is promulgated by Dr. G. Larson in T.F.S.G Vol 3 1994 p 176. "Wendall Zurkowitz: Slave to the waffle light." But seriously, of course one becomes addicted. I have only been on e-mail for three months. I appear to be hooked on a schedule of occasional reward (partial re-inforcement) because I get something good often enough to keep me interested. This schedule of reward must always keep ahead of "sensory specific satiety" or the tendency to become bored with the same reward which leads to a search for novelty. The latter may be adaptive in dietary terms. It causes problems in marital relations, modern music and art, and notoriously in the mechanics of sexual relationships! (get your own references). A second stage is of course the phenomenon of "jumping into shock". If we are scolded or assailed by others on the net or say something that we feel may invoke wrath we may respond in one of three ways:- 1. Become upset and "lurk" 2. Cope normally and rationally with it. 3. Switch on more often and become more combative. I think that the experiment of Eysenck is of interest here. Rats were trained to take a pellet of food from a trough when a buzzer sounded. A 'rule' was the introduced to the effect that, if the animal took the pellet immediately it dropped in the trough, it would be shocked, while if it waited for 3 seconds it could take the pellet with impunity. The adaptive solution to this problem, of course, is to wait 3 seconds and then take the food. Two kinds of maladaptive behaviour were also observed: taking the food more quickly and receiving the punishment, or not taking the food at all. Eysenck compares the latter kind of maladaptive behaviour with that shown by the human neurotic, suffering from, say, a phobia, who is seen in the psychiatric clinic: and the former kind to the behaviour of that other kind of neurotic, the criminal or 'psychopath'. This gives us a starting point for discussions on "how to keep your husband interested (if you care); the risks of training children or dogs by means of punishment (how to create illness or rebellion); and "are we all on the bottom two or three rungs of the ladder of insanity? (can we get everything from social phobia such as blushing when a computer [for God's sake] scolds us - to becoming OCD'd or completely 'waffle buttoned' from the internet)) Yours addictedly, Robin E. Walker 1995 Wow! What about Post E-mail trauma disorder? From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 10-AUG-2003 04:40:42.65 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Group Health Check for AE Addicts Very entertaining Robin, I have just been variably rewarded. I believe a neurotic, a criminal, and a psychopath belong to three different broad categories of mental illness. Some consider that a criminal is not mad at all, just bad. No illness just ill intent. A neurotic is a neurotic, and a psychopath is a type of personality disorder, more recently referred to as a sociopath. Mind you I am a bit out of date when it comes to human psychiatry having worked in it for 16 years but not for 7 years. Going back to my original Ecollar posting briefly, when I claimed that a dog wearing a bark control static pulse collar is easily redirected whereas a surgically debarked dog is not, did I use the term "redirected" inaccurately? They are technically redirected, I think, when an activity such as a home alone toy is provided and they learn to use that ie attack the home alone toy instead of bark-attack the pedestrian or whatever the target of the barking was. The barking dog wearing a static pulse Ecollar is also interrupted so that any other activity may be substituted eg a game. Is this all technically correct? Is there a better term? I am not trying to have an Ecollar discussion, just a terminology one. Regards, Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Robin Walker [mailto:coape@nildram.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:46 PM To: Applied Ethology Network Subject: Group Health Check for AE Addicts Something I shared with you in 1995: A slightly shorter thesis is promulgated by Dr. G. Larson in T.F.S.G Vol 3 1994 p 176. "Wendall Zurkowitz: Slave to the waffle light." But seriously, of course one becomes addicted. I have only been on e-mail for three months. I appear to be hooked on a schedule of occasional reward (partial re-inforcement) because I get something good often enough to keep me interested. This schedule of reward must always keep ahead of "sensory specific satiety" or the tendency to become bored with the same reward which leads to a search for novelty. The latter may be adaptive in dietary terms. It causes problems in marital relations, modern music and art, and notoriously in the mechanics of sexual relationships! (get your own references). A second stage is of course the phenomenon of "jumping into shock". If we are scolded or assailed by others on the net or say something that we feel may invoke wrath we may respond in one of three ways:- 1. Become upset and "lurk" 2. Cope normally and rationally with it. 3. Switch on more often and become more combative. I think that the experiment of Eysenck is of interest here. Rats were trained to take a pellet of food from a trough when a buzzer sounded. A 'rule' was the introduced to the effect that, if the animal took the pellet immediately it dropped in the trough, it would be shocked, while if it waited for 3 seconds it could take the pellet with impunity. The adaptive solution to this problem, of course, is to wait 3 seconds and then take the food. Two kinds of maladaptive behaviour were also observed: taking the food more quickly and receiving the punishment, or not taking the food at all. Eysenck compares the latter kind of maladaptive behaviour with that shown by the human neurotic, suffering from, say, a phobia, who is seen in the psychiatric clinic: and the former kind to the behaviour of that other kind of neurotic, the criminal or 'psychopath'. This gives us a starting point for discussions on "how to keep your husband interested (if you care); the risks of training children or dogs by means of punishment (how to create illness or rebellion); and "are we all on the bottom two or three rungs of the ladder of insanity? (can we get everything from social phobia such as blushing when a computer [for God's sake] scolds us - to becoming OCD'd or completely 'waffle buttoned' from the internet)) Yours addictedly, Robin E. Walker 1995 Wow! What about Post E-mail trauma disorder? From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 10-AUG-2003 10:20:05.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Applied ethology vs. talking garbage Dear Robin and dear all, Robin, I read your message to A-E in 1995 and had no desire to read it again just now. I also do not have any wish to know how you keep your husband interested (if you care). As one of the original subscribers to A-E, I am finally almost driven to unsubscribe (in a show-offishly dysfunctional way of course, by sending a message to the wrong A-E address... preferably including spelling my name / email address wrongly as well, in a method pioneered this week by Jeremy Marchant-Forde). Yes, I can Delete unread any message that does not interest me, and no, that does not help when I am away from the office for 36 hours and return to 138 emails from A-E. Please ... could we try to stick a little more closely to the original intention of the A-E list, which is to discuss applied ethology? Rather than turning the list into a gossip club / forum for insults / dog trainers' coffee morning? And no, before you hasten to flame me -- don't bother btw, I shall delete all flames unread provided they are clearly marked Flame --no, I have nothing against dog trainers / companion animal behaviour experts / people who don't know anything about animal behaviour but like to chat about it anyway. I am just a little tired of, once again, the discussion disintegrating into a structureless mess of very little relevance. Best, - Moira --- Robin Walker wrote: > Something I shared with you in 1995: > > This gives us a starting point for discussions on > "how to keep your > husband interested (if you care); ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 10-AUG-2003 11:59:59.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: role call: any classically trained ethologists on list or people interested in same Hi, I was wondering if there were any people on this list interested in classic ethology or who trained in its methods? If not trained in classic ethology, then who have done a lot of study in evolution/genetics/zoology on their own or who do/have done animal observation in the field or augmented their own work (on dog training etc) with readings about field work in related species? From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 12:42:02.90 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars I can see the points here but I don't think we are talking about punishment vs. 'no punishment'. Punishment and reward exist together in all situations of training. I also don't think this is an issue of whether or not to use electricity as a form of punishment, the concern is whether the type and method of delivery of shock represents excessive punishment and whether the person operating the device is competent to do so without causing problems for the animal. Also whether the use of aversive training methods is justifiable if alternatives exist, given a similar level of efficacy. The rules listed are arguable, particularly point 1. Punishment does not necessarily need to be maximally intense to be effective, and the main thing we want to avoid id to induce fear because this affects the ability to learn. In training punishment needs only to be powerful enough to stop behaviour so that an alternative may be rewarded, especially if the reinforcer is appropriately chosen for the situation. The point about welfare effects of punishing effects of the citronella vs shock collars misses one point which is that different types of punishment may be more appropriate and easier to learn form, creating a better effect. This does not indicate the amount of suffering they cause.. For example, and animal moving towards an object may find a blast of gas that appears in front of the face [where it can be seen , smelled and heard] easier to understand and back away from than a shock delivered to the throat, where it is behind most of the sensory organs of the head. The relevance of punishment is therefore also important. Jon I would disagree with point 1; On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 07:38 pm, Gerflannigan@aol.com wrote: > I really wanted to stay out of this.... > > The use of punishment in learning is emotional and has been argued for > teaching children and, more recently, for use in dogs. Is it ethical? > abusive? or > even effective? Does it have harmful side effects? The real question > is "are > you willing to use punishment at all"? If the answer is no (on > ethical or any > other grounds), there is no real point discussing it further. That is > not a > good or bad thing. Many believe that punishment just doesn't work. > The actual > truth is that it works but is difficult to put into practice. > > (some of the areas below are paraphrased- as Jon put it, the section > below is > not an endorsement of the principles) > > "In order to maximize punishment (from Barry Schwartz; Physiology of > Learning > and Behavior, 1989- I realize there are newer editions- chapter 6): > 1. The punishing stimulus should be as intense as possible (large > enough to > be effective without inducing learned helplessness). > 2. The delay between response and punishment should be as short as > possible. > 3. The punishing stimulus should not be introduced in a mild form and > gradually increased in intensity (the animal can adapt to the gradual > increasing > intensity). > 4. Punishment should be a certainty (not on an irregular pattern, the > absence of punishment can act as an intermittent reinforcer). > 5. Have delivery of punishment serve as a signal that reinforcement > is not > available for the punished response. > 6. Decrease the frequency with which the reinforcer is available as a > consequence of the response. > 7. Arrange a dependency between the reinforcer and an alternative > response." > > If you cannot follow these factors, you shouldn't be using punishment. > Another question for the use of shock collars (or e-collars, if you > wish) is "how do > you feel about using electricity as a form of punishment"? What I am > really > asking is, "if you are willing to use punishment, is the alternative > more or > less humane." If your definition of welfare is how the animal will > avoid > something (Dr. Sherman) then the Juarbe-Diaz (spelling?) et al. paper > showed that > the citronella collar was more effective at reducing barking so did it > have a > poorer effect on welfare of the dogs? (I agree with the earlier > poster that > felt there may be some bias by the experimenters- I know two of the > authors). > Just some rambling thoughts, > Gerry > > _________________________________________________________________ > Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc > Carolina Veterinary Specialists > Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina > 336-632-0605 (Voice) > 336-632-0703 (Fax) > gerflannigan@aol.com > From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 10-AUG-2003 12:47:57.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: role call: any classically trained ethologists on list or people interested in same > Hi, I was wondering if there were any people on this list interested=20= > in classic ethology or who trained in its methods? > =A0 > If not trained in classic ethology, then who have done a lot of study=20= > in evolution/genetics/zoology on their own > =A0 > or > =A0 > who do/have done=A0animal observation in the field or augmented their=20= > own work (on dog training etc) with readings about field work in=20 > related species? > I don't remember ever introducing myself to this list although I have=20 been part of it for a long time (6-8 years, maybe more, is that=20 possible?), so what the heck, here's my reply. Well, I guess "all of the above" for me. Trained by John Fentress,=20 himself a student of Thorpe and Hinde (so a true "classical"=20 ethologist). Also by Peter McLeod (a former student of Fentress) and=20 Fred Harrington (former student of D. Mech). Did field work with=20 wolves, coyotes and red foxes. Other than (field) behavioural=20 endocrinology (with wolves), I did more "classical ethology" work on=20 natural action sequences in canids (food caching sequences, a=20 relatively stereotyped sequence of behaviours but with interesting=20 differences between the species mentioned above). I've trained dogs on occasion to supplement my income in grad school:=20 obedience and tracking. Like Fentress, McLeod and Harrington, I teach in a Psychology=20 department. Ours (Fentress, myself) has a strong focus on neuroscience=20= (behavioural and cognitive) and animal behaviour. I would guess that=20 half our faculty members are either biologists or neuroscientists. My stuff is "applied" only in the context of animal welfare and=20 conservation. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 12:53:50.13 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 08:04 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: > If the human can not know the effect the collar will have with any > given > application the collar is no longer a training tool. If you are seeing > collars which are not performing as advertised you have a defective > product which should be regulated by commerce departments and consumer > protection agencies. The trainers I know who use ecollars use quite > expensive and extensively tested collars; none of them are experiencing > the problems with collars such as the ones you describe I am afraid that the world does not work like this. > I am uncertain about the ecollar causing the dog attack. While it is > certainly true that you can cause displacement behaviors in dogs > including aggression, it does not hold true that hurting dogs then > "turns" the dog into a killer. Could you expound on the circumstances > of this event? Circumstances: Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town one, and owner needed more control over them. Owner contacted a local trainer who supplied her with a shock collar. He made no attempt to use any non-aversive method of training recall. About a week later these two dogs are walked through a relatively unfamiliar location...a narrowing of a pathway going past the end of several gardens. A small dog runs out and barks at the fence. As the dogs go to investigate it they are shocked. Both dogs leap into the air and scream. The owner had been advised to shock the dogs whenever they do anything that she did not want them to do [that was sum-total of advice given] The dogs had previously been shocked 2-3 times but had never shown this level of response. Owner never uses collar again. Each day the dogs walk back past this location and show avoidance of the side of the path where the small dog ran from. They cower and cringe. About 7 days later they are walking back past this spot [on leash], again cowering and cringing, when a similar small dog comes into the end of the pathway right in front of them and barks. They immediately launch at the small dog and attack it. They kill the dog. I saw the dog about 14 days later, and made a video tape of the dogs reaction to this location. They were still showing [milder] avoidance and would try to pull away from the fence where the small dog had been. ON a walk in that area they were generally avoidant of other dogs and might bark at them, whereas in other nearby streets they were fine. That is the general summary. The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock collar. Any comments from anyone else? Jon > We see legislative prohibition differently. > > In reading my remark on ecollars I see it came off as flip. I have > indeed been shocked with a collar, and didn't care for it but also > learned it was not going to burn. I am attending an ecollar seminar > this September. While I am happy enough with my training methods I am > always interested in seeing other trainers and other methods. I can > unequivocally say that the trainers I know who use ecollars are ethical > trainers who are not abusing the dogs, indeed, many a dog slated for > "blue juice" has been able to live a long and happy life among a family > solely due to the intervention of these trainers. > > You asked: Do you thing it is acceptable to train a normally motivated > dog to sit, recall or perform other basic commands using a shock collar > if another non-aversive method is equally as effective? > > Yes. As I asked, who defines aversive? I understand many people have > visceral reactions to ecollars, which is fine, I know of no movement to > force any trainer to use any particular piece of equipment. How I want > to judge any tool, method or trainer for that matter is what do the > dogs > think of it? I have seen dogs being trained with a tool which has > never > been the subject of a great debate completely shut down and cringing, > just horrifically miserable. I have seen dogs happily engaged and > obviously having a great time out and about with an ecollar on, which > dog is being mistreated? > > I rather think some of the distaste dislike for ecollars among us > academics comes from reading rather nasty studies where animals were > abused with electricity. One particular study on learned helplessness, > recounted on page 338 of Principles of Animal Learning and Motivation, > Roger M. Tarpy, 1982, actually made me rather ill. Pavlov wasn't nice > to the dogs either, though it interests me that so few seem to be aware > of the effect the flood in the lab had on the dogs. It's a useful tid > bit to share with pet owners. I digress, my point is that a properly > tested and properly functioning ecollar in the hands of competent > training is a communication device between human and dog, not an > instrument of torture in the name of either science or sadism. > > Vicki Magnus > > >>>> Jon Bowen 08/07/03 14:05 PM >>> >> I do not believe limits on the collars themselves would have an effect >> on misuse. > > The collar I tested produced shocks that varied each time it was used, > despite the fact that the setting remained the same. The highest > settings were very aversive. Aversive enough to cause two dogs to > attack and kill another. I would hope that any humane individual would > at least want collars to be designed so that they were safe and > reliable? > >> There are several pieces of equipment I would like to see >> limited to use with a competent trainer at ones side. The problem > with >> legislation is that once the legislative genie is invoked it is > awfully >> hard to fit it back into the bottle. Do you truly suppose politicians >> with their myriad reasons for supporting various bills are the very >> best >> hope for societal change? I can not answer for Great Britain but here >> in the United States prohibition has proved singularly ineffective in >> changing things for the better. > > I would argue the opposite for my country. In the UK Shock collars are > not widely used so it would be best for us to legislate and control > usage before the devices become so widely used that it is impossible to > control them. To allow shock collar companies to use marketing to > spread the use of shock collars so that they could not be > controlled...THAT is letting a genie out of a bottle. > The reason for the failure of prohibition is usually because use of the > prohibited substance or object is already too widespread to be > controlled. > That was the case for alcohol; people liked it and did not see its > use > > as a crime so why should they stop using it. Alcohol is also addictive > so some people will always be willing to pay the kind of prices that > will sustain a bubbling black market. > >> Then too I do not agree electronic collars are always abusive. I > don't >> use one, don't know how. > > I find this fascinating. Those of us who are generally against the use > of shock collars would get furiously attacked if we made a comment like > that! > I would recommend that you familiarise yourself with the experience of > being shocked with a shock collar and, if you wish, seeing one used. > You are perfectly entitiled to an opinion without doing this of course > but I think you would find it educational. > I would say that to use a shock collar to teach a perfectly normal dog > to perform normal tasks that it is able to learn without the use of > punishment is, by definition, to cause unnecessary suffering. This is > abuse. To use a shock collar to suppress normal behaviour that might > otherwise be redirected or avoided by environmental modification and > non-aversive training is also abuse. These kinds of abuses are most > likely if > >> I am not certain why the electronic collars >> evoke such deep emotions, as my own experience with abuses in the > guise >> of training involve very few incidences with an electronic collar > being >> the abusive tool. I noted in your own example of an abusive trainer >> the >> trainer had the dog on a slip collar, and I assume the trainer would >> have been perfectly able to helicopter the dog with a flat buckle >> collar. (Though I'd have had the owner in the dock right next to the >> trainer, who is actually responsible for the dogs welfare?) > > It is uncharitable to criticise the owner in this instance. > In the cases taken to court the trainer inflicted this cruelty without > the owner's permission or knowledge that he was about to do this. > One of the people immediately took her dog and left the class, and > reported the man to the police. What else could she do? > >> I suspect it >> is the emotional twinge that accompanies the "shock" collar name that >> proves the collar so useful for those seeking bans of tools. After >> all, >> how bad can banning shock collars be, only good can follow, right? >> Well, except for all those dead dogs, but better dead than potentially >> abused. > > WHAT DEAD DOGS? Can you show me any proof at all that dogs are > euthanased because someone did NOT use a shock collar on them??!!!? I > have never seen any. > >> Value laden political arguments on good versus bad tools seldom do > more >> than solidify positions, never have I known of a single mind be >> changed >> or even opened a bit as a result of these discussions. I would wager >> that rather than the specific case of ecollars we are looking at a >> divide over training philosophy. Is correction a part of training, or >> is it abuse. > > I don't think it is about training. I do dog training as part of what I > do but I am not in competition with dog trainers and other than the > issues of efficacy and animal welfare I have no comment to make on > their activities. This is not a dog trainers chat room and the people > who are commenting on the use of shock collars are not necessarily dog > trainers. they may be animal welfare scientists, ethologists, > behaviourists, vets, all sorts. Every one of their opinions is valid, > and I don't think any of them have a vested interest in the use or > banning of shock collars. The only people who can be accused of that > are those whop stake their reputation and livelihood on using them. Who > is going to make any money out of getting rid of them? > > Reinforcement and punishment do not exist independently of each other. > To withold a reward in order to reduce future expression of a behaviour > is negative punishment. To take away an aversive stimulus in order to > increase future performance of a behaviour is negative reinforcement.. > all good trainers know how to manipulate learning using punishment and > reinforcement. > Whether we choose to use positive punishment is something different. It > very much depends upon whether the punishment is excessive or not. I > think that the use shock collars as they are currently designed and > manufactured is likely to produce excessive punishment in many cases. > > Since I have answered so many of your questions perhaps you will answer > one of mine? A simple yes or no is enough. > Do you thing it is acceptable to train a normally motivated dog to sit, > recall or perform other basic commands using a shock collar if another > non-aversive method is equally as effective? > > Jon > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 13:09:07.80 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars I don't understand this at all. I did not ask for the removal of breeds and clearly stated a dislike for breed specific legislation. I believe that it is the responsibility of any breeder who supplies dogs to members of the public as family pets that they should either point out any potential problems or make more strenuous efforts to breed and socialise dogs in a way that better suits them to that role. I don't see what that has to do with extinguishing any species? Jon On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 11:28 pm, Vicki Magnus wrote: > << On another issue, I think Vicky made a reference to 'extinction'. > The > domestic dog is a single species so removing a few breeds cannot be > extinction. Selectively breeding for traits ideal for pet ownership > would not be genocide, it would be another phase in the selection of > dogs for their working role. In the western world the domestic dog's > biggest working role is as pet and companion and yet very little effort > is made to adapt dogs to this and we keep trying to fit all sorts of > other working dogs into that role. I certainly don't agree with breed > specific legislation and there are people on this list, such as Rudy, > who have spent a lot of time and effort successfully fighting it. It > isn't fair to lump the two issues together because they are not > related.>> > > Didn't you just relate them in the above paragraph? I doubt you would > find many dog trainers who would tell you that every dog breed is the > best choice for every home; dogs are not fungible. There are > differences among breeds as well as differences between dogs within a > specific breed. "Removing" a few breeds would be the extinction of > that > breed, while pigeons remain among us the carrier pigeon is gone and the > term used for that is extinct. Or are you arguing that the species > being "removed" from the earth by man should be an effort that is > supported by ethologists? > > Vicki Magnus > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 13:28:59.21 To: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases > Tony comments: > And when those terms and definitions relating to professional > scientific > research conflict with practitioners in the field, then what? Science wins! > In the meantime ... > I don't know how many here actually work with shock collars, I have. > They > are not an item to be let loose to the general public. They are, in > the > hands of a skilled and experience professional, safe, only if properly > set > up. "IF" is not a comfortable word for me ... not when there is a > dog at > the qualifying end of the proposition. I, therefore, will support any > movement to keep these collars out of the hands of the general public. > Jon, > these collars can not be made 'safe' to a standard that should allow > for > their commercial production - which is why they are not. > > E-collars, on the other hand, at least the one's I am familiar with, > are as > safe as any other training device where the designed purpose it to > employ a > measured (call it noxious to acutely noxious) amount of discomfort. > They > can be used as a punisher or as a reinforcer (two of the five > motivating > stimuli). And yes, they can be abused if the intention of the end > user is > to abuse his dog. I don't know of any training device that is safe in > the > hands of such an individual. Sorry, but I am getting a bit annoyed by this continual misdirection. There is no evidence that e-collars and shock collars are different devices. The term 'shock collar' has been accepted as a name for the type of collars that you describe as 'e-collars' in draft bills for the UK government, consultation documents for the UK government, peer-reviewed papers, journals, and books. The general concensus is that they are the same. Jon From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 14:10:25.55 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Laurie - barking dog Hi Laura, Surely the purpose should be to alter motivation, not merely to suppress a singular behavioural expression of it? A few corrections... The Jolly routine is not a form of desensitisation. The method is to provide the dog a 'model' of a different emotional response to the fear-eliciting one in the hope that the dog will duplicate this response. The person begins to act Jolly as soon as the fear eliciting stimulus is encountered, but before the dog actually becomes fearful. It generally does not work if the dog is already experiencing intense fear. In this way the dog is conditioned to produce a positive emotional response instead of a negative one. The jolliness does not start only when the dog reacts with good behaviour, but attention would turn to the dog if it joins in. In this way the Jolly routine contains elements of emotional modelling, counter-conditioning, and positive reinforcement etc. There are numerous variations on this. I sometimes start by clicker training the dog to react in a Jolly way when I act Jolly, in a number of different contexts including those where the stimulus might be encountered. I might then use this cue in the presence of the previously fear-eliciting stimulus. This might make it a bit easier for the dog to model the behaviour because it has already learned to. The specific method of Jolly routine largely depends upon the dog so I might run through a few tests to find out what gets the right reaction. This process would usually start with presentation of the fear-eliciting stimulus at sufficient intensity that the dog does not react fearfully [after looking at dog's behaviour in several situations]. In this sense exposure is graded, but this does not make it desensitisation. With fear of a household member the most important thing, I find, is to stop that person from interacting directly with the dog during the first stages of treatment. Often the feared person has tried to coax the dog, pick it up, cuddle it or do other things which the dog finds alarming. Even eye contact may be frightening to it. The key issue is not the person's intent but the dog's perception of what is happening, especially with a dog that has an unknown history. Simply by leaving the dog alone and managing the interaction between the dog and person I often find the dog begins to relax and get used to the person. I was not sure what method you finally used with this dog. Did you use punishment/aversion to reduce expressions of fear of your husband? Jon >> then using punishment techniques will not help, and may indeed >> make him worse if he associates the fearful stimulus (strangers, >> people on >> street, etc) with your punishment technique (citrus spray, electric >> shocks, >> etc). > > My own limited experience is that it does work, certainly if one > defines success narrowly as correcting the nuisance barking. Her > former behavioral response was > see strange people walk by our fenceline => bark aggressively at > them > now it is > see strange people walk by our fenceline => run back down into the > house and come to me > > I didn't intend to train the recall part of this, it's just something > that she started doing after the e-collar corrections for barking, so > I praised her when she ran back to me. One might claim that she's in > avoidance with respect to the strangers... simply a different fear > response. Perhaps, though her body language when she runs back to me > is upbeat and happy, not cringing with avoidance. > >> Many others out there will be better able to guide you than I will, >> but it >> sounds like you should be exploring the systematic desensitisation >> route >> (with a suitable trainer, of course). This essentially requires >> exposing the >> dog to the lowest severity of the thing he is fearful of without >> evoking a >> response, and praising him for his good behaviour. For example, you >> might >> take him to more neutral territory (the park?) and play with a >> favorite toy >> while people are walking about. > > I tried that, at a local park. > > First, I used food rewards for good behavior. This was marginally > successful during a training session, but no long term learning > occurred between training sessions. We always were starting over from > scratch. > > Next, I tried effusive praise for good behavior instead of food. Some > call it "the jolly routine". This was more successful than the food > rewards. I could walk her right past strangers and she was fine, as > long as I kept looking at her and dishing out a continual stream of > warm words in an exaggerated sweet upbeat "jolly" voice. But alas, > there was again no learning between training sessions. We always > seemed to be starting over from scratch. > > I have no doubt that desensitization methods work with many dogs. And > in those cases, I imagine it may have a wider/deeper effect than > merely suppressing undesirable behavior ala an e-collar, anti-bark > collar, or other punishment method > > It took this dog more than 1 year to stop fearing my harmless husband > who has never shown her anything but love and kindness. Three years > later her fear of him still recurs at times, for no apparent reason. > I expect her fears are rather deeply engrained. > >> There is much more detail invovled, but this might give you an idea >> of the >> approach! Someone I recently met at a conference, who is a dog >> trainer in >> England, had to use this technique on her own dog, which she got from >> a >> rescue centre and was aggressive towards all adults. > > My dog is also a rescue. > >> It took her 2 years to desensitise him, and a lot of patience, but >> she got there in the end. > > Therein may lie the problem. I don't have the patience to do "the > jolly routine" for 2 years, simply so I can then walk her out in > public. We have an even closer by, wild grassy park, where she almost > never sees strangers as no one else uses it. There she can run free > and hunt field mice to her heart's content... pure bliss. > > Laura Sanborn From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 14:13:48.31 To: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Dear Vicki, Since I have responded to so many of your questions in you last email to me perhaps you will answer one of mine? A simple yes or no is enough. Do you thing it is acceptable to train a normally motivated dog to sit, recall or perform other basic commands using a shock collar if another non-aversive method is equally as effective? Jon From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 14:42:41.76 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases I am interested to know how we can judge when the dog understands the command? Tony also says the same thing on his website: that the dog only gets punished for not sitting quickly enough once it knows what 'sit' means. Surely the number of repetitions of a cue or command in a training sequence is not a reliable way to judge whether a dog has made the correct associations... A dog may undergo lengthy training and still not comply with every command immediately: What of the dog with cognitive impairment who is not able to process the information and is still not aware of what is going on after many repetitions? What of the dog who has hindlimb or back pain and finds sitting down uncomfortable...it may want to comply but resist doing so because of pain. I have seen dogs like this and I presume so has everyone else who has trained dogs. Surely the best way to judge whether a dog has made the right associations and feels able to comply is that it...sits on command. For the vast majority of dogs there is no need to use punishment to achieve this. In clicker training the method is to 'shape' a behaviour, so that we would train the dog that 'Sit' means we want it to sit down fast and in a particular way or location. Only then is that very specific behaviour trained to a cue [which could be verbal, visual or anything else]. The thing I am repeatedly trying to get across, and apparently failing, is that aversive methods are not necessary for MOST dogs, and yet shock/e-collars are being sold as a training aid to be used ALL dog owners. Are people so concerned with the end that any means are justified? Jon On Saturday, August 9, 2003, at 09:04 pm, Gerflannigan@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/9/2003 1:32:45 PM Central Daylight Time, > slvnhld@ix.netcom.com writes: > >> The sequence you describe is an excellent description of the manner >> in which >> most humans (including trainers and behaviourists) use a leash and a >> choke. >> >> 1) tighten choke (punish) >> 2) give command (cue) >> 3) loosen choke when dog sits (negative reinforcement) > > I'll let Suzanne tell you the order of the sequence that she meant. > However > to be a punishment, the cue would come first (or not at if trying to > teach and > automatic "sit" when you stop walking during a heal). With traditional > obedience training, the "sit" command at heal position was taught by > pulling up on > the leash with the right hand and pushing down on the rear (or some > cupped the > rear legs) with the left hand. The right hand was kept taut (actually > not a > choke) to keep the dog in position during the teaching phase. As a > result, the > pull up on the leash became a second command as well as a punishment > if the > sit wasn't fast enough. The correction was only used once the dog > understood > the command and what a tight leash meant. If the leash was kept tight > (I > actually didn't do this when I used these methods in the early 80's), > it would act > as a negative reinforcer once the sit was performed. That is how I saw > it. > Gerry > > _________________________________________________________________ > Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc > Carolina Veterinary Specialists > Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina > 336-632-0605 (Voice) > 336-632-0703 (Fax) > gerflannigan@aol.com > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 10-AUG-2003 15:22:38.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars - comments from horse trainers? It sounds plausible to me that the two dogs associated the shock with the appearance of a small dog at that location and tried to remove (kill) the source of that shock, or protect themselves from "attack" (future shock). When dogs go for the kill, don't they go for the neck of the other dog? Isn't this the location of the pain from the shock? Why is everyone so certain that the dog is interpreting this collar shocking in a human way and not in a dog way? Again, in rabbits - a prey animal true, not a carnivore - you do not use pain as a control measure, EVER. Never. Even with a rabbit who appears vicious and can take a few deep bites out of you. I can't imagine that pain works for horse training either. any comments from horse trainers? > Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social > problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town > one, and owner needed more control over them. > Owner contacted a local trainer who supplied her with a shock collar. > He made no attempt to use any non-aversive method of training recall. > About a week later these two dogs are walked through a relatively > unfamiliar location...a narrowing of a pathway going past the end of > several gardens. > A small dog runs out and barks at the fence. As the dogs go to > investigate it they are shocked. Both dogs leap into the air and > scream. The owner had been advised to shock the dogs whenever they do > anything that she did not want them to do [that was sum-total of advice > given] > The dogs had previously been shocked 2-3 times but had never shown this > level of response. > Owner never uses collar again. > > Each day the dogs walk back past this location and show avoidance of > the side of the path where the small dog ran from. They cower and > cringe. > About 7 days later they are walking back past this spot [on leash], > again cowering and cringing, when a similar small dog comes into the > end of the pathway right in front of them and barks. They immediately > launch at the small dog and attack it. They kill the dog. > > I saw the dog about 14 days later, and made a video tape of the dogs > reaction to this location. They were still showing [milder] avoidance > and would try to pull away from the fence where the small dog had been. > ON a walk in that area they were generally avoidant of other dogs and > might bark at them, whereas in other nearby streets they were fine. > > That is the general summary. > The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack > indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock > collar. > Any comments from anyone else? > > Jon > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 15:33:04.46 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars - comments from horse trainers? The point you raised was one that concerned me also. The small dog might easily have been interpreted as the source of the shock due to its position relative to where the shock was delivered. The location of the shock is to the throat, which is a sensitive area and I do wonder what the interpretation of this kind of pain might be, remembering the submissive postures shown by dogs and the ways in which they fight with each other. Jon On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:22 pm, heather mcmurray wrote: > It sounds plausible to me that the two dogs associated the shock with > the > appearance of a small dog at that location and tried to remove (kill) > the > source of that shock, or protect themselves from "attack" (future > shock). > > When dogs go for the kill, don't they go for the neck of the other dog? > Isn't this the location of the pain from the shock? Why is everyone so > certain that the dog is interpreting this collar shocking in a human > way and > not in a dog way? > > Again, in rabbits - a prey animal true, not a carnivore - you do not > use > pain as a control measure, EVER. Never. Even with a rabbit who > appears > vicious and can take a few deep bites out of you. I can't imagine > that > pain works for horse training either. any comments from horse > trainers? > >> Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social >> problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town >> one, and owner needed more control over them. >> Owner contacted a local trainer who supplied her with a shock collar. >> He made no attempt to use any non-aversive method of training recall. >> About a week later these two dogs are walked through a relatively >> unfamiliar location...a narrowing of a pathway going past the end of >> several gardens. >> A small dog runs out and barks at the fence. As the dogs go to >> investigate it they are shocked. Both dogs leap into the air and >> scream. The owner had been advised to shock the dogs whenever they do >> anything that she did not want them to do [that was sum-total of >> advice >> given] >> The dogs had previously been shocked 2-3 times but had never shown >> this >> level of response. >> Owner never uses collar again. >> >> Each day the dogs walk back past this location and show avoidance of >> the side of the path where the small dog ran from. They cower and >> cringe. >> About 7 days later they are walking back past this spot [on leash], >> again cowering and cringing, when a similar small dog comes into the >> end of the pathway right in front of them and barks. They immediately >> launch at the small dog and attack it. They kill the dog. >> >> I saw the dog about 14 days later, and made a video tape of the dogs >> reaction to this location. They were still showing [milder] avoidance >> and would try to pull away from the fence where the small dog had >> been. >> ON a walk in that area they were generally avoidant of other dogs and >> might bark at them, whereas in other nearby streets they were fine. >> >> That is the general summary. >> The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack >> indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock >> collar. >> Any comments from anyone else? >> >> Jon >> >> > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 10-AUG-2003 15:41:38.06 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars - comments from horse trainers? Before anyone says anything about the collar used in this case, it appeared to be working perfectly. It was an 'e-collar' as Tony would describe it, and made by a well recognised manufacturer of collars. It had been 'tested' by the trainer who supplied it. The dogs were not wet when the shock really upset them but they are both long haired GSDs and I think that on the couple of other occasions the collar was used [at a medium to high setting] the electrodes were not in proper contact with the skin. There was variation of the electrical power between shocks but painfulness [assessed by several human volunteers] appeared consistently high for this setting. Jon On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:22 pm, heather mcmurray wrote: > It sounds plausible to me that the two dogs associated the shock with > the > appearance of a small dog at that location and tried to remove (kill) > the > source of that shock, or protect themselves from "attack" (future > shock). > > When dogs go for the kill, don't they go for the neck of the other dog? > Isn't this the location of the pain from the shock? Why is everyone so > certain that the dog is interpreting this collar shocking in a human > way and > not in a dog way? > > Again, in rabbits - a prey animal true, not a carnivore - you do not > use > pain as a control measure, EVER. Never. Even with a rabbit who > appears > vicious and can take a few deep bites out of you. I can't imagine > that > pain works for horse training either. any comments from horse > trainers? > >> Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social >> problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town >> one, and owner needed more control over them. >> Owner contacted a local trainer who supplied her with a shock collar. >> He made no attempt to use any non-aversive method of training recall. >> About a week later these two dogs are walked through a relatively >> unfamiliar location...a narrowing of a pathway going past the end of >> several gardens. >> A small dog runs out and barks at the fence. As the dogs go to >> investigate it they are shocked. Both dogs leap into the air and >> scream. The owner had been advised to shock the dogs whenever they do >> anything that she did not want them to do [that was sum-total of >> advice >> given] >> The dogs had previously been shocked 2-3 times but had never shown >> this >> level of response. >> Owner never uses collar again. >> >> Each day the dogs walk back past this location and show avoidance of >> the side of the path where the small dog ran from. They cower and >> cringe. >> About 7 days later they are walking back past this spot [on leash], >> again cowering and cringing, when a similar small dog comes into the >> end of the pathway right in front of them and barks. They immediately >> launch at the small dog and attack it. They kill the dog. >> >> I saw the dog about 14 days later, and made a video tape of the dogs >> reaction to this location. They were still showing [milder] avoidance >> and would try to pull away from the fence where the small dog had >> been. >> ON a walk in that area they were generally avoidant of other dogs and >> might bark at them, whereas in other nearby streets they were fine. >> >> That is the general summary. >> The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack >> indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock >> collar. >> Any comments from anyone else? >> >> Jon >> >> > > From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 10-AUG-2003 15:54:25.01 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases In a message dated 8/10/2003 3:44:37 PM Central Daylight Time, rondog@btinternet.com writes: > The thing I am repeatedly trying to get across, and apparently failing, > is that aversive methods are not necessary for MOST dogs, and yet > shock/e-collars are being sold as a training aid to be used ALL dog > owners. Jon: This is not meant as a personal attack but I feel that you have gotten off on some soap box tangent. What are you talking about!! No one (especially me) has implied that the only way to teach dogs is to use aversive methods. Although shock/ecollars are available to the public, very few people use them. In that same vain, clickers are now available everywhere. Unfortunately, the use of clicker training takes some time and expertise which requires that you have an experienced person teach the trainer these concepts. Wonderful if you have it. I have had students (when I taught veterinary students while doing graduate work and a residency) that had to have the instructor click at the appropriate time. No teaching method is ideal for any dog or dog trainer. Clicker training is wonderful and works exceedingly well. However, I have known some dogs that do not respond. I would say that many dogs do not need aversive methods but not most and would never say ALL dogs respond to anything. Let me give you a little background on me. I started training dogs in the early 70's. Koehler was one of the few books available at my local book store. Even then, I cringed at his excessive punishment techniques and his justifications. However, I got past that because the obedience training methods were solid and still are. In the 1980s, food training was just starting and gaining success. I continued to use correction based methods for my own dogs and in classes I taught (it was the norm in those days). Most dogs worked happily for them. I taught food-based puppy classes in the 90s; my dogs rarely need corrections because I have timing and I am consistent. I did not jump on the fad of the late 1980s and early 90s that it is best never to say "NO" as I believe that most dogs can handle it. I am sure that you know that dogs respond best to a consistent rule structure. I would be very surprised if you did not know when your dogs understand a command ("sit") and decide not to comply. The point I am trying to get across (and apparently failing) is that if you are going to use punishment (with the operative word being IF), then understand basic learning principles, think about what your are doing, and do it effectively. Professionally, I am a veterinarian. I have a MSc. in applied animal ethology and have a residency in clinical behavior. My masters' supervisor was an animal science trained applied ethologist and my research was in streotypies in horses. My practice is restricted to small animal clinical behavior. Gerry _________________________________________________________________ Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc Carolina Veterinary Specialists Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina 336-632-0605 (Voice) 336-632-0703 (Fax) gerflannigan@aol.com From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 10-AUG-2003 16:25:16.16 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars I am quite an advocate of electronic static pulse collars, may I answer too? NO! Animals and humans learn more effectively when they are happy. The neurotransmitters speak for themselves. Norepinephrine-happy-learn. When dogs are finding an undesirable behaviour highly rewarding, so much so that you can not practically speaking compete (they are having too much fun learning the unwanted behaviour), then an Ecollar tips the balance back in your favour by taking the fun out of the annoying activity. It should only be used aversively when traditional methods are useless, which is often the case for nuisance barkers where I live. Environmental factors are impossible at times and people continue to choose unsuitable breeds such as rottweillers in a small backyard, border collies, cattle dogs. All fine dogs in the right environment and with the right owner. Most of my clients would be better off with a cavalier king charles spaniel for instance and I generally tell them, in the nicest way I can, so hopefully they make a wiser choice next time. On the other hand Ecollars may be used purely motivationally if set very low or just the tone option employed. Where did any of you get the idea from that Ecollars are painful? They are not. But they are distinctly unpleasant. Dogs react in dramatic ways to lots of things but that does not mean they are painful. They may be surprised, or signal their submission, or the muscles in the vocal region may contract like a tens machine causes. Incidentally, has anyone felt a tens machine that a physio uses? They are distinctly uncomfortable though not painful. Enough for now Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Jon Bowen [mailto:rondog@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:13 AM To: Vicki Magnus Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: electronic collars Dear Vicki, Since I have responded to so many of your questions in you last email to me perhaps you will answer one of mine? A simple yes or no is enough. Do you thing it is acceptable to train a normally motivated dog to sit, recall or perform other basic commands using a shock collar if another non-aversive method is equally as effective? Jon From: IN%"da13y@hotmail.com" "daisy berthoud" 10-AUG-2003 16:27:59.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: temperament literature, mainly for dogsd dear all, as i already mentioned, i am doing my third year research project at the time, which evaluates the temperament test a local shelter is carrying out. in order to know a little more about the subject i would be interested in any books/articles/journals discussing temperament in animals, as well as temperament tests. please contact me for further information if needed. i thank you all in advance and am looking forward to reading a lot in the future. regards, daisy berthoud anglia polytechnic university, cambridge, uk _________________________________________________________________ On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 10-AUG-2003 16:30:46.48 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Applied ethology vs. talking garbage The Emails may cut down if the auto-responses did not occur. Just a thought. Jackie -----Original Message----- From: Moira Harris [mailto:moiraharris@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:20 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Applied ethology vs. talking garbage Dear Robin and dear all, Robin, I read your message to A-E in 1995 and had no desire to read it again just now. I also do not have any wish to know how you keep your husband interested (if you care). As one of the original subscribers to A-E, I am finally almost driven to unsubscribe (in a show-offishly dysfunctional way of course, by sending a message to the wrong A-E address... preferably including spelling my name / email address wrongly as well, in a method pioneered this week by Jeremy Marchant-Forde). Yes, I can Delete unread any message that does not interest me, and no, that does not help when I am away from the office for 36 hours and return to 138 emails from A-E. Please ... could we try to stick a little more closely to the original intention of the A-E list, which is to discuss applied ethology? Rather than turning the list into a gossip club / forum for insults / dog trainers' coffee morning? And no, before you hasten to flame me -- don't bother btw, I shall delete all flames unread provided they are clearly marked Flame --no, I have nothing against dog trainers / companion animal behaviour experts / people who don't know anything about animal behaviour but like to chat about it anyway. I am just a little tired of, once again, the discussion disintegrating into a structureless mess of very little relevance. Best, - Moira --- Robin Walker wrote: > Something I shared with you in 1995: > > This gives us a starting point for discussions on > "how to keep your > husband interested (if you care); ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" 10-AUG-2003 16:53:01.53 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Electronic Collars I knew I didn't want to get into this discussion but if you insist: In a message dated 8/10/2003 1:45:19 PM Central Daylight Time, rondog@btinternet.com writes: > I can see the points here but I don't think we are talking about > punishment vs. 'no punishment'. Punishment and reward exist together in > all situations of training. I also don't think this is an issue of > whether or not to use electricity as a form of punishment, the concern > is whether the type and method of delivery of shock represents > excessive punishment and whether the person operating the device is > competent to do so without causing problems for the animal. Also > whether the use of aversive training methods is justifiable if > alternatives exist, given a similar level of efficacy. No question. The rules were meant for all punishment not specifically for the use of electricity alone. > The rules listed are arguable, particularly point 1. Punishment does > not necessarily need to be maximally intense to be effective, and the > main thing we want to avoid id to induce fear because this affects the > ability to learn. In training punishment needs only to be powerful > enough to stop behaviour so that an alternative may be rewarded, > especially if the reinforcer is appropriately chosen for the situation. If you read the point 1. closely that is exactly what I said. Unfortunately most people use mild punishment and then increase it if it is ineffective (Point 3). If you have a problem with the rules, talk to Barry Shwartz but I do agree with him. I said in the sentence before I started that the rules were difficult to follow. > The point about welfare effects of punishing effects of the citronella > vs shock collars misses one point which is that different types of > punishment may be more appropriate and easier to learn form, creating a > better effect. This does not indicate the amount of suffering they > cause.. For example, and animal moving towards an object may find a > blast of gas that appears in front of the face [where it can be seen , > smelled and heard] easier to understand and back away from than a shock > delivered to the throat, where it is behind most of the sensory organs > of the head. The relevance of punishment is therefore also important. Unfortunately, your interpretation and not the dogs. Who is to say that shock is more distressing than the sound, smell and sound of citronella spraying to a dog? I was referring to Dr. Sherman's definition of welfare and was trying to be sarcastic (sorry). Gerry _________________________________________________________________ Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc Carolina Veterinary Specialists Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina 336-632-0605 (Voice) 336-632-0703 (Fax) gerflannigan@aol.com From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 10-AUG-2003 17:17:15.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning At 01:09 PM Sunday 8/10/2003, you wrote: >Surely the purpose should be to alter motivation, not merely to suppress a >singular behavioural expression of it? If the main goal is to stop one's dog from terrorizing one's neighbors... because she barked aggressively at them from behind the fence (BTW, no one has harassed her into doing this)... then quickly and efficiently suppressing the inappropriate behavior is prudent. Establishing clear, consistent, reasonable, and firm boundaries on acceptable behavior is not inhumane. Of course it's ideal to attempt to alter the underlying fearful motivation that causes the aggressive barking. As I said, I tried that approach earlier with this dog, with no apparent success. Only after giving up on those approaches did I resort to simply suppressing the barking with an e-collar. >A few corrections... >The Jolly routine is not a form of desensitisation. The method is to >provide the dog a 'model' of a different emotional response to the >fear-eliciting one in the hope that the dog will duplicate this >response. The person begins to act Jolly as soon as the fear eliciting >stimulus is encountered, but before the dog actually becomes fearful. I was under the impression that this is typically the case for effective desensitization methods. >It generally does not work if the dog is already experiencing intense >fear. In this way the dog is conditioned to produce a positive emotional >response instead of a negative one. >The jolliness does not start only when the dog reacts with good behaviour, >but attention would turn to the dog if it joins in. >In this way the Jolly routine contains elements of emotional modelling, >counter-conditioning, and positive reinforcement etc. Well said; I agree. >The specific method of Jolly routine largely depends upon the dog so I >might run through a few tests to find out what gets the right reaction. I had no problem getting the Jolly routine to work very well in any given training session. I have to say it's very impressive in its ability to modify the dog's emotional state. The problem in my particular case was a lack of progress from one session to the next. With my particular dog, I suspect there is an overall learning disability, and this lack of progress was merely one manifestation of it. >With fear of a household member the most important thing, I find, is to >stop that person from interacting directly with the dog during the first >stages of treatment. Often the feared person has tried to coax the dog, >pick it up, cuddle it or do other things which the dog finds alarming. >Even eye contact may be frightening to it. The key issue is not the >person's intent but the dog's perception of what is happening, especially >with a dog that has an unknown history. Simply by leaving the dog alone >and managing the interaction between the dog and person I often find the >dog begins to relax and get used to the person. > >I was not sure what method you finally used with this dog. Did you use >punishment/aversion to reduce expressions of fear of your husband? My husband never tried to force affections on my dog. He's quite good at sending calming signals. Not only would he avoid eye contact or giving her any attention, but he would turn to the side so his body wasn't facing her, not walk directly toward her, etc. My dog would/will sometimes solicit affection from my husband by cuddling up with him when he was in a sitting position. It took about a year of this sort of careful treatment before she finally was able to relax around him... most of the time. As an aside, I was thinking last night about the concern that some have voiced, on various forums, about the emotional damage that the "shocks" from e-collars may induce in dogs [let's set aside for the moment the fact that modern e-collars can be turned down to such a low setting that they provide merely an annoying tingle, not a "shock"]. I was thinking about this after watching my husband's 4 year old adult male GSD discipline my 8 month old male puppy (these are different dogs from my fearful female dog, mentioned above). My puppy has been pushing the limits of acceptable behavior around this dominant adult male GSD, and when said puppy snarled, lunged, and snapped at the adult male, that was the last straw. The adult male went into a full power rapid fire very loud barking frenzy that is perhaps better described as a roar (I believe it may register on the Richter scale). He pounced on my puppy, hovered over puppy as he pushed puppy against the floor, and roared in puppy's face. No harm done, just an appropriate correction from the dominant adult male to an uppity male pup who needs to learn his place. Quite honestly, if said puppy had instead gotten a full power e-collar correction, I don't think he could have received a greater "shock" than the one he received. I myself was quite "shocked", even though I was merely an observer. Puppy seems none the worse for it today. He is giving the adult male a wide berth (avoidance), and when the adult male approaches him is now showing appropriate solicitous submissive behaviors that were generally lacking before last night. It appears to me that dogs naturally teach each other appropriate manners via very strong corrections. Yet it appears that some (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs should nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What evidence exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through +R, largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? Laura Sanborn From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 10-AUG-2003 17:50:01.71 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars At 03:35 AM Thursday 8/7/2003, you wrote: >I believe, that if we cant ban the ecollars for the general public, at >minimum >the use had to be restricted to dog training areas, in which a seniour >trainer >allways has an eye on the dogs (and their owners) - also if i would prefer >the >first (ban them all). By the way, last is the legal practice in germany today. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the e-collar ban in Germany became the subject of litigation, and that the ban was overturned. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 10-AUG-2003 18:48:27.52 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Yet it appears that some (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs should > nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What evidence > exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through +R, > largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? > > Laura Sanborn > Laura, a very good description of this is in the article written by Suzanne Clothier at http://www.flyingdogpress.com/pposa.html She is a fine trainer and instructor. Her articles help the average pet dog owner understand and work with the average and not so average dog. Dogs use a great deal of +P as you already know living with multiple dogs. Horses and other livestock use not only +P but -R a great deal with conspecifics. Julie Alexander > From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 10-AUG-2003 21:22:26.74 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: role call: any classically trained ethologists on list or people interested in same >Hi, I was wondering if there were any people on this list interested in classic ethology< >or who trained in its methods?< =A0 >If not trained in classic ethology, then who have done a lot of study = in< >evolution/genetics/zoology on their own< =A0 >or< =A0 >who do/have done=A0animal observation in the field or augmented their = own work (on dog< >training etc) with readings about field work in related species?< Hi - in the twelve years or so since building the foundation herd here = the work has been focussed largely on observations - with as much back up reading as time has allowed, particularly on the evolution of behavior = and development of culture in Equus Caballus and other mammals. The research herd is now 56 horses, split into two separate 'harem = groups', a 'bachelor' group of colts and young stallions - and a 'fillies' group. = I'm primarily interested in social behavior and the impact of natural family/herd socialisation and the dynamics of group size on mating = behavior, exogamy, learning, training and management, also on the ethics of = management systems with regard to support (or lack of!) for innate behaviors. Currently, aside from general day to day work and writing I'm carrying = out a study on internal parasites - including social status and environment as vectors - by way of dung sampling for faecal egg counts. This results in = a number of hours spent each day standing around in the rain (we are just coming to the end of the New Zealand winter - and it has been very wet = up here in the north, in fact as global warming continues we now seem to = have a wet season rather than a winter here in the far North of the North = Island) waiting for dung to fall(literally!). The up side of this is that it's a great excuse to spend four or so hours per day just watching horse = behavior - field work being very much my passion. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz =A0 From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" "Bill Campbell" 11-AUG-2003 00:13:39.97 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: The Jolly routine Dear ISAE list members, I'd like to clarify some points about the Jolly Routine, with the unabashed confession that I have a vested interest in its existence and its veracity. Our company markets behavior brochures to veterinarians, trainers and, yea, even behavior consultants. The Jolly Routine is a part of many of these guides for dog owners. That said, some history seems appropriate... Since first introducing the Jolly Routine in in 1975, "Behavior Problems in Dogs," Amer. Vet. Pubs, 1975, after having described it in Modern Veterinary Practice Magazine in 1972, I have struggled with the problem many practitioner/authors face... "Did I say it clearly enough?" And it has haunted me to this day. The "haunt" occurs when someone says they applied the routine (laughing etc.) when the trigger stimulus, whether it be a thunder clap or the appearance of another dog, and does not mention whether or not they they applied a novel stimulus to trigger the orienting reflex the instant the dog notices the trigger stimulus, and then applies the "jollies." At the time I first wrote about this I was contributing editor for Modern Vet. Practice on dog behavior and had a vested interest in the "Hi-Fido," and "SoundRx Systems," a manual method of activating a curbed soldered-linked musical brass bracelet chain device. To avoid *advertising* the product in articles, I simply wrote about applying an ultra-sonic distraction as the means of triggering an orienting reflex in the dog. (I am sure the list members are fully acquainted with the effects of the orienting reflex on the cns.) However, in my original texts, I first mentioned applying the *jollies* at the instant the dog first noticed the trigger object, since most cases respond very quickly and positively to this application. In the following paragraph, I mentioned that a dramatic enhancement of the effects are achieved when a quick sound *precedes* the jollies. The sequence, thus, follows this principle: 1. Dog sees, smells, hears, trigger stimulus. 2. Intervening sound stimulus (a single clap of hands, etc.) interrupts dog's mentation about it. 3. Jolly Routine (via allelomimetic behavior principles) instills positive emotional responses and reinforces the interruption of the dog's emotional reaction to the stimulus. 4. Dogs positive emotional responses are praised by owner. 5. Routine is repeated until the trigger stimulus stimulates dog's positive emotional response *before* the intervening stimulus can be applied. i.e., a conditioned emotional response in attained. Technically, a dandy paradigm. However, here's the hitch: The owner conducting this therapy must have earned the role as the *emotional leader* of the dog. Unless this is achieved (through consistent application of the Learn-To-Earn (no-free-lunch) praise and petting program), and until the owner *feels* the dog is responsive to their emotional *leadership*, a totally successful outcome is rarely achieved. I've seen the Jolly Routine program fail in countless cases where the owner has *instant recall* and total command control of their dog, but lacks any genuine *emotional* control of the pet. That is, the owners can tell the dog what to *do,* but not (effectively) how to *feel* about the situation. In a few words... the owner is not the dog's "role model," as Jon mentioned. The owner may be dominant, but not the dog's true leader. After all these years, I must agree with the ancient Sufi wisdom... "An attitude, like a virtue or a vice cannot be taught... it must be caught." Kindest regards, Bill Campbell BehaviorX Systems http://www.webtrail.com/petbehavior billcamp@cdsnet.net PO Box 1658 Grants Pass, OR 97528 From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 11-AUG-2003 00:45:56.88 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "'Laura Sanborn'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'Applied ethology'" CC: Subj: RE: Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Yes! When Captain (my Labrador) is affronted by a puppy he exhibits a spectacular wrinkling of the face. If the face persists more wrinkles appear between the wrinkles. Then the "roar and nip". "Dear All, In the light of all the detailed analysis of aggression, hierarchy and play to which we have been entertained, I would like to invite discussion of 'bullying' As a governor of a school for emotionally disturbed children I am on the discipline committee which exists to consider problems arising from the behaviour of both children and in necessary their teachers. Recent tragedies involving the suicide of schoolchildren have attracted the feeding frenzy of the press vultures. Rational debate is made almost impossible when people are left frozen with horror at examples of psychopathic bullying leading to the death of a child. I wonder if we could discuss the following propositions. A number of species indulge in chivvying, nipping, pinching, hazing and scaring the newgrown and the newcomer. Is there a level of 'bullying' that could be regarded as a legitimate and healthy activity that emotionally toughens and bonds.? Can we define a level of maladaptive, dysfunctional, psychopathic bullying where there is no escape or redemption by acceptance? Should the recoil from tragic casualties render us unable to accept the milder chaffing, ribbing and ritual rules of natural society.? Might attempts to abolish all instinctive emotional toughening of this type yields individuals who cannot ride the blows, frustrations, and actual abrasions of real life.? (Be they children or puppies?) Might attempting to cocoon and restrain all such natural ebullience yield a crop of young creatures that respond with fear aggression (tears or blows) or flight into despair (suicide) rather than with resilience? Has natural over reaction to the worst excesses of school children, fraternity house hazers, drill sergeants led us to attempt to stifle Nature instead of studying the nature of the mishap? My thoughts are that bullying is the result of failure in the hierarchy. The lack of vigilance by the seniors that their authority is not usurped. The disengagement of a officer corps from the events in barracks resulting in unregulated non-commissioned officers. The withdrawal of a prefectorial system among children which when fiercely overseen by authoritative head and housemasters could be protective rather than a caricature of abuse. Have we gone soft? Interestingly the flight into liberal impotence that led to teachers being unable to physically restrain or even speak sharply to children is going to be reversed. In the UK the guidelines for restraint of a child intent on burning down the school or murdering a classmate are going to be amended. Someone has realised that it may be necessary to actually grasp a corner (or two) of such a child to control (his her or its) actions. Haleluia. An ethological view of the hierarchical behaviour of various species and its enforcement and its possible contribution to actual health and happiness, would be refreshing. The drenching we have received in the outpourings of exploitative film makers and the whingings of media folk cashing in their childhood traumas may dowse the spark of reason. A serious, scientific, tone-free discussion would be timely and have great relevance to dedicated folk trying to cope with these matters. Robin To AE 1998 I am implacably opposed to formal, ritual, retributive, vengeful, corporal punishment in any form in any species. Immediate robust disciplinary intervention is another matter. (It can be quite electrifying) -----Original Message----- From: Laura Sanborn [mailto:laura@xul.com] Sent: 11 August 2003 00:22 To: Applied ethology Subject: Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning He pounced on my puppy, hovered over puppy as he pushed puppy against the floor, and roared in puppy's face. No harm done, just an appropriate correction from the dominant adult male to an uppity male pup who needs to learn his place. Quite honestly, if said puppy had instead gotten a full power e-collar correction, I don't think he could have received a greater "shock" than the one he received. I myself was quite "shocked", even though I was merely an observer. Puppy seems none the worse for it today. He is giving the adult male a wide berth (avoidance), and when the adult male approaches him is now showing appropriate solicitous submissive behaviors that were generally lacking before last night. It appears to me that dogs naturally teach each other appropriate manners via very strong corrections. Yet it appears that some (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs should nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What evidence exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through +R, largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? Laura Sanborn From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 11-AUG-2003 01:37:03.57 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases Sorry Gerry, but I think you are wrong on this point. I would not accuse you of getting on a soap box because that would be rude, wouldn't it. It might be considered a personal attack. I think you should re-read some of the earlier messages because you may have missed some of what was said and the background of some of the people commenting. The reason why I am putting this point forward is that there are people on the list who want these devices available to everyone [Tony et al]. In the sales literature the collars are marketed for the training of ALL dogs. People like Tony advocate using shock collars in conventional training settings as part of their primary means of training. The Shock collar companies want to sell loads of them, and at a meeting with DEFRA in the UK one claimed to have sold 100,000 collars into the UK [total canine population 7 million]. They wanted to use their sales as a support for the continued availability of collars, but it somewhat backfired. They had with them a trainer who specifically used shock collars as her primary training method. I could accuse you of gong off at a tangent, because this is nothing to do with the pros and cons of punishment. We all use some sort of punishment, be it negative of positive, and nobody said anything about not saying 'NO' to dogs. Jon On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:54 pm, Gerflannigan@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/10/2003 3:44:37 PM Central Daylight Time, > rondog@btinternet.com writes: > >> The thing I am repeatedly trying to get across, and apparently >> failing, >> is that aversive methods are not necessary for MOST dogs, and yet >> shock/e-collars are being sold as a training aid to be used ALL dog >> owners. > > Jon: > This is not meant as a personal attack but I feel that you have gotten > off on > some soap box tangent. What are you talking about!! No one > (especially me) > has implied that the only way to teach dogs is to use aversive methods. > Although shock/ecollars are available to the public, very few people > use them. In > that same vain, clickers are now available everywhere. Unfortunately, > the use > of clicker training takes some time and expertise which requires that > you have > an experienced person teach the trainer these concepts. Wonderful if > you have > it. I have had students (when I taught veterinary students while doing > graduate work and a residency) that had to have the instructor click > at the > appropriate time. > > No teaching method is ideal for any dog or dog trainer. Clicker > training is > wonderful and works exceedingly well. However, I have known some dogs > that do > not respond. I would say that many dogs do not need aversive methods > but not > most and would never say ALL dogs respond to anything. > > Let me give you a little background on me. I started training dogs in > the > early 70's. Koehler was one of the few books available at my local > book store. > Even then, I cringed at his excessive punishment techniques and his > justifications. However, I got past that because the obedience > training methods were > solid and still are. In the 1980s, food training was just starting > and gaining > success. I continued to use correction based methods for my own dogs > and in > classes I taught (it was the norm in those days). Most dogs worked > happily for > them. I taught food-based puppy classes in the 90s; my dogs rarely > need > corrections because I have timing and I am consistent. I did not jump > on the fad > of the late 1980s and early 90s that it is best never to say "NO" as I > believe > that most dogs can handle it. I am sure that you know that dogs > respond best > to a consistent rule structure. I would be very surprised if you did > not know > when your dogs understand a command ("sit") and decide not to comply. > > The point I am trying to get across (and apparently failing) is that > if you > are going to use punishment (with the operative word being IF), then > understand > basic learning principles, think about what your are doing, and do it > effectively. > > Professionally, I am a veterinarian. I have a MSc. in applied animal > ethology and have a residency in clinical behavior. My masters' > supervisor was an > animal science trained applied ethologist and my research was in > streotypies in > horses. My practice is restricted to small animal clinical behavior. > Gerry > > _________________________________________________________________ > Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc > Carolina Veterinary Specialists > Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina > 336-632-0605 (Voice) > 336-632-0703 (Fax) > gerflannigan@aol.com > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 11-AUG-2003 01:44:27.79 To: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars > If you read the point 1. closely that is exactly what I said. > Unfortunately > most people use mild punishment and then increase it if it is > ineffective > (Point 3). If you have a problem with the rules, talk to Barry > Shwartz but I do > agree with him. I said in the sentence before I started that the > rules were > difficult to follow. I did read it closely: "1. The punishing stimulus should be as intense as possible (large enough to be effective without inducing learned helplessness)." The phrase I disagree with is 'as intense as possible', and this is not suitably qualified by the an intention to avoid causing learned helplessness. Punishment should not be so severe as to cause fear. I don't care who wrote this rule, it is nonsense. >> The point about welfare effects of punishing effects of the >> citronella >> vs shock collars misses one point which is that different types of >> punishment may be more appropriate and easier to learn form, >> creating a >> better effect. This does not indicate the amount of suffering they >> cause.. For example, and animal moving towards an object may find a >> blast of gas that appears in front of the face [where it can be >> seen , >> smelled and heard] easier to understand and back away from than a >> shock >> delivered to the throat, where it is behind most of the sensory >> organs >> of the head. The relevance of punishment is therefore also important. > > Unfortunately, your interpretation and not the dogs. Who is to say > that > shock is more distressing than the sound, smell and sound of > citronella spraying > to a dog? I was referring to Dr. Sherman's definition of welfare and > was > trying to be sarcastic (sorry). I was merely countering your comment " If your definition of welfare is how the animal will avoid something (Dr. Sherman) then the Juarbe-Diaz (spelling?) et al. paper showed that the citronella collar was more effective at reducing barking so did it have a poorer effect on welfare of the dogs?" because this appeared to be biased. If it was sarcastic perhaps I missed the point! Jon > > Gerry > _________________________________________________________________ > Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc > Carolina Veterinary Specialists > Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina > 336-632-0605 (Voice) > 336-632-0703 (Fax) > gerflannigan@aol.com > From: IN%"gaille@uq.net.au" "Gaille" 11-AUG-2003 01:48:52.37 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: dogs in Brisbane hi everyone but particularly Jon I'm sorry - I have been very busy doing my usual too many hours a week work and co-organising the International Veterinary Behaviour Meeting with Kersti Seksel (hope many of you are attending) so haven't been following this discussion as well as I might. In answer to your plea Jon, I am Brisbane born and bred and have lived here ever since (more years than I care to remember!). I have lived in several suburbs and owned dogs for most of that time (there were a few miserable years when my parents tried to keep me dogless but they gave up on that even before they gave up trying to persuade me to opt for something more ladylike than veterinary science!) I have to disagree with Jackie on several points. During my dog years I have owned many Border Collies, a few Westies, several Old English Sheepdogs, a much loved and very hairy Terveuren and presently have a whippet and an Aussie Shepherd with a lovely plume of a tail. All of my dogs stay/stayed indoors when I am out and have lived long and happy lives there. The whippet would leave home if I asked her to leave her comfy chair for the back yard! I have a 5 foot solid wooden fence which also does not appear to have shortened my dogs life expectancy when they do spend time out doors.. I take my dogs out in the car and leave them there (for short periods, in the cooler weather of course).. I am not aware it is against the law to do so, although the RSPCA runs advertisements warning that dogs die in cars every summer, and they can very easily. The suburb in which I liive has lots of dogs and is pretty quiet most of the time. In fact rowdy teenagers are more often a noise problem here than dogs (should we try punishment?) The local dogs do bark when the postie comes around of course (well before he arrives in fact as they are hooked into the local doggy news network) but not a lot at other times. I have quite a few friends living in many different suburbs and they haven't said and I haven't noticed that they have a problem either. However I work closely with animal control officers (one of my jobs is to teach), and they tell me that barking dogs are the most common complaint they receive. In our classes, we cover advice they can give owners on reducing their dogs barking, including confinement when they are out, more exercise, environmental enrichment but, most importantly, recognising if the animal is anxious and referring it for specialist advice. I also see clients both here and in Sydney whose dogs bark, and have found that, in almost every case, the dogs are quite anxious, and require behaviour modification and sometimes medication to assist them in learning to cope with being alone. I do not believe that barking is a greater problem here than in other towns and cities in Australia although I don't have any research to back that up and would be interested to hear if anyone else has. I do think it is possibly a greater problem in Australia, due to our community attitude to dogs. They are still seen, by and large, as something to be shoved in the yard, to play nicely with the kids if and when the kids want to, to bark at the appropriate people and to generally be decorative at other times. A friend who has a senior position in animal control remarked much the same thing. He felt that we were more like Americans in this regard, but unlike most of the rest of the world. We (in general - I know many who are model dog owners) have taken away the freedom dogs used to have, but are not really interested in doing anything extra to help them cope with the rigours of suburban life. My 2 cents worth Gaille Perry From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 11-AUG-2003 01:59:09.46 To: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" "Bill Campbell" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: The Jolly routine Thanks for that Bill. I have an original copy of your 1975 book, although it did get chewed by one of my dogs. I kept it as this seemed a chance for the dog to put his own feelings on record too. Are you happy with the idea of conditioning the dog to follow emotional cues from the owner in the way that I describe? I feel that a lot of dogs learn to ignore a lot of communication from their owners, especially in situations where the dog feels under threat and regards the owner as of little relevance. So I use a play routine to teach dogs to become excited and calm [alternating] in response to signals from their owner. In the case of play this involves a slap on the thighs and a mock play bow as well as a verbal signal. It usually only takes a few minutes to do, and when combined with a few other training routines it seems to make the dog more aware of the owner's reaction to events. I agree that control of resources and interactions is a key element in getting Jolly routines to work. Jon On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 07:09 am, Bill Campbell wrote: > Dear ISAE list members, > > I'd like to clarify some points about the Jolly Routine, with the > unabashed > confession that I have a vested interest in its existence and its > veracity. > Our company markets behavior brochures to veterinarians, trainers and, > yea, even > behavior consultants. The Jolly Routine is a part of many of these > guides for > dog owners. That said, some history seems appropriate... > > Since first introducing the Jolly Routine in in 1975, "Behavior > Problems in Dogs," > Amer. Vet. Pubs, 1975, after having described it in Modern Veterinary > Practice > Magazine > in 1972, I have struggled with the problem many practitioner/authors > face... > "Did I say it clearly enough?" And it has haunted me to this day. > > The "haunt" occurs when someone says they applied the routine > (laughing etc.) when > the trigger stimulus, whether it be a thunder clap or the appearance > of another dog, > and does not mention whether or not they they applied a novel stimulus > to trigger the > orienting reflex the instant the dog notices the trigger stimulus, and > then applies > the "jollies." > > At the time I first wrote about this I was contributing editor for > Modern Vet. > Practice > on dog behavior and had a vested interest in the "Hi-Fido," and > "SoundRx Systems," a > manual method of activating a curbed soldered-linked musical brass > bracelet chain > device. > To avoid *advertising* the product in articles, I simply wrote about > applying an > ultra-sonic > distraction as the means of triggering an orienting reflex in the dog. > (I am sure the list members are fully acquainted with the effects of > the orienting > reflex > on the cns.) > > However, in my original texts, I first mentioned applying the > *jollies* at the > instant > the dog first noticed the trigger object, since most cases respond > very quickly and > positively to this application. > > In the following paragraph, I mentioned that a dramatic enhancement of > the effects > are achieved when a quick sound *precedes* the jollies. > > The sequence, thus, follows this principle: > > 1. Dog sees, smells, hears, trigger stimulus. > > 2. Intervening sound stimulus (a single clap of hands, etc.) > interrupts dog's > mentation > about it. > > 3. Jolly Routine (via allelomimetic behavior principles) instills > positive emotional > responses and reinforces the interruption of the dog's emotional > reaction to the > stimulus. > > 4. Dogs positive emotional responses are praised by owner. > > 5. Routine is repeated until the trigger stimulus stimulates dog's > positive emotional > response *before* the intervening stimulus can be applied. i.e., a > conditioned > emotional > response in attained. > > Technically, a dandy paradigm. > > However, here's the hitch: The owner conducting this therapy must have > earned the > role > as the *emotional leader* of the dog. Unless this is achieved (through > consistent > application of the Learn-To-Earn (no-free-lunch) praise and petting > program), and > until > the owner *feels* the dog is responsive to their emotional > *leadership*, a totally > successful outcome is rarely achieved. > > I've seen the Jolly Routine program fail in countless cases where the > owner has > *instant recall* and total command control of their dog, but lacks any > genuine > *emotional* control of the pet. That is, the owners can tell the dog > what to *do,* > but not (effectively) how to *feel* about the situation. In a few > words... the owner > is not the dog's "role model," as Jon mentioned. The owner may be > dominant, but not > the > dog's true leader. > > After all these years, I must agree with the ancient Sufi wisdom... > "An attitude, > like > a virtue or a vice cannot be taught... it must be caught." > > Kindest regards, > > Bill Campbell > BehaviorX Systems > http://www.webtrail.com/petbehavior > billcamp@cdsnet.net > PO Box 1658 > Grants Pass, OR 97528 > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 11-AUG-2003 02:21:35.72 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Excellent comment Julie. We have owned only small numbers of dogs [up to at a time], but they often go around with bigger groups and other dogs often come to stay at our house. There is a lot of co-operation and positive reinforcement between dogs but I think this often gets missed because it is far more subtle than the occasional punch ups. One of the commonest interactions is also negative punishment; loss of attention when doing something undesirable. My intact bitch uses this a lot with puppies, and she also uses a yap to break a pattern of behaviour, which is either constitutes distraction or mild +P. The use of mild +P or -P by a maternal figure would be a powerful potential punishment, given that her interest is needed for survival. A good model for the dog to learn how to use punishment in a wider context, where survival is also dependent upon the group? There used to be a tendency to see nature as 'red in tooth and claw', and to use this as a justification for being quite harsh with dogs...'we should treat them as though we were part of a wolf pack'. This has proven to be a pretty limited way of looking at life with a dog, and the irony [in my mind] is that dogs appear to be more capable of learning and adapting to our communication and social systems than we are to theirs. How many owners still don't know what a play-bow means?! If living in a complex co-operative group, such as a wolf pack, would it make sense to run your relationships using high risk and high energy cost behaviours such as intense +P, if you can achieve more by other means and at less cost to yourself? Jon On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 01:48 am, Julie Alexander wrote: > > > > Yet it appears that some > (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs > should >> nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What > evidence >> exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through +R, >> largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? >> >> Laura Sanborn >> > Laura, a very good description of this is in the article written by > Suzanne Clothier at http://www.flyingdogpress.com/pposa.html She is a > fine trainer and instructor. Her articles help the average pet dog > owner > understand and work with the average and not so average dog. Dogs use > a > great deal of +P as you already know living with multiple dogs. Horses > and other livestock use not only +P but -R a great deal with > conspecifics. > Julie Alexander >> > > From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 11-AUG-2003 02:26:34.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: Kipling:Historical Note Over to Rudyard Kipling for the last word from a dyed in the wool, colonialist, Imperialist, Fascistic old b**** whose heart was in the right century (for him). To rear a boy under what parents call the "sheltered life system" is, if the boy must go into the world and fend for himself, not wise. Unless he be one in a thousand he has certainly to pass through many unnecessary troubles; and may, possibly, come to extreme grief simply from ignorance of the proper proportions of things. Let a puppy eat the soap in the bath-room or chew a newly-blacked boot. He chews and chuckles until, by and by, he finds out that blacking and Old Brown Windsor make him very sick; so he argues that soap and boots are not wholesome. Any old dog about the house will soon show him the unwisdom of biting big dog's ears. Being young, he remembers and goes abroad at six months, a well-mannered little beast with a chastened appetite. If he had been kept away from boots, soap, and big dogs till he came to the trinity full-grown and with developed teeth, consider how fearfully sick and thrashed he would be! Apply that notion to the "sheltered life" and see how it works. It does not sound pretty but it is the better of two evils." (The limitations of this gung-ho, intuitive confidence are sharply revealed on contact with the reactive or disturbed individual) Robin E Walker B.Vet.Med. M.R.C.V.S. 78 Bromyard Road Worcester WR2 5DA Tel (++44 (0)1905 423381 Centre of Applied Pet Ethology Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards Dr. Samuel Johnson 1776 From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 11-AUG-2003 03:23:39.34 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"Gerflannigan@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: electronic collars Dear All, I seem to have missed an e-mail in which a Dr Sherman defined animal welfare. Could someone please send me a copy of this if they have not yet deleted it. I might then be able to join in the sarcasm relating to his/her comments. My thanks in advance Chris Sherwin ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > Unfortunately, your interpretation and not the dogs. Who is to say > > that > > shock is more distressing than the sound, smell and sound of > > citronella spraying > > to a dog? I was referring to Dr. Sherman's definition of welfare and > > was > > trying to be sarcastic (sorry). > > I was merely countering your comment " If your definition of welfare is > how the animal will avoid > something (Dr. Sherman) then the Juarbe-Diaz (spelling?) et al. paper > showed that > the citronella collar was more effective at reducing barking so did it > have a > poorer effect on welfare of the dogs?" because this appeared to be > biased. If it was sarcastic perhaps I missed the point! > > Jon > > > > > > > Gerry > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc > > Carolina Veterinary Specialists > > Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina > > 336-632-0605 (Voice) > > 336-632-0703 (Fax) > > gerflannigan@aol.com > > > From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 11-AUG-2003 03:37:44.50 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Laura Sanborn wrote: > It appears to me that dogs naturally teach each other > appropriate manners via very strong corrections. Yet it appears that some > (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs should > nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What evidence > exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through +R, > largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? > > Laura Sanborn > Maybe part of the problem is whether we use a "pure" behaviorist model of behaviour or modify it to assume evolution has shaped the way the animal is likely to relate rewarding or painful stimuli to whatever we are trying to control. The puppy isn't in any doubt about what he did wrong or who is punishing him. In the case of Heather's rabbits I'm sure she's correct that electrical punishment of defensive aggression would make things worse (damn human bit me back, so I need to bite harder!) and the water squirt method works because it doesn't appear as an attempt to escalate a fight. Similarly the citronella collars may be no more or less *unpleasant* than electrical ones but I can't see there would ever be a risk of them causing the dog to believe it's been the subject of an unprovoked attack in the way that something painful (even only mildly so) might. A visible electric fence is surely different because it's an object that stings (like nettles) not a completely mysterious pain which might be the "fault" of anything in the vicinity. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 11-AUG-2003 03:50:42.49 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases At 17:54 10/08/03 -0400, Gerflannigan@aol.com wrote: >No teaching method is ideal for any dog or dog trainer. Clicker training is >wonderful and works exceedingly well. However, I have known some dogs that do >not respond. I'm curious to know why some dogs don't respond to CT, and would be grateful to hear your thoughts on an explanation for this. Francis From: IN%"M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl" "Matthijs Schilder" 11-AUG-2003 04:10:17.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: shock collar Dear all, Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. regards, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 04:21:39.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar I think that this paper is something we all should read. - Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthijs Schilder" To: Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:10 AM Subject: shock collar > Dear all, > > Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars > > A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use > of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied > Anim. Behav. Sci. > In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several > stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. > Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related > behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when > no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower > posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the > handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate > being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. > This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view > themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the > dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. > > regards, Matthijs > > dr M.B.H. Schilder > Utrecht University > WCDM > Yalelaan 17 > 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands > tel +31 30 2534784 > fax +31 30 2539227 > From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 11-AUG-2003 04:22:33.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: animal welfare definition Dear all, I also appear to have missed the message from Dr. Sherman that included her definition of animal welfare -- but would be interested to read it since I'm doing some quick research on welfare (including definitions of it) today. If anybody has saved that message, could they please send it to me as well as to Chris. Best wishes, - Moira --- Chris Sherwin wrote: > > Dear All, > > I seem to have missed an e-mail in which a Dr > Sherman defined animal welfare. > Could someone please send me a copy of this if they > have not yet deleted it. I > might then be able to join in the sarcasm relating > to his/her comments. > > My thanks in advance > > Chris Sherwin > > ............................................................. > Dr C.M. Sherwin > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > University of Bristol, > Langford House, > Langford, > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > > > > > Unfortunately, your interpretation and not the > dogs. Who is to say > > > that > > > shock is more distressing than the sound, smell > and sound of > > > citronella spraying > > > to a dog? I was referring to Dr. Sherman's > definition of welfare and > > > was > > > trying to be sarcastic (sorry). > > > > I was merely countering your comment " If your > definition of welfare is > > how the animal will avoid > > something (Dr. Sherman) then the Juarbe-Diaz > (spelling?) et al. paper > > showed that > > the citronella collar was more effective at > reducing barking so did it > > have a > > poorer effect on welfare of the dogs?" because > this appeared to be > > biased. If it was sarcastic perhaps I missed the > point! > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > Gerry > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Gerrard Flannigan DVM, MSc > > > Carolina Veterinary Specialists > > > Greensboro/Charlotte, North Carolina > > > 336-632-0605 (Voice) > > > 336-632-0703 (Fax) > > > gerflannigan@aol.com > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 11-AUG-2003 04:39:35.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I had thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of repeat electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some years ago. Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but not enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running 'jumper cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple of times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I would best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded 'hunched' shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt that there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. How much worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or the cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have been a much greater impact. If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other animals then there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in general use. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: shock collar Dear all, Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. regards, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"bjarne.braastad@ihf.nlh.no" 11-AUG-2003 05:33:45.89 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: SV: shock collar articles Dear all, I haven't had time to follow all discussions about the use of shock collars. I look forward to read Schilder's article. Research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn about the efficiency and welfare aspects of the use of such collars. Adding to the advertisements, I can recommend our own articles about this - focussing on the use of electronic shock collars to prevent hunting dogs from chasing sheep. Christiansen, F., Bakken, M. & Braastad, B.O. 2001. Behavioural differences between three breed groups of hunting dogs confronted with sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 72: 115-129. Christiansen, F., Bakken, M. & Braastad, B.O. 2001. Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs at the second-year confrontation with domestic sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 72: 131-143. Bjarne O. Braastad ********************************************************** Bjarne O. Braastad (Dr.Philos.) Professor of Ethology Head of Department Dept. of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5025, N-1432 Aas, Norway e-mail: bjarne.braastad@ihf.nlh.no fax: +47 64 94 79 60 phone: +47 64 94 79 80 http://www.nlh.no/ihf ********************************************************** From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 11-AUG-2003 06:40:14.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar - Matthjis Schilder/Joanne van der Borg paper Matthjis Schilder: > Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars > > A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use > of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied > Anim. Behav. Sci. margory cohen: Thank you for yours. If this is published on-line where non-members can access, please would you be so kind to post the link? Also, in this study, were handlers evaluated, was there a set criteria for handlers or was judgment made only about the reaction of the dogs? From time to time in the U.S., I've run into debate about methodology between police and civilian training and can't not recall that in looking forward to yours. -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 11-AUG-2003 06:50:23.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied-Ethology@Skyway.Usask.Ca" CC: Subj: tech note - spam blocker Hello. I'm receiving a flurry of AOL spam blocker notifications from a subscriber: lirio@uol.com.br which I delete. I believe there is a setting in these things that defines what is not spam and seems to me that subscribed lists would fall into that category? I suspect this to be a defined set-up, rather than a general sender block. -margory cohen From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 11-AUG-2003 06:55:20.11 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases Jon Bowen: > The reason why I am putting this point forward is that there are people > on the list who want these devices available to everyone [Tony et al]. > In the sales literature the collars are marketed for the training of > ALL dogs. People like Tony advocate using shock collars in conventional > training settings as part of their primary means of training. margory cohen: Jon, I think this is a broad distortion of some of the discussion here. I realize that your position on these collars is very determined, even as to an acknowledgement as to type, but that still in no way is made more readable by such broad strokes. -margory cohen San Francisco From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 11-AUG-2003 06:59:55.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: The Jolly routine - Mr. Campbell Bill Campbell: > I'd like to clarify some points about the Jolly Routine, with the unabashed > confession that I have a vested interest in its existence and its veracity. > Our company markets behavior brochures to veterinarians, trainers and, yea, even > behavior consultants. The Jolly Routine is a part of many of these guides for > dog owners. That said, some history seems appropriate... > > Since first introducing the Jolly Routine in in 1975, "Behavior Problems in Dogs," > Amer. Vet. Pubs, 1975, after having described it in Modern Veterinary Practice > Magazine > in 1972, I have struggled with the problem many practitioner/authors face... > "Did I say it clearly enough?" And it has haunted me to this day. // > After all these years, I must agree with the ancient Sufi wisdom... "An attitude, > like > a virtue or a vice cannot be taught... it must be caught." margory cohen: Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for writing in on this. Not only first-hand explanation but also the benefit of your experience too of how easily (and tragically) distortion can step in. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 11-AUG-2003 07:50:05.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases Jon wrote: People like Tony advocate using shock collars in conventional training settings as part of their primary means of training. Tony comments: wrong, Wrong, WRONG! In fact, Jon, the 'NBR' in my sig. line is a stab at all trainers using the e-collar as their primary tool. NBR, you see, stands for No Batteries Required. You assesment of my work is as wrong as one can get. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 11-AUG-2003 07:51:35.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Applied use of corrections Jon wrote: I am interested to know how we can judge when the dog understands the command? Tony comments: It's during those first four days of mechanical placing, those days that you do not refer to - again, most curious, Jon. Generally, by the middle of day three the dog is melting under hand; thus, he is responding faster to the sit command than even the slight amount of pressure placed on his rear. In effect he is responding to the command "Joe sit" before you commence the sit correction. Jon asked: Tony also says the same thing on his website: that the dog only gets punished for not sitting quickly enough once it knows what 'sit' means. Tony comments: No. That is not what it says. What you describe appears to be what Suzanne Hetts described, but it is not what we do. You can not use punishment to increase the frequency of a behaviour in the future. That is the definition of reinforcement. Jon wrote: What of the dog with cognitive impairment who is not able to process the information and is still not aware of what is going on after many repetitions? Tony comments: Again, you'll feel it for yourself during those first four days you avoid discussing. Jon wrote: What of the dog who has hindlimb or back pain and finds sitting down uncomfortable...it may want to comply but resist doing so because of pain. I have seen dogs like this and I presume so has everyone else who has trained dogs. Tony comments: Uh ... then you don't teach him the sit. BUT, in 27 years of dog training I have only met one dog (a greyhound) that could not sit due to a genuine problem. I have taken in many other dogs that could not be lured into sitting, and have taught them why they should, in a matter of days. Sometimes, Jon, it is a problem of motivation. Jon wrote: Surely the best way to judge whether a dog has made the right associations and feels able to comply is that it...sits on command. For the vast majority of dogs there is no need to use punishment to achieve this. Tony comments: That's been my experience too. See, we agree on something. On clicker training: I won't comment on clicker training - on that topic I am not an expert. Jon wrote: The thing I am repeatedly trying to get across, and apparently failing, is that aversive methods are not necessary for MOST dogs, and yet shock/e-collars are being sold as a training aid to be used ALL dog owners. Tony comments: Jon can you name me any collar, harness or head halter that does not ad an aversive component to the equation? Jon wrote: Are people so concerned with the end that any means are justified? Tony comments: Of course not. In fact, plenty of people live with untrained young dogs, and some of them grow up to be very well mannered dogs, too. Terms and Phrases ... Punishment decrease the liklihood of behaviour in the future. Negative reinforcement increase the lilihood of behaviour in the future. Corrections (to make correct), because they have the quality of increasing the liklihood of behaviour in the future, are reinforcers; they are not punishers (which do the opposite). Another note on corrections, they need not feature any component of physical discomfort at all. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"csermely@biol.unipr.it" "Davide Csermely" 11-AUG-2003 08:04:28.47 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: role call: any classically trained ethologists on list or people interested in same At 11:59 10-08-03 -0600, Heather McMurray wrote: >Hi, I was wondering if there were any people on this list interested in >classic ethology or who trained in its methods? > >If not trained in classic ethology, then who have done a lot of study in >evolution/genetics/zoology on their own > >or > >who do/have done animal observation in the field or augmented their own >work (on dog training etc) with readings about field work in related species? > Dear Heather, I consider myself interested in classic ethology and trained in its methods. That is maybe the reason why having been involved in domestic animal studies for several years I was more interested in (classical) ethological problems more than in "practical" problems. I feel that (classic) ethologists are more or less concealed on this list because more interested in their scientific woks than chatting on whatever topic, as occurs in these days... Best wishes, Davide PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Museo di Storia Naturale, Universita` di Parma, Via Farini 90, 43100 Parma, Italy Tel: (+39)052 123 6465 Fax: (+39)052 153 3673 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 11-AUG-2003 08:04:40.58 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar - Matthjis Schilder/Joanne van der Borg paper Margory asks: Thank you for yours. If this is published on-line where non-members can access, please would you be so kind to post the link? From time to time in the U.S., I've run into debate about methodology between police and civilian training and can't not recall that in looking forward to yours. Tony comments: I, too, look forward to reading this. I am not in favour of the use of shock collars or e-collars for police service work. My concern is that the relationship between the handler and dog is lost. My contention is that the relationship becomes between the handler and his transmitter, thus there is a conflict almost unresolvable by the dog. Duty to task versus duty to the machine strapped around his neck. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "Trisha Simonet" 11-AUG-2003 08:31:53.31 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" Subj: RE: The Jolly routine On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 12:58 AM, Jon Bowen wrote: > So I use a play routine to teach dogs to become excited and calm > [alternating] in response to signals from their owner. In the case of > play this involves a slap on the thighs and a mock play bow as well > as a verbal signal. > It usually only takes a few minutes to do, and when combined with a > few other training routines it seems to make the dog more aware of the > owner's reaction to events. > > I agree that control of resources and interactions is a key element in > getting Jolly routines to work. > > Jon > Jon, I have found that if I imitate the forced breathy exhalation that dogs produce during play (I call it a dog laugh), that I can effectively interrupt the dog's state, whether it be a shelter dog fearfully growling at me or an excitable puppy yapping at another dog passing by. Once I have the dog's attention, I too go into the mock play bow and dog smile routine. For a recording of the forced breathy exhalation, go to: http://www.petalk.org/DogLaughSpect.html When conducting the research on vocalization of dogs during play, it was a happy happenstance to discover that the sound when produced by humans could elicit a predictable response from dogs - a play response (either a playbow, a toy grab, or the forced breathy exhalation in return). This is a discrete and powerful communication signal. One that I found was not misinterpreted. Trisha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Simonet Cognitive Ethologist & Animal Behavior Specialist P.O. Box 19429 Spokane, WA 99219 www.petalk.org psimonet@petalk.org (509) 456-8970 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 11-AUG-2003 08:52:13.57 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar At 03:21 AM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: > > A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the >use > > of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by >Applied > > Anim. Behav. Sci. > > In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several > > stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. > > Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related > > behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions >when > > no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower > > posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the > > handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate > > being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. Having observed numerous dogs trained with the use of e-collars, IMO the behaviors you are describing... "dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviors when being shocked", etc. are signs that the e-collars was turned up too high for those particular dogs or otherwise improperly used (e.g. bad timing). For nearly all training tasks, I'm told that the *correct* e-collar setting for a particular dog with cause subtle signs of recognition on the part of the dog... he might flip an ear, or tilt his head to the side, or otherwise act a bit annoyed, or simply stop what he was doing and look around ... but there should NOT be pain or other signs of severe stress. That's what I was taught. IMO, if we are going to judge the effectiveness of a training tool or method, we need to do so during it's correct application. Just as we shouldn't judge "the Jolly Routine" merely by examples of its misuse, nor should we judge e-collars merely by examples of their misuse. Sadly, even some "experienced handlers" misuse e-collars. Observe further, as I have done, and one will see that these same "experienced handlers" often misuse other training tools and methods as well.... also with unsatisfactory results. Last year I was at a schutzhund championship trial, standing next to a very experienced judge who was also spectating. He pointed out to me examples of behaviors in a couple of the dogs as they were trialing which he said are signs that the dogs had been incorrectly trained with e-collars. The dogs do not wear e-collars nor can they receive corrections during a trial, but one could see signs of aversive behaviors nonetheless... which did these dogs no favors in their trial scores, BTW. Incidentally, a lot of the other dogs in that trial had also been trained with the aid of e-collars, and yet they showed no adverse hints of it in their behaviors, and they performed very well. > > This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who >view > > themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the > > dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. IMO, one cannot conclude this from what you have described. You have described the "likely" response of the misuse of e-collars. Cringing, stressful responses are commonly observed from the misapplication of +P methods. This is not unique to e-collars. You should have seen the cringing stressful responses in my fear aggressive dog that resulted from my verbal corrections when she barked nastily at my neighbors. The cringing stressful responses disappeared... as did the nuisance barking... when I shut my mouth and instead applied mild corrections via the correct use of an e-collar. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 11-AUG-2003 08:59:52.29 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning The bitch who is great grandam to our current pups was the best puppy raiser and trainer we've ever had. She used both positive and negative consequences. One day I was in awe watching her take a year old male who was overly boisterous, calm him down, get him humble and attentive and reward him. He was making high speed circuits of our exercise and training room, she got in his pathway, glared and raised a lip. He skidded to a halt before crashing into her. She move forward with strong eye contact and backed him straight up for several steps. When he showed appropriate deference to her, she rewarded him by licking his face and ears, then gave him a quick soft muzzle poke and play bow. He again went into laps around the room but at a lower speed and would come close so she could give him a playful poke--she was 12+ at the time and a bit stiff to do much chasing. But with tail wags, happy panting--had a link someone sent about this being canine laughter, a few more bows and woofs, she engaged in play until she tired. By turning away she signaled she was done and he moved off after her relaxed and grinning. Our most confident male will invite puppy play by wriggling around on his back and tolerate a lot of rough housing when he invites it. When a dog has a ding or scratch from the rough and tumble play, one dog will frequently 'ask' to lick it by using averted eyes, an ear position that indicates not trying to be pushy, short steps closer and then if the dog permits, licking and cleaning bites to the scrape. Similar behavior to a male who wants to court a female. Here's an example of teaching puppy manners I sent to the bridge and target list. Most of this was based on how dogs teach manners with bridges and a hand target used to speed reinforcement. Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:43:05 -0700 From: "Julie Alexander" Subject: puppy manners A while back on Bridge and Target, the subject of bite inhibition came up. And also questions When we raise puppies, this goes quite smoothly as long as we keep them until at least 12 preferably 16 weeks. Since we will want dogs to put a real bite on bad guys later, we don't want to teach them that the context is never bite humans hard but be careful with your mouth. We permit play that includes gentle mouthing of us. See bntpics2 video clip of Hulk taking a full mouth bare arm bite and cycling up and down in excitement at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bntpics2/files/ Other puppies, adult dogs and most especially mom when she is tired of needle teeth during weaning help teach that if the pup bites too hard, the playmate will either yelp and quit, or grumble and come back with a disciplinary snap and the game is over. We will do some yelping and grumbling but also add in some extras. As long as a puppy keeps mouthing and playing with our hands gentle, we go along with it in a low keyed manner. This is important. If the human gets rough, so will the puppy. After a bit, the pup usually tries a harder bite. As we feel the bite coming, we will give a mild pattern interrupt cue--enh!, then 'easy' at the same time we twist fingers out of the mouth and offer instead an open palm vertical to the front teeth. The pup can't get a bite and the nibbling slides off the palm. We don't bridge this, just ignore it. We saw a similar hand movement on a program about raising tiger cubs at Tiger Island. The pup is not getting much reward out of this and usually stops. After the pups have learned our skin is not as tough as theirs and are being consistently gentle, we will escalate the finger or hand play a bit, keeping things below the threshold that would make the pup bite too hard. We do bridge using a playful but soft tone. We are also playing some rag games with them in the same way. When we choose to stop either type of play, we stop moving, change the tone of voice to neutral but firm and cue 'out'. With a hand, we switch to the vertical position and then pet the puppy softly while praising. If the pup tries again, it's enh! and the hand is removed and the puppy timed out. With a rag, we gather it in our hand near the pup's mouth, use the other hand to draw the play and proceed the same way. To teach a puppy to keep feet off of people, we use a similar no reward/reward contrast. Eye contact is again a big factor. From early on, we reward a pup making eye contact with treats, attention, praise and play. We call a puppy's name, make eye contact, bend over, extend a hand, wiggle fingers and bridge while the puppy is coming. Setting up a hand target ASAP. If the pup tries to jump up, it's enh! we stand up, glare first then look away. If the pup tries to jump to get eye contact or comes up uninvited and jumps, we look overhead and twist our legs so the pup slides off. A second attempt gets a enh! and is bumped off a bit harder. If we're sitting, and want a pup to come up, we call, use the finger wiggle and bridge while again keeping eye contact and reward for keeping feet on the floor. We keep an eye open for pups approaching when not invited, give a disapproving look and place an arm to block the pup and let it slide off. A pup who approaches quietly can nudge us to ask for attention and is sometimes petted and sometimes told not now and ignored. Again, our training partners are the older dogs. Some tolerate a puppy jumping on them with good humor but most do not and will dish out disciplinary snaps. Between no reward and +P from the dogs, they learn that they only jump on those who invite it. The pups never develop a pattern of indiscriminately biting or putting feet on people. Later when we want either behavior, we can up the play intensity, cue it and keep it in context. Rarely a boisterous puppy jumps or bites too hard after being consistently attentive. We will grumble sharply and use a finger flick to the muzzle to replace a disciplinary snap--the dogs do that much more skillfully, :) Eye contact or lack of it, palm vertical to the teeth, keeping the energy level below threshold and twisting or blocking so the pup slides off are some of the physical components that are the most important. Combined with verbal bridging and varied rewards for keeping the mouth soft and feet on the floor, the pups quickly learn to contain their exuberance. A side benefit of rewarding eye contact is that it makes the pups very attentive to your face and what you are doing. We enhance this with group games where they take turns sitting for a treat. This turns into a front sit later. Chaos and her game of backing away from me as I turn in circles was captured as she tried to get in Mark's field of vision while he was working other dogs. A powerful and subtle nonverbal cue and bridge is established. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Bowen" To: "Julie Alexander" Cc: Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:21 AM Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning > Excellent comment Julie. > We have owned only small numbers of dogs [up to at a time], but they > often go around with bigger groups and other dogs often come to stay at > our house. > There is a lot of co-operation and positive reinforcement between dogs > but I think this often gets missed because it is far more subtle than > the occasional punch ups. > One of the commonest interactions is also negative punishment; loss of > attention when doing something undesirable. My intact bitch uses this a > lot with puppies, and she also uses a yap to break a pattern of > behaviour, which is either constitutes distraction or mild +P. > The use of mild +P or -P by a maternal figure would be a powerful > potential punishment, given that her interest is needed for survival. A > good model for the dog to learn how to use punishment in a wider > context, where survival is also dependent upon the group? > > There used to be a tendency to see nature as 'red in tooth and claw', > and to use this as a justification for being quite harsh with > dogs...'we should treat them as though we were part of a wolf pack'. > This has proven to be a pretty limited way of looking at life with a > dog, and the irony [in my mind] is that dogs appear to be more > capable of learning and adapting to our communication and social > systems than we are to theirs. How many owners still don't know what a > play-bow means?! > > If living in a complex co-operative group, such as a wolf pack, would > it make sense to run your relationships using high risk and high energy > cost behaviours such as intense +P, if you can achieve more by other > means and at less cost to yourself? > > Jon > > > On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 01:48 am, Julie Alexander wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yet it appears that some > > (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs > > should > >> nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What > > evidence > >> exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through +R, > >> largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? > >> > >> Laura Sanborn > >> > > Laura, a very good description of this is in the article written by > > Suzanne Clothier at http://www.flyingdogpress.com/pposa.html She is a > > fine trainer and instructor. Her articles help the average pet dog > > owner > > understand and work with the average and not so average dog. Dogs use > > a > > great deal of +P as you already know living with multiple dogs. Horses > > and other livestock use not only +P but -R a great deal with > > conspecifics. > > Julie Alexander > >> > > > > > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 11-AUG-2003 09:11:20.74 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar Message-ID: Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear All, Forgive my naivety of dog training practices, but does the paragraph below indicate that people are using these collars routinely to train dogs for trials, i.e. NOT as a last-ditch effort for the elimination of aggressive behaviours, inappropriate behaviours, etc. Isn't this exactly what Jon Bowen was saying, but was apparently told he was incorrect? Regards Chris Sherwin > Last year I was at a schutzhund championship trial, standing next to a very > experienced judge who was also spectating. He pointed out to me examples > of behaviors in a couple of the dogs as they were trialing which he said > are signs that the dogs had been incorrectly trained with e-collars. The > dogs do not wear e-collars nor can they receive corrections during a trial, > but one could see signs of aversive behaviors nonetheless... which did > these dogs no favors in their trial scores, BTW. > Incidentally, a lot of the other dogs in that trial had also been trained > with the aid of e-collars, and yet they showed no adverse hints of it in > their behaviors, and they performed very well. ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"DebHdvm@aol.com" 11-AUG-2003 09:15:40.45 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning In a message dated 8/10/2003 7:50:33 PM Central Daylight Time, reddragn@bossig.com writes: > Dogs use a > great deal of +P as you already know living with multiple dogs. Horses > and other livestock use not only +P but -R a great deal with > conspecifics. > I agree that at times punishment if used properly is a tool that can effectively change behavior. But to compare how we punish animals to how they "punish" each other (if that is indeed what is going on, it could just be a social response) is much different. We punish for different things, we do it differently and often humans don't recognize deference when we get it. Certainly there is nothing so amazing as watching a dog give a well timed response to inappropriate behavior from a conspecific, but that doesn't mean I can perform the same task and get the same response. Debbie Horwitz Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB Veterinary Behavior Consultations 12462 G. Natural Bridge Road Bridgeton, Missouri 63044 phone: 314-739-1510 fax: 314-291-2116 e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com From: IN%"A.Gonzalez-Martinez@uea.ac.uk" "Isabel Gonzalez" 11-AUG-2003 09:54:02.01 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Male strategies and access to females Hello I am new to the list, I am doing a Phd on social behaviour of mammals and was wondering if anyone could suggest papers that discuss the strategies used by males to have better access to females in social species, I am specifically looking for those refering to home range or territories, but wouldnt mind a wider look. Can anyone help me? thank you very much in advance Best wishes Isabel _________________________________________________________ A.Isabel Gonzalez School of Biological Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR47TJ UK Tel 01603 592177 Fax 01603 592250 Email A.Gonzalez-Martinez@uea.ac.uk _________________________________________________________ From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 11-AUG-2003 09:56:26.13 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: of leashes and kinesthetic communication 2 posts I wrote on bridge and target. Kinesthetics and training dogs seems underutilized. It can be a fast effective way of communicating back and forth, words or gestures have a longer time delay. Julie From: "Julie Alexander" Date: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:28 am Subject: leash types and leash signaling Ilene, I'm not sure if there is an active paradigm against using kinesthetics with dogs or if it is simply out of most peoples' awareness. I suspect some of each. The emphasis on totally loose leash work and typical obedience trials that require single commands and off leash patterns that require a visual attentiveness is part of it. This attentiveness is good but that's leaving out a lot of other modalities. And a lot of spice out of life. Rally O trials sound like fun. From what I've heard, you can talk to your dog or give hand or visual signals but not strong leash cues or corrections. An example of using kinesthetics with dogs is training and using the stand. We start with young puppies. Making eye contact and coming to a finger wiggle for affection or a treat is started as early as possible. With a litter running around, we make eye contact with a puppy, bend over, wiggle fingers and when the puppy comes up, reward with petting and massage as well as by shooing off the other pups. By picking up a foot with one hand and supporting the pup and scratching with the other, the pup stays very loose and content to let us fuss with body parts. We may brace the pup with an arm or leg, never confining or restraining just supporting. If the pup fidgets or pulls away the rewarding touch is removed. If we quit before the pup gets bored, this seldom happens. With competition from others for the sweet spot and attention, they generally try to push back in as soon as we go on to another puppy. So they learn taking turns at the same time. We also use some verbal bridging/praising at the same time. The touch is a bridge, signal that yes this is what we want and reward at the same time. A smile can do the same. But a touch has specific body information at the same time. But for things like nail trimming, bathing or other hands on work, setting a foundation of touch is invaluable. If we pick up a foot for nails, to keep the dog comfortable we must be aware of how the dog is balanced and the limits of limb movement. With the early work, the dog knows that if it fidgets uncomfortably, we stop and restore comfort. So while we usually know and can feel the dog's level of comfort, if there's a sore spot and the dog flinches, s/he won't pull away because we can be trusted to figure it out. We just trimmed Hulk's nails for Chuck--he bought the trimmer and stores it over here. Hulk is one we bred and trained. He's probably only had his nails trimmed a dozen times at most in his life. He and all his litter mates never flinched or resisted from the first time we did nails. Same with the very few baths they've had. Vet exams and booster shots are calm experiences. Technically this is more manipulative than BnT. But it 'feels' BnT in that it is cooperative and there is tactile bridging and rewarding. When walking with a small child, holding a hand can be coercive and controlling; it can also be supportive and reassuring. If the tall person adjusts to the small person's speed and rhythm, the child feels good. Helping a child climb stairs, the hand can adjust immediately to changes in balance, and help so subtly the child barely knows s/he was helped. This boosts self confidence --"I can do it on my own!" Any physical endeavor with 2 or more entities involved works best when all parties can send and receive through touch. Doing construction work is much safer when 2 people carrying a heavy board over rough ground can feel when the other person needs to slow down, adjust height or turn. And it takes 2 people with the tactile skills to do it well. Julie I tried a retractable leash for about 5 minutes and didn't care for it. The handle instead of a loop gave little feedback from the dog's movement and didn't give an option of looping it over a wrist and felt clumsy. The thin line meant it was uncomfortable to touch and give a leash signal with. I'd much rather have a cotton web long line or nylon check cord. There is much more 2 way communication with them. I also dislike being tied to a dog as much as I fear being caught in a horse's lead rope. We use a safety leash--loop is pulled through itself to make a slip loop that I put my right wrist through and then grasp the leash only for protection work for Mark's safety. At times I have been pulled off balance when a dog lunges high and might have lost the leash. Mark has fast reflexes and has never been bitten during bite training but a few times he's had to move a sleeve fast to cover a dog reaching for unprotected body parts. While the waist leashes come with quick release connectors, I can imagine tripping on rough ground and being pulled off balance by a dog. What we both truly like are the 6 way leashes that permit over the shoulder hands free walking while the leash is at a convenient position near fingertips for fine control. For safety, it can be ducked out of quickly. It combines convenience, control, safety and most importantly 2 way communication. As the dog changes pace or direction, the leash shifts giving the handler information and the handler can easily give light cues on the leash but can maintain muscle looseness in a way that is easier than holding a leash. We use leashes not so much for direct control as for communication and to a lesser degree to limit a dog's choices. Plus with leash laws they are mandatory in public. When used more as riders use reins to communicate with a horse, can send and receive information to and from a horse, a leash is more of a connection than a coercion. Developing good hands on a leash is as useful as good hands on a rider. We use touch and kinesthetic bridging and rewards a great deal with our dogs. I.e.. Chaos learned to heel by resting her chin in my hand. She had both tactile bridges from my fingertips plus rewards of scratching in a faster and more precise manner than I could give her verbally. In a similar manner, good leash work gives a 2 way connection. A dog or horse can tell quickly when a handler or rider is paying attention by what comes down the leash or reins as well as how satisfied the human is. Attention is a big reward. The small changes in leash or rein position can act as precise bridges. The animal can also signal by minor changes information back--a slight pause felt through the leash may signal a dog has detected a bad guy hiding in the shadows. Not to say that off leash work requiring auditory and visual feedback isn't vital. However with dogs, I believe kinesthetics are under used. We use a back scratcher as a target and reinforcer. By holding it the left hand and lightly scratching a dog's side or hip, the dog gets a pleasant cue to move toward the handler. It's targeting with a reward built in. A light tap signals move away when it's awkward to reach over the dog with the back scratcher to target the far side. Sometimes I'll play with a dog and heeling patterns off lead by using a finger touch on neck, shoulder, back or hip to signal position. To some degree it's -R as if the dog drifts away the contact is broken but the dogs seem to find the touch itself a +R. In the same way, dogs used to interactive leash work seem to find the whole experience fun. It can be done in a BnT manner. Julie Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size 970 Re: leash types and leash signaling Peggy Singletary iwaidn Fri 2/28/2003 3 KB Message 967 of 1972 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete | Remove Author ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Copyright © 2003 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. - - - - - Ad Feedback From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 11-AUG-2003 10:02:52.40 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar At 08:09 AM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: >Forgive my naivety of dog training practices, but does the paragraph below >indicate >that people are using these collars routinely to train dogs for trials, >i.e. NOT as >a last-ditch effort for the elimination of aggressive behaviours, >inappropriate >behaviours, etc. Yes, many dog trainers, both in the advanced protection dog sports and in protection work (e.g. police work) routinely incorporate e-collars into their training regimen. Many police dogs routinely wear e-collars when working. Correctly used, e-collars can be extremely effective. I understand that e-collars are commonly used among many sporting and hunting dog trainers, but I have no experience with this. My impression of e-collars is that in the hands of a very good dog trainer, they can be one of the more versatile training tools in existence. Certainly they are not confined in actual application to "last ditch efforts". People like myself who are not so experienced as dog trainers often confine e-collars to a much narrower range of applications. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 11-AUG-2003 10:26:55.95 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar Dear All, Forgive my naivety of dog training practices, but does the paragraph below indicate that people are using these collars routinely to train dogs for trials, i.e. NOT as a last-ditch effort for the elimination of aggressive behaviours, inappropriate behaviours, etc. Isn't this exactly what Jon Bowen was saying, but was apparently told he was incorrect? Tony comments: This sort of behaviour (the use of the collar) will either continue or extinguish based on the consequences of its use. Those that are losing will either stop or modify their programs to match (and hopefully exceed) the performances of others on the field of competition. No one steps onto that field without knowledge that there will be a very public critique of their (dog and handler) performance. I, personally, think it unnecessary to use an e-collar as a primary training tool ... but there are those that are, and some of them are starting to see some success on the field of competition. Still, while uncomfortable with it as a primary training tool (which its not, really), I can see it as a means to help a good lot of dogs keep their homes. For the professional dog trainer specializing in obedience and behavioural issues, teaching the dog how to keep its home AND teaching the home how to keep its dog ... is THE primary objective. If this means using a bark collar to provide some measure of relief (for the dog, the family and the neighbours) until such time the dog is taught to bark disciminately, then a bark collar it is. Would I use a shock collar to quiet the dog until it gets the training it needs to become a better canine companion? NEVER. Why? Because there is no way ... no way ... to justify such inappropriate use. Would I use one if all other training protocols were honestly tried and proved ineffective? Probably. And if the owners told me that he either stops barking or he stops breathing? Absolutely. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 11-AUG-2003 11:22:05.57 To: IN%"sg@macscience.net" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning > There used to be a tendency to see nature as 'red in tooth and claw', > and to use this as a justification for being quite harsh with > dogs...'we should treat them as though we were part of a wolf pack'. I can't agree with that common statement; so we agree. As a wolf researcher, I can only see dogs as very socially atrophied wolves. In fact, through the process of domestication, dogs were neotenized, they adopted more and more juvenile characteristics as adults (see the neat studies by Belyaev with farm foxes: getting the same results trying to create a more "docile" fox to handle within 20 years). Dogs never reach the maturity of adult wolves. Estimates are that dogs never go beyond the 1-2 year of age. I would be more inclined to say 1 year old max. Yearling wolves, juvenile wolves are not part of the dominance hierarchy at that point and they are permitted all kinds of "infractions" (for an adult wolf point of view). They are basically exempt of "punishments" from the adults. Then, slowly, after the first year, they start getting "hints" and "reminders" from the adults. So the whole idea that our dogs need to find their place in the pack and we should show them like wolves do, came from people that know nothing of wolf behaviour. > If living in a complex co-operative group, such as a wolf pack, would > it make sense to run your relationships using high risk and high > energy cost behaviours such as intense +P, if you can achieve more by > other means and at less cost to yourself? Nope. Good point. Look at the primate data: despotic leaders tend to be demoted rapidly, although not as fast in social carnivores where alliances are not common or at least as well defined as in primates. S. Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 11-AUG-2003 11:23:31.16 To: IN%"PSimonet@PeTalk.org" "'Trisha Simonet'", IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "'Jon Bowen'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology'" Subj: RE: The Jolly routine Jaak Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience, Chapter 15 rough-and Tumble-Play, The Brain Sources of Joy Page 281 Conceptual Background for the Neural Sources of Ludic Urges. Rat pups "chirrup" when tickled, and yes dogs "huff" when you look and them and jig and huff at them. An I was keeping all this secret in case the family had me "Sectioned"! Bravely advanced Trisha. Robin (Tourettian to a degee -Had'nt you guessed) Ludic life is- Ludicrous it 'aint -----Original Message----- From: Trisha Simonet [mailto:PSimonet@PeTalk.org] Sent: 11 August 2003 15:31 To: Jon Bowen Cc: applied-ethology Subject: Re: The Jolly routine On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 12:58 AM, Jon Bowen wrote: > So I use a play routine to teach dogs to become excited and calm > [alternating] in response to signals from their owner. In the case of > play this involves a slap on the thighs and a mock play bow as well > as a verbal signal. > It usually only takes a few minutes to do, and when combined with a > few other training routines it seems to make the dog more aware of the > owner's reaction to events. > > I agree that control of resources and interactions is a key element in > getting Jolly routines to work. > > Jon > Jon, I have found that if I imitate the forced breathy exhalation that dogs produce during play (I call it a dog laugh), that I can effectively interrupt the dog's state, whether it be a shelter dog fearfully growling at me or an excitable puppy yapping at another dog passing by. Once I have the dog's attention, I too go into the mock play bow and dog smile routine. For a recording of the forced breathy exhalation, go to: http://www.petalk.org/DogLaughSpect.html When conducting the research on vocalization of dogs during play, it was a happy happenstance to discover that the sound when produced by humans could elicit a predictable response from dogs - a play response (either a playbow, a toy grab, or the forced breathy exhalation in return). This is a discrete and powerful communication signal. One that I found was not misinterpreted. Trisha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Simonet Cognitive Ethologist & Animal Behavior Specialist P.O. Box 19429 Spokane, WA 99219 www.petalk.org psimonet@petalk.org (509) 456-8970 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 11-AUG-2003 12:00:38.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: roll call: any classically trained ethologists on list or peopleinterested in same Heather McMurray wrote: > Hi, I was wondering if there were any people on this list interested in > classic ethology or who trained in its methods? > > If not trained in classic ethology, then who have done a lot of study in > evolution/genetics/zoology on their own > > or > > who do/have done animal observation in the field or augmented their own work > (on dog training etc) with readings about field work in related species? I was trained in "classical" biology with emphasis on genetics and evolutionary biology. My doctoral dissertation concerned circadian rhythms in several species ... the immediate concern was "resetting" of biological clocks by non-periodic light stimuli, but the context was ecological (circadian timing of specific events as adaptation in specific environmental and/or competitive contexts) and what was measured was behavior (eclosion of insects, "spontaneous" running activity of rodents). I then spent several postdoctoral years working under Konrad Lorenz, primarily on social and aggressive behavior in fishes, and went on from there to field study of the same fishes in their native habitat in West Africa. I also spent much time investigating the behavior of driver ants (Anomma spp) and other interesting members of the African fauna. Since leaving Africa my work has shifted somewhat more in the direction of community ecology, primarily in the marine environment, but has of course not lost the ethological perspective since the role of species in a community is very largely a function of their behavior. I suppose that's reasonably "classical" . I have kept dogs for most of my adult life and have been breeding (and using in the field) the strain I now have for more than 30 years. I do not call myself a "canine ethologist" but having spent a great deal of time during more than 50 years making field observations of the behavior of everything from insects to primates, I cannot of course entirely escape - even if I should want to - bringing the same perspective to the observation of dog behavior . John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 14:11:09.23 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning/bridge method/house rabbits this sounds a great GREAT deal like how companion rabbit owners interact/train rabbits. It is compassionate and the rabbit trusts you as a result. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie Alexander" To: Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:58 AM Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning > The bitch who is great grandam to our current pups was the best puppy > raiser and trainer we've ever had. > She used both positive and negative consequences. One day I was in awe > watching her take a year old male who was overly boisterous, calm him > down, get him humble and attentive and reward him. > He was making high speed circuits of our exercise and training room, she > got in his pathway, glared and raised a lip. He skidded to a halt before > crashing into her. She move forward with strong eye contact and backed > him straight up for several steps. When he showed appropriate deference > to her, she rewarded him by licking his face and ears, then gave him a > quick soft muzzle poke and play bow. He again went into laps around the > room but at a lower speed and would come close so she could give him a > playful poke--she was 12+ at the time and a bit stiff to do much > chasing. But with tail wags, happy panting--had a link someone sent > about this being canine laughter, a few more bows and woofs, she engaged > in play until she tired. By turning away she signaled she was done and > he moved off after her relaxed and grinning. > Our most confident male will invite puppy play by wriggling around on > his back and tolerate a lot of rough housing when he invites it. When a > dog has a ding or scratch from the rough and tumble play, one dog will > frequently 'ask' to lick it by using averted eyes, an ear position that > indicates not trying to be pushy, short steps closer and then if the dog > permits, licking and cleaning bites to the scrape. Similar behavior to a > male who wants to court a female. > > Here's an example of teaching puppy manners I sent to the bridge and > target list. Most of this was based on how dogs teach manners with > bridges and a hand target used to speed reinforcement. > > Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:43:05 -0700 > From: "Julie Alexander" > Subject: puppy manners > > A while back on Bridge and Target, the subject of bite inhibition came > up. And also questions > When we raise puppies, this goes quite smoothly as long as we keep them > until at least 12 preferably 16 weeks. > Since we will want dogs to put a real bite on bad guys later, we don't > want to teach them that the context is never bite humans hard but be > careful with your mouth. We permit play that includes gentle mouthing of > us. See bntpics2 video clip of Hulk taking a full mouth bare arm bite > and cycling up and down in excitement at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bntpics2/files/ > > Other puppies, adult dogs and most especially mom when she is tired of > needle teeth during weaning help teach that if the pup bites too hard, > the playmate will either yelp and quit, or grumble and come back with a > disciplinary snap and the game is over. We will do some yelping and > grumbling but also add in some extras. As long as a puppy keeps mouthing > and playing with our hands gentle, we go along with it in a low keyed > manner. This is important. If the human gets rough, so will the puppy. > After a bit, the pup usually tries a harder bite. As we feel the bite > coming, we will give a mild pattern interrupt cue--enh!, then 'easy' at > the same time we twist fingers out of the mouth and offer instead an > open palm vertical to the front teeth. The pup can't get a bite and the > nibbling slides off the palm. We don't bridge this, just ignore it. We > saw a similar hand movement on a program about raising tiger cubs at > Tiger Island. The pup is not getting much reward out of this and usually > stops. > > After the pups have learned our skin is not as tough as theirs and are > being consistently gentle, we will escalate the finger or hand play a > bit, keeping things below the threshold that would make the pup bite too > hard. We do bridge using a playful but soft tone. We are also playing > some rag games with them in the same way. > > When we choose to stop either type of play, we stop moving, change the > tone of voice to neutral but firm and cue 'out'. With a hand, we switch > to the vertical position and then pet the puppy softly while praising. > If the pup tries again, it's enh! and the hand is removed and the puppy > timed out. With a rag, we gather it in our hand near the pup's mouth, > use the other hand to draw the play and proceed the same way. > > To teach a puppy to keep feet off of people, we use a similar no > reward/reward contrast. Eye contact is again a big factor. From early > on, we reward a pup making eye contact with treats, attention, praise > and play. We call a puppy's name, make eye contact, bend over, extend a > hand, wiggle fingers and bridge while the puppy is coming. Setting up a > hand target ASAP. > > If the pup tries to jump up, it's enh! we stand up, glare first then > look away. If the pup tries to jump to get eye contact or comes up > uninvited and jumps, we look overhead and twist our legs so the pup > slides off. A second attempt gets a enh! and is bumped off a bit harder. > > If we're sitting, and want a pup to come up, we call, use the finger > wiggle and bridge while again keeping eye contact and reward for keeping > feet on the floor. We keep an eye open for pups approaching when not > invited, give a disapproving look and place an arm to block the pup and > let it slide off. A pup who approaches quietly can nudge us to ask for > attention and is sometimes petted and sometimes told not now and > ignored. > > Again, our training partners are the older dogs. Some tolerate a puppy > jumping on them with good humor but most do not and will dish out > disciplinary snaps. Between no reward and +P from the dogs, they learn > that they only jump on those who invite it. The pups never develop a > pattern of indiscriminately biting or putting feet on people. Later when > we want either behavior, we can up the play intensity, cue it and keep > it in context. Rarely a boisterous puppy jumps or bites too hard after > being consistently attentive. We will grumble sharply and use a finger > flick to the muzzle to replace a disciplinary snap--the dogs do that > much more skillfully, :) > > Eye contact or lack of it, palm vertical to the teeth, keeping the > energy level below threshold and twisting or blocking so the pup slides > off are some of the physical components that are the most important. > Combined with verbal bridging and varied rewards for keeping the mouth > soft and feet on the floor, the pups quickly learn to contain their > exuberance. > > A side benefit of rewarding eye contact is that it makes the pups very > attentive to your face and what you are doing. We enhance this with > group games where they take turns sitting for a treat. This turns into a > front sit later. Chaos and her game of backing away from me as I turn in > circles was captured as she tried to get in Mark's field of vision while > he was working other dogs. A powerful and subtle nonverbal cue and > bridge is established. > > Julie Alexander > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Bowen" > To: "Julie Alexander" > Cc: > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:21 AM > Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning > > > > Excellent comment Julie. > > We have owned only small numbers of dogs [up to at a time], but they > > often go around with bigger groups and other dogs often come to stay > at > > our house. > > There is a lot of co-operation and positive reinforcement between dogs > > but I think this often gets missed because it is far more subtle than > > the occasional punch ups. > > One of the commonest interactions is also negative punishment; loss of > > attention when doing something undesirable. My intact bitch uses this > a > > lot with puppies, and she also uses a yap to break a pattern of > > behaviour, which is either constitutes distraction or mild +P. > > The use of mild +P or -P by a maternal figure would be a powerful > > potential punishment, given that her interest is needed for survival. > A > > good model for the dog to learn how to use punishment in a wider > > context, where survival is also dependent upon the group? > > > > There used to be a tendency to see nature as 'red in tooth and claw', > > and to use this as a justification for being quite harsh with > > dogs...'we should treat them as though we were part of a wolf pack'. > > This has proven to be a pretty limited way of looking at life with a > > dog, and the irony [in my mind] is that dogs appear to be more > > capable of learning and adapting to our communication and social > > systems than we are to theirs. How many owners still don't know what a > > play-bow means?! > > > > If living in a complex co-operative group, such as a wolf pack, would > > it make sense to run your relationships using high risk and high > energy > > cost behaviours such as intense +P, if you can achieve more by other > > means and at less cost to yourself? > > > > Jon > > > > > > On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 01:48 am, Julie Alexander wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet it appears that some > > > (not referring to anyone here) believe our efforts to teach dogs > > > should > > >> nearly all derive from +R, or at most the rare mild +P. What > > > evidence > > >> exists that dogs (and/or wolves) mainly teach their young through > +R, > > >> largely eschewing "shocking" strong +P? > > >> > > >> Laura Sanborn > > >> > > > Laura, a very good description of this is in the article written by > > > Suzanne Clothier at http://www.flyingdogpress.com/pposa.html She is > a > > > fine trainer and instructor. Her articles help the average pet dog > > > owner > > > understand and work with the average and not so average dog. Dogs > use > > > a > > > great deal of +P as you already know living with multiple dogs. > Horses > > > and other livestock use not only +P but -R a great deal with > > > conspecifics. > > > Julie Alexander > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 15:04:19.19 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Klopfer's politics and people in ethology book just got a copy. Couldn't find it anywhere in the USA. had to send for it via amazonuk and it took MONTHS. it is not that old - 1999. ISBN is 0838754058 From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 15:21:02.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: bridge method I bought the paypal PDF version (now I wish that I'd bought the printed version - it is a 100 pages and written so well!!). I love this method from the brief scan and the references I've read on this list. It is the type of training companion rabbit owners would use for their rabbits, like I mentioned before. I think that anyone using an electronic collar should peruse this bridge method. Heather From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 11-AUG-2003 15:27:36.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar At 01:11 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: >to play devil's advocate here -- if a judge is seeing bad training for >expensive dogs in expensive (probably) trials then what hope is there for >dogs in backyards wearing collars for barking too much? >just a thought That's apples vs. oranges. Training a high drive schutzhund trial dog to have a 100% fast, clean, and reliable out from the sleeve is quite a bit more involved than training a pet dog in the backyard to stop his nuisance barking. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"jwillard@turbonet.com" "Janice Willard" 11-AUG-2003 15:31:25.09 To: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology'" Subj: RE: electronic collars >Circumstances: >Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social >problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town >one, and owner needed more control over them. >(snip) >That is the general summary. >The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack >indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock >collar. >Any comments from anyone else? > >Jon > Yes in fact, I have seen a very similar case, Jon and it happened in my own family about 5 years ago. The circumstances: My 80 year old stepfather was out for a walk. He approached a couple out walking with their dog. The dog was a sporting breed, something like a German Shorthair, I seem to recall. Although this was a public trail, there was no leash on the dog, the owner was using an "electronic leash" i.e., a shock collar (I also don't accept Tony's euphemistic terminology for this; a collar that delivers a shock to an animal is a shock collar). The dog was walking well on this trail next to its owners. The owner had, at this point, not had any reason to deliver any shocks to the dog. I should probably mention about more about the players here. The dog's owner was a medical doctor, an anesthesiologist. As such, one would assume that he was intelligent, educated and good with gadgets. My stepfather has breed and shown dogs for many years and worked as a ring steward for the dog shows of the local kennel club for somewhere around 40 or more years. He was out walking solo because his dog had recently died. We can assume that he is good with dogs and knows how to approach them in a non-threatening way. The dog has been worked in the field as a hunter but lives in a house with children and has never been aggressive. As they approached each other on the path, my stepfather made eye contact with the dog, who wagged its tail and appeared friendly. My stepfather reached his hand out in greeting to the dog who stepped forward in a friendly manner to accept the greeting. There was no hint of threat in the dog's behavior; so far this was a friendly encounter. The dog's owner "corrected" his dog for coming out of heel position by hitting the button of the collar just as my step father's hand was coming close to the dog's head. The dog screamed and savaged my stepfather's hand. My stepfather ended up at the hospital and the dog ended up at a boarding facility on a rabies watch prior to euthanasia. .... Well, it turned out that the collar had been accidently set on a high setting. The dog had experienced the collar several times in the past to reinforce recall while out hunting, but always at a low setting and with a tone sounding prior to the shock. That day, the tone was turned off and the collar was set on a high setting. For those who wish a more scientific discussion on this list, here is my scientific assessment of what happened. Fear and pain generates a fright -> fight or flight response. This is not a trained response; this is a hardwired, evolutionarily significant reaction to a circumstance that threatens survival. One simply doesn't behave rationally when in sudden, extreme pain. One simply reacts to flee or strike out and then flee from the source of pain. From this dog's perspective, because of my stepfather coming into its space at the same time as the sudden painful stimulus, it was concluded that he was the source of the painful stimulus and the dog struck out at him. Of course, nothing happens in a vacuum and although the initial reaction was a evolutionarily significant unconditioned response, learning was also occurring as well. Studies have shown that (I'll have to find the references for those of you who are interested) that when there is an adrenaline surge at the same time as a learning opportunity, then learning is potentiated. This is why an intensely emotional circumstance brings about almost "single event learning." So although this dog started out its walk that day being completely friendly and accepting of strangers approaching it on the pathway, I have no doubt that it concluded the day with a different learned behavior to that circumstance. Was the collar used incorrectly? Absolutely. It is possible for an intelligent, well-educated, well-intentioned owner to use the collars incorrectly? Absolutely. Would, as Jon asked previously, a less severe control method (like a leash) been just as efficacious in this circumstance to keep the dog in control? Absolutely. Is it possible for these collars to train a dog to be aggressive? Without a shadow of a doubt, absolutely. Of course, there are always an element of risk in anything. I heard that John Glenn the astronaut came the closest to dying from slipping and falling as he was getting out of his bathtub years after going into space. So yes, there is a potential for risk of abuse and injury from a flat collar and leash. The question really is, how great is the potential for miss use or abuse and how severe are the consequences when that miss use or abuse occurs? What are the risk/consequences potentials of people using shock collars for their dogs? Tony Ancheta made this comment that I think speaks volumes: >My concern is that the >relationship between the handler and dog is lost. My contention is that the >relationship becomes between the handler and his transmitter, thus there is >a conflict almost unresolvable by the dog. Duty to task versus duty to the >machine strapped around his neck. > And another one by Laura Sanborn also speaks volumes: >Last year I was at a schutzhund championship trial, standing next to a very >experienced judge who was also spectating. He pointed out to me examples >of behaviors in a couple of the dogs as they were trialing which he said >are signs that the dogs had been incorrectly trained with e-collars. So in the hands of an outstanding trainer, apparently better than those at the schutzhund championship level of skill, you are telling me the collars have little risk and few consequences. How likely is it that the majority of people operating these collars to have that degree of training and ability? What about the rest of the people out there who have this equipment in their hands and now have developed a relationship with their transmitter rather than their dog? It appears that the welfare consequences for the dog are tremendous here. I think that I am rather inclined to agree with Jon here. I have heard Bill Campbell say that before anyone uses a shock collar on their dog, they should be required to wear it around their own neck for a week. I'll go that one better, by saying that in my humble opinion, before anyone puts a shock collar around the neck of any dog, they should be willing to not only wear it around their own neck, but to hand the controls over to another person who is unfamiliar with the technology and with training techniques and that the person wearing the collar not be allowed to communicate in any human way (words, hand signals or writing) with the person handling the controls. Because that is just what we do to dogs and if that isn't a welfare concern, I don't know what is..... To those of you who wish this to be a strictly scientific forum, my apologies. Sincerely, Janice Willard, DVM, MS PS: my stepfather, who loves dogs, felt terrible about what happened and at his urging, I spoke with the owners of the dog and encouraged them to not automatically euthanize their dog. I never learned the outcome for the dog. My stepfather still has significant scars on his hand. From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 15:43:31.59 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Well said, Janice! about your statement, "Is it possible for these collars > to train a dog to be aggressive? Without a shadow of a doubt, absolutely" I find it verryyy interesting that these collars are used (apparently routinely) to train police dogs. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janice Willard" To: "Jon Bowen" Cc: "'applied-ethology'" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:24 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars > > > >Circumstances: > >Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social > >problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town > >one, and owner needed more control over them. > >(snip) > >That is the general summary. > >The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack > >indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock > >collar. > >Any comments from anyone else? > > > >Jon > > > > Yes in fact, I have seen a very similar case, Jon and it happened in my own > family about 5 years ago. > > The circumstances: > > My 80 year old stepfather was out for a walk. He approached a couple out > walking with their dog. The dog was a sporting breed, something like a > German Shorthair, I seem to recall. Although this was a public trail, > there was no leash on the dog, the owner was using an "electronic leash" > i.e., a shock collar (I also don't accept Tony's euphemistic terminology > for this; a collar that delivers a shock to an animal is a shock collar). > The dog was walking well on this trail next to its owners. The owner had, > at this point, not had any reason to deliver any shocks to the dog. > > I should probably mention about more about the players here. The dog's > owner was a medical doctor, an anesthesiologist. As such, one would assume > that he was intelligent, educated and good with gadgets. My stepfather has > breed and shown dogs for many years and worked as a ring steward for the > dog shows of the local kennel club for somewhere around 40 or more years. > He was out walking solo because his dog had recently died. We can assume > that he is good with dogs and knows how to approach them in a > non-threatening way. > > The dog has been worked in the field as a hunter but lives in a house with > children and has never been aggressive. > > As they approached each other on the path, my stepfather made eye contact > with the dog, who wagged its tail and appeared friendly. My stepfather > reached his hand out in greeting to the dog who stepped forward in a > friendly manner to accept the greeting. There was no hint of threat in the > dog's behavior; so far this was a friendly encounter. > > The dog's owner "corrected" his dog for coming out of heel position by > hitting the button of the collar just as my step father's hand was coming > close to the dog's head. The dog screamed and savaged my stepfather's > hand. My stepfather ended up at the hospital and the dog ended up at a > boarding facility on a rabies watch prior to euthanasia. > > .... > > Well, it turned out that the collar had been accidently set on a high > setting. The dog had experienced the collar several times in the past to > reinforce recall while out hunting, but always at a low setting and with a > tone sounding prior to the shock. That day, the tone was turned off and > the collar was set on a high setting. > > For those who wish a more scientific discussion on this list, here is my > scientific assessment of what happened. Fear and pain generates a fright -> > fight or flight response. This is not a trained response; this is a > hardwired, evolutionarily significant reaction to a circumstance that > threatens survival. One simply doesn't behave rationally when in sudden, > extreme pain. One simply reacts to flee or strike out and then flee from > the source of pain. From this dog's perspective, because of my stepfather > coming into its space at the same time as the sudden painful stimulus, it > was concluded that he was the source of the painful stimulus and the dog > struck out at him. Of course, nothing happens in a vacuum and although the > initial reaction was a evolutionarily significant unconditioned response, > learning was also occurring as well. Studies have shown that (I'll have to > find the references for those of you who are interested) that when there is > an adrenaline surge at the same time as a learning opportunity, then > learning is potentiated. This is why an intensely emotional circumstance > brings about almost "single event learning." So although this dog started > out its walk that day being completely friendly and accepting of strangers > approaching it on the pathway, I have no doubt that it concluded the day > with a different learned behavior to that circumstance. > > Was the collar used incorrectly? Absolutely. It is possible for an > intelligent, well-educated, well-intentioned owner to use the collars > incorrectly? Absolutely. Would, as Jon asked previously, a less severe > control method (like a leash) been just as efficacious in this circumstance > to keep the dog in control? Absolutely. Is it possible for these collars > to train a dog to be aggressive? Without a shadow of a doubt, absolutely. > > > Of course, there are always an element of risk in anything. I heard that > John Glenn the astronaut came the closest to dying from slipping and > falling as he was getting out of his bathtub years after going into space. > So yes, there is a potential for risk of abuse and injury from a flat > collar and leash. The question really is, how great is the potential for > miss use or abuse and how severe are the consequences when that miss use or > abuse occurs? What are the risk/consequences potentials of people using > shock collars for their dogs? > > > Tony Ancheta made this comment that I think speaks volumes: > > >My concern is that the > >relationship between the handler and dog is lost. My contention is that the > >relationship becomes between the handler and his transmitter, thus there is > >a conflict almost unresolvable by the dog. Duty to task versus duty to the > >machine strapped around his neck. > > > And another one by Laura Sanborn also speaks volumes: > > >Last year I was at a schutzhund championship trial, standing next to a very > >experienced judge who was also spectating. He pointed out to me examples > >of behaviors in a couple of the dogs as they were trialing which he said > >are signs that the dogs had been incorrectly trained with e-collars. > > So in the hands of an outstanding trainer, apparently better than those at > the schutzhund championship level of skill, you are telling me the collars > have little risk and few consequences. How likely is it that the majority > of people operating these collars to have that degree of training and > ability? What about the rest of the people out there who have this > equipment in their hands and now have developed a relationship with their > transmitter rather than their dog? It appears that the welfare > consequences for the dog are tremendous here. I think that I am rather > inclined to agree with Jon here. > > I have heard Bill Campbell say that before anyone uses a shock collar on > their dog, they should be required to wear it around their own neck for a > week. > > I'll go that one better, by saying that in my humble opinion, before anyone > puts a shock collar around the neck of any dog, they should be willing to > not only wear it around their own neck, but to hand the controls over to > another person who is unfamiliar with the technology and with training > techniques and that the person wearing the collar not be allowed to > communicate in any human way (words, hand signals or writing) with the > person handling the controls. Because that is just what we do to dogs and > if that isn't a welfare concern, I don't know what is..... > > To those of you who wish this to be a strictly scientific forum, my apologies. > > Sincerely, > > Janice Willard, DVM, MS > > PS: my stepfather, who loves dogs, felt terrible about what happened and at > his urging, I spoke with the owners of the dog and encouraged them to not > automatically euthanize their dog. I never learned the outcome for the > dog. My stepfather still has significant scars on his hand. > > > From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 11-AUG-2003 15:48:39.60 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Debbie, What's new about any of this? No 2 dogs do things exactly the same way or respond the same way to the same experience. No 2 humans train exactly the same way. We all have micro behaviors that differ, we may tighten our jaw causing our teeth to grind, put out different odors that smell confident, angry or fearful. We do so many things that we are not aware of. We also do not reward in the same way as dog but they have not trouble being multi lingual in taking advantage of a human who tosses a ball. Our dogs understand our goat when he lowers his head and prepares to butt or stands on his hind legs for a bigger butting. And he understands Titan when he growls and stares and will turn a potential butting into jumping and kicking--Titan gets great respect. They both avoid the horses when they pin ears and snake a head to keep dogs or goats out of grain. A species that only understands conspecifics may not do well in life. Whether predator or prey, reading other species seems likely to be a survival trait. I don't think dogs expect us to act like dogs. They may appreciate it when we try to 'speak dog' but accept us as language impaired and try to figure us and other species out. Many great owners are not so great handlers or trainers. But when the dogs know the person is trying to communicate and deeply cares about the dog's feelings, they seem to be quite forgiving of accidental leash jerks, getting toes stepped on, tripped over and our inability to see, hear, or smell things that they can. Trying to do things as a dog does is a good role model but it must be tempered with acceptance of our limitations. Our dogs learn what to expect from different dogs. Like kids who know grandpa and grandma will let them do things that mom and dad won't, they read us and try different things with different folks. Do what ever works for you with whatever talent and skills you have developed. Julie ----- Original Message ----- From: DebHdvm@aol.com To: reddragn@bossig.com ; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:15 AM Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning In a message dated 8/10/2003 7:50:33 PM Central Daylight Time, reddragn@bossig.com writes: Dogs use a great deal of +P as you already know living with multiple dogs. Horses and other livestock use not only +P but -R a great deal with conspecifics. I agree that at times punishment if used properly is a tool that can effectively change behavior. But to compare how we punish animals to how they "punish" each other (if that is indeed what is going on, it could just be a social response) is much different. We punish for different things, we do it differently and often humans don't recognize deference when we get it. Certainly there is nothing so amazing as watching a dog give a well timed response to inappropriate behavior from a conspecific, but that doesn't mean I can perform the same task and get the same response. Debbie Horwitz Debra F. Horwitz, DVM DACVB Veterinary Behavior Consultations 12462 G. Natural Bridge Road Bridgeton, Missouri 63044 phone: 314-739-1510 fax: 314-291-2116 e-mail: DebHdvm@aol.com From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 11-AUG-2003 15:58:27.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Janice wrote: So in the hands of an outstanding trainer, apparently better than those at the schutzhund championship level of skill, you are telling me the collars have little risk and few consequences. Tony asks: Who told you that the e-collar, or any other collar, harness, or halter for that matter have little risk and few consequences? The ability to add or subtract a consequence, be it reward, correction, or punishment is precisely what we do. Remember the abc's of behaviour training: Antecedent->Behaviour->Consequence The shock collar works on right of this model, whereas the e-collar can be effectively used on both sides. (This includes, btw, some invisible fence systems.) BTW- Folks, most (if not all) American e-collar manufacturers tell you not to use their product to control aggression unless under the direction of an experienced trainer. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 11-AUG-2003 16:16:01.70 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Dear All, static pulse collars do not deliver electric shocks. I thought folks of your academic stature should be capable of getting that right. To go on and on about collars delivering electric shocks is rhetorical and grossly inaccurate, and importantly different. We are not talking about the same thing. The guy working as an electrician should at least be aware of the world of difference between an electric shock which passes right through the body to seek earth somewhere, and a static charge which does not. Cattle electric fences for example operate by an electric shock and their output is some 3,000 times that of a static pulse collar. Bark triggered static pulse collars are extremely well tolerated long term causing no long term drop in posture of stress or pain. They are simply mildly unpleasant like any other style of bark control collar except the static collar is more generically unpleasant hence more effective in my experience. The dog quickly works out that the unpleasant nibbling on their neck is associated with barking, so when the collar goes on they find something else to do. It is important to provide them with an alternate activity and plenty of exercise, and treat concurrent conditions. It can not do any damage to any dog as it sends .0018 joules (on high) across 1-2 cms of skin. It is innocuous but generically unpleasant. Please, if you must criticize the static pulse collars, go ahead, but make meaningful criticism. Much of your criticism is rather fanciful. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:39 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I had thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of repeat electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some years ago. Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but not enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running 'jumper cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple of times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I would best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded 'hunched' shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt that there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. How much worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or the cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have been a much greater impact. If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other animals then there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in general use. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: shock collar Dear all, Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. regards, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 11-AUG-2003 16:30:40.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bridge method Dear All, At the risk of getting flamed, I'd like to point out that there are other (possibly more appropriate) lists for extensive discussion of animal training techniques and methods, such as that which is taking place about e-collars and bridging techniques. With all due respect (I absolutely do not mean to marginalize anyone), could we please stay on the topic of applied ethology or at least reasonably so? Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:21 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: bridge method I bought the paypal PDF version (now I wish that I'd bought the printed version - it is a 100 pages and written so well!!). I love this method from the brief scan and the references I've read on this list. It is the type of training companion rabbit owners would use for their rabbits, like I mentioned before. I think that anyone using an electronic collar should peruse this bridge method. Heather From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 11-AUG-2003 16:42:30.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! I am so sorry to have irritated you. And so thankful that you were able to respond politely! I wrote a rather loose anecdote - not as a statement of scientific fact nor as a result of lengthy research - more as a little seed idea as part of ongoing discussion - nor was it critical if you would read it over - careful use of 'if'. If we can't do this on this list without replies that belie a rather spiteful and unpleasant readiness to insult or belittle then things have clearly changed since you joined. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2003 10:15 a.m. To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Dear All, static pulse collars do not deliver electric shocks. I thought folks of your academic stature should be capable of getting that right. To go on and on about collars delivering electric shocks is rhetorical and grossly inaccurate, and importantly different. We are not talking about the same thing. The guy working as an electrician should at least be aware of the world of difference between an electric shock which passes right through the body to seek earth somewhere, and a static charge which does not. Cattle electric fences for example operate by an electric shock and their output is some 3,000 times that of a static pulse collar. Bark triggered static pulse collars are extremely well tolerated long term causing no long term drop in posture of stress or pain. They are simply mildly unpleasant like any other style of bark control collar except the static collar is more generically unpleasant hence more effective in my experience. The dog quickly works out that the unpleasant nibbling on their neck is associated with barking, so when the collar goes on they find something else to do. It is important to provide them with an alternate activity and plenty of exercise, and treat concurrent conditions. It can not do any damage to any dog as it sends .0018 joules (on high) across 1-2 cms of skin. It is innocuous but generically unpleasant. Please, if you must criticize the static pulse collars, go ahead, but make meaningful criticism. Much of your criticism is rather fanciful. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:39 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I had thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of repeat electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some years ago. Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but not enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running 'jumper cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple of times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I would best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded 'hunched' shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt that there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. How much worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or the cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have been a much greater impact. If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other animals then there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in general use. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: shock collar Dear all, Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. regards, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 17:09:10.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bridge method // ecollars etc. Time to close topic or take off list? Several interesting things have come up during this extensive discussion that I found enlightening. But Candace is probably right that it is time to bring it to a close. However, I don't think that my mentioning the bridge method is inappropriate considering the extensive discussion of ecollars. The bridge method is much more in tune with how an animal relates to its context, which is an evolutionary one; and directly ties into ethology. If anything, I am surprised that more ethologists on the list aren't pointing this out. This is an applied ethology/behavior list, and training methods that are based on cues and responses that animals have evolved with, surely seem more humane to me. - Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: Croney, Candace To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:30 PM Subject: RE: bridge method Dear All, At the risk of getting flamed, I'd like to point out that there are other (possibly more appropriate) lists for extensive discussion of animal training techniques and methods, such as that which is taking place about e-collars and bridging techniques. With all due respect (I absolutely do not mean to marginalize anyone), could we please stay on the topic of applied ethology or at least reasonably so? Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:21 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: bridge method I bought the paypal PDF version (now I wish that I'd bought the printed version - it is a 100 pages and written so well!!). I love this method from the brief scan and the references I've read on this list. It is the type of training companion rabbit owners would use for their rabbits, like I mentioned before. I think that anyone using an electronic collar should peruse this bridge method. Heather From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 11-AUG-2003 17:58:30.28 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Kipling:Historical Note I enjoy the poetry! Thanks, Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting -----Original Message----- From: Robin Walker [mailto:coape@nildram.co.uk] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:26 PM To: Applied Ethology Network Subject: Kipling:Historical Note Over to Rudyard Kipling for the last word from a dyed in the wool, colonialist, Imperialist, Fascistic old b**** whose heart was in the right century (for him). To rear a boy under what parents call the "sheltered life system" is, if the boy must go into the world and fend for himself, not wise. Unless he be one in a thousand he has certainly to pass through many unnecessary troubles; and may, possibly, come to extreme grief simply from ignorance of the proper proportions of things. Let a puppy eat the soap in the bath-room or chew a newly-blacked boot. He chews and chuckles until, by and by, he finds out that blacking and Old Brown Windsor make him very sick; so he argues that soap and boots are not wholesome. Any old dog about the house will soon show him the unwisdom of biting big dog's ears. Being young, he remembers and goes abroad at six months, a well-mannered little beast with a chastened appetite. If he had been kept away from boots, soap, and big dogs till he came to the trinity full-grown and with developed teeth, consider how fearfully sick and thrashed he would be! Apply that notion to the "sheltered life" and see how it works. It does not sound pretty but it is the better of two evils." (The limitations of this gung-ho, intuitive confidence are sharply revealed on contact with the reactive or disturbed individual) Robin E Walker B.Vet.Med. M.R.C.V.S. 78 Bromyard Road Worcester WR2 5DA Tel (++44 (0)1905 423381 Centre of Applied Pet Ethology Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards Dr. Samuel Johnson 1776 From: IN%"Candace.Croney@orst.edu" "Croney, Candace" 11-AUG-2003 18:06:47.39 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: bridge method // ecollars etc. Time to close topic or take off list? Thanks very much. I really appreciate your response, and everyone's contributions. Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:09 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: bridge method // ecollars etc. Time to close topic or take off list? Several interesting things have come up during this extensive discussion that I found enlightening. But Candace is probably right that it is time to bring it to a close. However, I don't think that my mentioning the bridge method is inappropriate considering the extensive discussion of ecollars. The bridge method is much more in tune with how an animal relates to its context, which is an evolutionary one; and directly ties into ethology. If anything, I am surprised that more ethologists on the list aren't pointing this out. This is an applied ethology/behavior list, and training methods that are based on cues and responses that animals have evolved with, surely seem more humane to me. - Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: Croney, Candace To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:30 PM Subject: RE: bridge method Dear All, At the risk of getting flamed, I'd like to point out that there are other (possibly more appropriate) lists for extensive discussion of animal training techniques and methods, such as that which is taking place about e-collars and bridging techniques. With all due respect (I absolutely do not mean to marginalize anyone), could we please stay on the topic of applied ethology or at least reasonably so? Candace Croney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Animal Behavior/Bioethics Oregon State University Phone: (541) 737-1401 Email: candace.croney@orst.edu "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!" --Calvin and Hobbes -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:21 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: bridge method I bought the paypal PDF version (now I wish that I'd bought the printed version - it is a 100 pages and written so well!!). I love this method from the brief scan and the references I've read on this list. It is the type of training companion rabbit owners would use for their rabbits, like I mentioned before. I think that anyone using an electronic collar should peruse this bridge method. Heather From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 11-AUG-2003 18:11:04.56 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Dear Simon, I really appreciate your input. From the perspective that dogs are permanently juvenile wolves expecting to be allowed social infractions, what is the best way to train them? Perhaps they lack the fundamental hardware to be trained using pack structure theory. Is that what you are saying? What can we draw from your insight? Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:22 AM To: Simon Gadbois Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning There used to be a tendency to see nature as 'red in tooth and claw', and to use this as a justification for being quite harsh with dogs...'we should treat them as though we were part of a wolf pack'. I can't agree with that common statement; so we agree. As a wolf researcher, I can only see dogs as very socially atrophied wolves. In fact, through the process of domestication, dogs were neotenized, they adopted more and more juvenile characteristics as adults (see the neat studies by Belyaev with farm foxes: getting the same results trying to create a more "docile" fox to handle within 20 years). Dogs never reach the maturity of adult wolves. Estimates are that dogs never go beyond the 1-2 year of age. I would be more inclined to say 1 year old max. Yearling wolves, juvenile wolves are not part of the dominance hierarchy at that point and they are permitted all kinds of "infractions" (for an adult wolf point of view). They are basically exempt of "punishments" from the adults. Then, slowly, after the first year, they start getting "hints" and "reminders" from the adults. So the whole idea that our dogs need to find their place in the pack and we should show them like wolves do, came from people that know nothing of wolf behaviour. If living in a complex co-operative group, such as a wolf pack, would it make sense to run your relationships using high risk and high energy cost behaviours such as intense +P, if you can achieve more by other means and at less cost to yourself? Nope. Good point. Look at the primate data: despotic leaders tend to be demoted rapidly, although not as fast in social carnivores where alliances are not common or at least as well defined as in primates. S. Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 19:12:03.02 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geiger" To: "'heather mcmurray'" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:33 PM Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! > Dear Heather and all, > Why should dogs be permitted to bark in suburbia and bother hundreds of > people, when a simple safe solution can be offered? You come over as > someone who has never been assailed by a chronic nuisance barker. Is it > better than euthanasia? > > I think the adrenalising comments are highly relevant here. Most of the > nuisance barkers around here nuisance bark for sport and indeed appear > highly adrenalised. I disagree with Gaille that most of them are > anxious, but even if they are, the residual behaviour of nuissance > barking still requires redress. > > The double benefit of static pulse collars and indeed citronella is that > they not only stop the nuisance barking, to the tremendous relief of the > neighbourhood, but the dog settles down becoming more interactive and > readily turns its attentions to some other activity. Treating underlying > problems may well not cease the barking, as a cat treated successfully > for a urinary tract disorder continues to house soil. And who has 2-8 > weeks to wait while the psychotropic medications kick in? Nuissance > barkers often have angry neighbours and noise abatement notices. > > Also, please check with the RSPCA for the updated cruelty rules against > leaving dogs in cars. It was on TV recently. Formerly the rule was not > to leave a dog in a car in summer; now it applies all year because in > Brisbane we often have unexpected hot weather in the middle of winter. > Jackie Perkins > GOOD DOG > Veterinary Behaviour Consultant > AUSTRALIA > -----Original Message----- > From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:48 AM > To: Geiger > Subject: Re: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful > criticisms! > > I have worn tens units. I have had tens units hooked up to my wrists. > I > had have an implanted spinal stimulator. > Sure, it is a tingling sensation, kind of. It can also burn little > white > dots into your skin depending on the setting. The tingling sensation is > not > pleasant. It is actually painful. The pain is meant to block other > pain > pathways. I would certainly not want such devices to be turned on by > someone else when I spoke out of turn or did something considered wrong. > > I do not think that I'd want anything on my pet's neck that delivered a > similar sensation unless it was associated with an electric fence, so > that > the intensity increased as they approached the fence and decreased as > they > left it. To use it to control vocalization is not the same, and I would > think that it could cause stress in the animal. They would want to bark > but > wouldn't. > > Heather > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Geiger" > To: > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:15 PM > Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful > criticisms! > > > > Dear All, static pulse collars do not deliver electric shocks. I > thought > > folks of your academic stature should be capable of getting that > right. > > To go on and on about collars delivering electric shocks is rhetorical > > and grossly inaccurate, and importantly different. We are not talking > > about the same thing. The guy working as an electrician should at > least > > be aware of the world of difference between an electric shock which > > passes right through the body to seek earth somewhere, and a static > > charge which does not. Cattle electric fences for example operate by > an > > electric shock and their output is some 3,000 times that of a static > > pulse collar. Bark triggered static pulse collars are extremely well > > tolerated long term causing no long term drop in posture of stress or > > pain. They are simply mildly unpleasant like any other style of bark > > control collar except the static collar is more generically unpleasant > > hence more effective in my experience. The dog quickly works out that > > the unpleasant nibbling on their neck is associated with barking, so > > when the collar goes on they find something else to do. It is > important > > to provide them with an alternate activity and plenty of exercise, and > > treat concurrent conditions. It can not do any damage to any dog as it > > sends .0018 joules (on high) across 1-2 cms of skin. It is innocuous > but > > generically unpleasant. Please, if you must criticize the static pulse > > collars, go ahead, but make meaningful criticism. Much of your > criticism > > is rather fanciful. > > Jackie Perkins > > GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting > > AUSTRALIA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:39 PM > > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > > Subject: RE: shock collar > > > > Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I > had > > thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of > > repeat > > electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some > > years > > ago. > > Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC > > ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but > not > > enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running > > 'jumper > > cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple > of > > times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I > > would > > best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded > 'hunched' > > shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall > > finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt > that > > there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. > How > > much > > worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or > > the > > cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have > been > > a > > much greater impact. > > > > If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other > animals > > then > > there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in > general > > use. > > > > Regards > > Andy Beck > > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > > 433 Wharepunga Rd > > RD3 Kaikohe > > Northland > > Aotearoa - New Zealand > > http://www.equine-behavior.com > > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] > > Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. > > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > Subject: shock collar > > > > Dear all, > > > > Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock > > collars > > > > A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of > > the > > use > > of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by > > Applied > > Anim. Behav. Sci. > > In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several > > stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. > > Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and > > stress-related > > behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training > sessions > > when > > no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower > > posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the > > handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to > > associate > > being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of > shocks. > > This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who > > view > > themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to > the > > > > dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. > > > > regards, Matthijs > > > > dr M.B.H. Schilder > > Utrecht University > > WCDM > > Yalelaan 17 > > 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands > > tel +31 30 2534784 > > fax +31 30 2539227 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 11-AUG-2003 20:30:33.23 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: My 1.5 cents on shock collars Generally, the idea of corporal punishment horrifies me, and shock collars viscerally seemed cruel to me. But I have had an experience that may have changed my mind about the issue of shock collars at least. I was making friends with the parents of one of my son's playmates. They had a full size poodle that used to snarl, roar, and snap at anyone passing by on the street, ramming itself into the fence in a very intimidating way. It was almost as bad with any new guest entering the house. It would also bark for hours all hours of day driving the owners and neighbors insane. It was a healthy large dog and its bark was painfully loud when you were near it. My son was always afraid to approach or even walk by their house so we always had to have their daughter over to our place to play. Unbeknownst to me they decided to get a shock collar. The next time I went to their house, the place was quiet instead of the usual scene from the exorcist. I went inside and the dog jumped on me but their was none of the usual having to walk carefully and cautiously introduce yourself to the dog for fear that it was going to attack you. It wasn't snapping, or lunging; it seemed bouncier, and even gave a few play bows. It seemed a lot friendlier. Still poorly trained and spirited, but it didn't seem hostile anymore. I asked them what happened and they said they bought a shock collar. When I winced they said, "They just put it on, the dog barked, 1 and 1/2 times, and then he started behaving like this." No more barks, hostile behavior and presumably no more shocks". Now after a couple of days they don't even have it on anymore just in case an ambient sound accidentally sets off the collar. I don't know what the long term consequences of the collar were because I moved away shortly after that, but I have no reason to think anything bad happened. The whole experience leaves me wondering what exactly happened. Admittedly, they may have had an unusually good experience. Poodles, I believe, are supposed to be one of the more trainable varieties of dog and there may have been something in that particular dog's psyche that made it amenable to that form of discipline. I can say though that shock collars do seem to help in the healthy management of some dogs. That still leaves the question of why the dogs aggression appeared to decrease along with the barking. I attribute it to several possible factors: 1) My perception of the dogs aggression may have changed when the earsplitting barks were quelled. 2) My reaction to the dog may have been less defensive and more positive eliciting less hostile behavior reciprocal behavior from the dog. The dog may have associated the shocks with aggressive behavior as a whole and generalized the aversion to all aggressive behavior (lunging, snapping, ramming or even hostile feelings) not just the barks. 3) The barks may have been a key psychological component of the dogs aggressive response; the barks may have been part of the way that the dog worked itself into an out of control fury, and removing that component made it easier for the dog to keep a positive attitude when something disturbed its territory. 4) Finally, it is possible that the punishment "took the dog down a notch". In its mind, it may have lost status and thereby felt less need to terrorize everyone around it to maintain its high status. Well, that is my anecdote and specious theorization ;-) I hope it wasn't too much of a waste of bandwidth. Michael P.S. I have never used corporal punishment on my son, but instead have emphasized empathy, communication, responsibility, MUTUAL respect, reasonableness, intimacy, positive engagement and approval to shape his behavior -- with occasional reprimands admittedly. I constantly receive compliments about what a nice and responsible kid he is from teachers, care givers and parents of friends of his. He also has a knack for making friends and even getting along with those kids that are usually ostracized because of emotional problems or poor social skills. I tend to believe that if you have to resort to spanking or worse, you have squandered many opportunities for shaping your child's behavior in more positive and effective ways and are reaping the crop you planted with your neglect, misjudgment or insensitivity. It is also possible that your child has something wrong with him causing the misbehavior, in which case you should be seeking psychiatric help not beating him. From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 11-AUG-2003 20:46:08.62 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Hi Jackie et al, This is a great question but I am not sure I have an answer that will satisfy you. First, I am not sure that juvenile wolves or dogs actually "expect" to be allowed social infractions. I think they are simply not necessarily "ready" for punishment (certainly not yearling wolves in their first 8 months or so) nor are they terribly sensitive to it (I am stopping myself from saying that "they don't get it"; a very subjective comment but made so many times during direct observations in the field). BUT dogs are a special case, the result of a long process of domestication that made them very responsive to human social reinforcement. I am not suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats. But we are not completely justified to treat them as wolves either. I am not saying that dogs are not trainable or that they should not be trained. I think that it is important to "talk" to them in their language (which is a fraction of the wolf's very rich repertoire) but without getting too extreme with this approach: in his highly criticized training "technique", Lorenz was applying "wolf-like" aggressive behaviours in his interactions with tamed wolves and his wolf-dog hybrids (see "Tous les chats, tous les chiens", I believe the English translation was "Man meets Dog"?). The approach has been taken to an extreme by some trainers of the 70's and I remember the police service in Valleyfield, QC, (circum 1984) was proud to tell me they were applying the "German method" (whatever that meant...). Breaking the puppy was the idea harassing it constantly until they snapped; I am told this is still done in some programs. The rationale: that is what wolves do to their pups. Wow! What a distortion of Lorenz' ideas. The idea that the male wolf is the leader of the pack comes also from older wolf ethology; the dominance of males over females is a domestic dog thing. Wolves have two separate dominance hierarchies, one for males, one for females with very little (if any) inter-sex aggressions. Their monogamous mating system with high paternal care (another lost set of behaviours through domestication) is based on the pair bonding of the alpha male and alpha female, by default. I could go on on many other fundamental differences between wolves and dogs but I would be digressing. The idea of neoteny (sometimes called paedomorphosis, not to be confused with the other paedomorphosis discussed by paleontologists) in dog domestication , by the way, is commonly discussed by comparative psychologists and ethologists with other species. For instance, it explains the surprisingly social behaviour of our domestic cat compared to its ancestor the European or African wild cat (FAR from being a social carnivore). But our cats are "social" (and studies of feral cats confirm their degree of sociality... sometimes difficult to extrapolate from our companions) because they are eternal "kittens". Relatedly, as CeAnn pointed out with coyotes and punishment, I agree that a shock to a tamed wolf, coyote or red fox (to mention the species I studied) would be the end of the human-canid relationship. They would quickly associate that negative experience with the sometimes (or "often", depending on the species mentioned above) precarious relationship. Tamed wild animals, in my experience, tend to generalize a lot more noxious stimuli with the general "taming" environment and process than domestic dogs do with the training environment and process. On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 21:10 Canada/Atlantic, Geiger wrote: > Dear Simon, I really appreciate your input. From the perspective that > dogs are permanently juvenile wolves expecting to be allowed social > infractions, what is the best way to train them? Perhaps they lack the > fundamental hardware to be trained using pack structure theory. Is that > what you are saying? What can we draw from your insight? > Jackie Perkins > GOOD DOG > Veterinary Behaviour Consulting > AUSTRALIA > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:22 AM > To: Simon Gadbois > Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: Re: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning > > > There used to be a tendency to see nature as 'red in tooth and claw', > and to use this as a justification for being quite harsh with > dogs...'we > should treat them as though we were part of a wolf pack'. > > I can't agree with that common statement; so we agree. As a wolf > researcher, I can only see dogs as very socially atrophied wolves. In > fact, through the process of domestication, dogs were neotenized, they > adopted more and more juvenile characteristics as adults (see the neat > studies by Belyaev with farm foxes: getting the same results trying to > create a more "docile" fox to handle within 20 years). > Dogs never reach the maturity of adult wolves. Estimates are that dogs > never go beyond the 1-2 year of age. I would be more inclined to say 1 > year old max. Yearling wolves, juvenile wolves are not part of the > dominance hierarchy at that point and they are permitted all kinds of > "infractions" (for an adult wolf point of view). They are basically > exempt of "punishments" from the adults. Then, slowly, after the first > year, they start getting "hints" and "reminders" from the adults. > So the whole idea that our dogs need to find their place in the pack > and > we should show them like wolves do, came from people that know nothing > of wolf behaviour. > If living in a complex co-operative group, such as a wolf pack, would > it > make sense to run your relationships using high risk and high energy > cost behaviours such as intense +P, if you can achieve more by other > means and at less cost to yourself? > > Nope. Good point. Look at the primate data: despotic leaders tend to be > demoted rapidly, although not as fast in social carnivores where > alliances are not common or at least as well defined as in primates. > > S. Gadbois > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. > Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. > Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. > http://www.Gadbois.org/ > > > From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 11-AUG-2003 21:12:44.36 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars At 02:42 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: >I find it verryyy interesting that these collars are used (apparently >routinely) to train police dogs. E-collars are often used to proof and enforce *obedience* in police dogs. If anyone is reading between the lines here, and inferring that e-collars are used to create (or reinforce) aggression in police dogs, then they don't understand modern police dog training. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 11-AUG-2003 21:15:17.37 To: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Sorry if I bit. Just tired of hearing those inapplicable criticisms. Last year there was actually a court case between Innotek (static collar company)and the RSPCA in Australia. The RSPCA could not have a win legally against static collars so went to the press and made blatently false derogatory comments to the effect that static collars can send a dog flying through the air, cause a dog to do back flips, and cause burns. Innotek took them to court and won damages. The RSPCAs claims were considered false and fanciful by the supreme court. Now the RSPCA say nothing but continue to have an anti-static collar policy, but for no reason that they can say publicly. Collar critics in Australia continue to use rhetoric to attack static collars while promoting citronella. Go figure! Have you seen the MSDA sheet for citronella??? I believe the SPCA of New Zealand have a more balanced policy regarding static collars, as do various other states of Australia. Bloody politics. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:42 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! I am so sorry to have irritated you. And so thankful that you were able to respond politely! I wrote a rather loose anecdote - not as a statement of scientific fact nor as a result of lengthy research - more as a little seed idea as part of ongoing discussion - nor was it critical if you would read it over - careful use of 'if'. If we can't do this on this list without replies that belie a rather spiteful and unpleasant readiness to insult or belittle then things have clearly changed since you joined. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2003 10:15 a.m. To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Dear All, static pulse collars do not deliver electric shocks. I thought folks of your academic stature should be capable of getting that right. To go on and on about collars delivering electric shocks is rhetorical and grossly inaccurate, and importantly different. We are not talking about the same thing. The guy working as an electrician should at least be aware of the world of difference between an electric shock which passes right through the body to seek earth somewhere, and a static charge which does not. Cattle electric fences for example operate by an electric shock and their output is some 3,000 times that of a static pulse collar. Bark triggered static pulse collars are extremely well tolerated long term causing no long term drop in posture of stress or pain. They are simply mildly unpleasant like any other style of bark control collar except the static collar is more generically unpleasant hence more effective in my experience. The dog quickly works out that the unpleasant nibbling on their neck is associated with barking, so when the collar goes on they find something else to do. It is important to provide them with an alternate activity and plenty of exercise, and treat concurrent conditions. It can not do any damage to any dog as it sends .0018 joules (on high) across 1-2 cms of skin. It is innocuous but generically unpleasant. Please, if you must criticize the static pulse collars, go ahead, but make meaningful criticism. Much of your criticism is rather fanciful. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:39 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I had thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of repeat electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some years ago. Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but not enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running 'jumper cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple of times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I would best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded 'hunched' shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt that there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. How much worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or the cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have been a much greater impact. If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other animals then there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in general use. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: shock collar Dear all, Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. regards, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 11-AUG-2003 22:19:07.45 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars At 02:24 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: >And another one by Laura Sanborn also speaks volumes: > > >Last year I was at a schutzhund championship trial, standing next to a very > >experienced judge who was also spectating. He pointed out to me examples > >of behaviors in a couple of the dogs as they were trialing which he said > >are signs that the dogs had been incorrectly trained with e-collars. > >So in the hands of an outstanding trainer, apparently better than those at >the schutzhund championship level of skill, you are telling me the collars >have little risk and few consequences. Errr... not exactly. I'm saying that a couple of dogs at the 2002 North American SchH3 Championship showed evidence of misuse of e-collar training in their behaviors. Nothing extreme, no Cujos, but one could see it. I'm also saying that many other dogs at these championships are trained with the aid of e-collars and evidence no problems of this sort. I'll also add that a majority of the handlers who show dogs at these championships *bought* their already trained and titled dogs so that they can show a dog in big championships, and that some of these handlers are not very good dog trainers, and some of them then go on to mess up their high dollar dogs with training mistakes. >How likely is it that the majority of people operating these collars to >have that degree of training and >ability? As I responded earlier, we are talking apples and oranges. Training problems like solving nuisance barking are rather different compared to the challenge of training a high drive schutzhund dog to have a 100% fast, calm, and reliable "out" from the sleeve. >What about the rest of the people out there who have this equipment in >their hands and now have developed a relationship with their transmitter >rather than their dog? >I have heard Bill Campbell say that before anyone uses a shock collar on >their dog, they should be required to wear it around their own neck for a >week. It's disconcerting to keep reading these sorts of comments on an email list that purports to be one for those who take an objective, scientific approach to animal behavior. The only difference I see between some of the biased, non objective, and ill informed statements I have read on this list, and the anti- e-collar rhetoric one can sometimes read on generic dog breed lists, is the level of the vocabulary and the alphabet soup after the posters' names. Scientific objectivity appears to be sadly lacking here at times. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 11-AUG-2003 23:02:13.25 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! The fact that you are tired of hearing these, or any other, comments does not excuse addressing either individuals or members in general in such an arrogant and dismissive manner. I have never been an 'electrician guy' - but I believe even if I had I would still find an unnecessarily adversarial attitude and lack of manners out of place. Letting loose with a sharp tongue and unpleasant manner then apologising after the event merely betrays a lack of self control and consideration or respect for other members. Please spare me both your apology and your unwarranted sharpness - and moderate your postings in keeping with list protocol. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2003 3:15 p.m. To: wheep@igrin.co.nz; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Sorry if I bit. Just tired of hearing those inapplicable criticisms. Last year there was actually a court case between Innotek (static collar company)and the RSPCA in Australia. The RSPCA could not have a win legally against static collars so went to the press and made blatently false derogatory comments to the effect that static collars can send a dog flying through the air, cause a dog to do back flips, and cause burns. Innotek took them to court and won damages. The RSPCAs claims were considered false and fanciful by the supreme court. Now the RSPCA say nothing but continue to have an anti-static collar policy, but for no reason that they can say publicly. Collar critics in Australia continue to use rhetoric to attack static collars while promoting citronella. Go figure! Have you seen the MSDA sheet for citronella??? I believe the SPCA of New Zealand have a more balanced policy regarding static collars, as do various other states of Australia. Bloody politics. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consultant Australia -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:42 AM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! I am so sorry to have irritated you. And so thankful that you were able to respond politely! I wrote a rather loose anecdote - not as a statement of scientific fact nor as a result of lengthy research - more as a little seed idea as part of ongoing discussion - nor was it critical if you would read it over - careful use of 'if'. If we can't do this on this list without replies that belie a rather spiteful and unpleasant readiness to insult or belittle then things have clearly changed since you joined. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Geiger [mailto:gooddog@dodo.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2003 10:15 a.m. To: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Dear All, static pulse collars do not deliver electric shocks. I thought folks of your academic stature should be capable of getting that right. To go on and on about collars delivering electric shocks is rhetorical and grossly inaccurate, and importantly different. We are not talking about the same thing. The guy working as an electrician should at least be aware of the world of difference between an electric shock which passes right through the body to seek earth somewhere, and a static charge which does not. Cattle electric fences for example operate by an electric shock and their output is some 3,000 times that of a static pulse collar. Bark triggered static pulse collars are extremely well tolerated long term causing no long term drop in posture of stress or pain. They are simply mildly unpleasant like any other style of bark control collar except the static collar is more generically unpleasant hence more effective in my experience. The dog quickly works out that the unpleasant nibbling on their neck is associated with barking, so when the collar goes on they find something else to do. It is important to provide them with an alternate activity and plenty of exercise, and treat concurrent conditions. It can not do any damage to any dog as it sends .0018 joules (on high) across 1-2 cms of skin. It is innocuous but generically unpleasant. Please, if you must criticize the static pulse collars, go ahead, but make meaningful criticism. Much of your criticism is rather fanciful. Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting AUSTRALIA -----Original Message----- From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:39 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: shock collar Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I had thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of repeat electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some years ago. Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but not enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running 'jumper cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple of times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I would best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded 'hunched' shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt that there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. How much worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or the cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have been a much greater impact. If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other animals then there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in general use. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: shock collar Dear all, Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock collars A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by Applied Anim. Behav. Sci. In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and stress-related behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions when no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to associate being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who view themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to the dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. regards, Matthijs dr M.B.H. Schilder Utrecht University WCDM Yalelaan 17 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands tel +31 30 2534784 fax +31 30 2539227 From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 11-AUG-2003 23:02:46.52 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / Laura Sanborn I don't think that the statements I have read are necessary all biased, unobjective and illformed; and, not scientific. Training a dog to go through the schutzhund championship trials is indeed a different task than forming a relationship with that dog, from what you say. If the owner buys a dog to put it through a trial, they aren't looking for a relationship with that dog. I would challenge you, Laura, to post references that ecollar use on dogs develops a relationship, trust, intimacy with the family dog rather than a pet that does what you want it to. I guess that it is what you want out of a dog or not that makes it depend if you use a static / electronic collar for control. Some families with pet dogs are simply satisfied with a pet that does what it is told. It is sad that so many dogs live like that, it seems from the list that it is something that dog trainers live with every day - hard choices between automatic obedience or euthanasia. I was criticized for noticing that ecollar use can be used to promote aggression and noticing that ecollars are used for police dog training. I understand that the collars are used for control, now; and, that I know nothing about police dog training. But, I also know human beings - we all do. If they need a more aggressive dog and it is wearing a device to encourage it to attack, I think that chances are good that someone somewhere in police dog training is quietly going to use it that way. Heather From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 12-AUG-2003 00:24:33.50 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Terms and Phrases In what way is it a distortion? Please explain. Mr. Ancheta espouses the use of shock collars for basic training on his website and the collar manufacturers also promote the use of the devices in a broad range of situations in which non-aversive training would be an alternative. I am merely responding to the 'broad brush strokes' of those in favour of shock collars who can apparently not accept that there are any situations in which they might be harmful or unacceptable despite evidence to the contrary. Jon On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 01:55 pm, margory cohen wrote: > Jon Bowen: > >> The reason why I am putting this point forward is that there are >> people >> on the list who want these devices available to everyone [Tony et al]. >> In the sales literature the collars are marketed for the training of >> ALL dogs. People like Tony advocate using shock collars in >> conventional >> training settings as part of their primary means of training. > > margory cohen: > > Jon, I think this is a broad distortion of some of the discussion > here. I > realize that your position on these collars is very determined, even > as to > an acknowledgement as to type, but that still in no way is made more > readable by such broad strokes. > -margory cohen > San Francisco > > From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 12-AUG-2003 00:44:52.80 To: CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! The e-collars of which you are so beloved are SHOCK devices. A current passes through a part of the body, which is a shock. No earthing is required. Earthing is merely a method of completing an electrical circuit anyway, and by your definition what happens if someone completes a circuit to that begins with an electrode attached to the foot and earthed directly through that part of the body. The circuit is localised but earthed. How much of the body has to be included 'in-circuit' for this to become a shock!!!!!?????? This differentiation between shock and 'e-' collars is utter nonsense. I asked before whether there was any documentary evidence for it and got nothing. That is because there is none. The term shock collar is widely used to describe the equipment you want to call an e-collar, so please just accept this and move on. To equate the shock from a shock collar with static electricity is utterly wrong. The shock for a shock collar is much more powerful and of longer duration. Jon On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 11:15 pm, Geiger wrote: > Dear All, static pulse collars do not deliver electric shocks. I > thought > folks of your academic stature should be capable of getting that right. > To go on and on about collars delivering electric shocks is rhetorical > and grossly inaccurate, and importantly different. We are not talking > about the same thing. The guy working as an electrician should at least > be aware of the world of difference between an electric shock which > passes right through the body to seek earth somewhere, and a static > charge which does not. Cattle electric fences for example operate by an > electric shock and their output is some 3,000 times that of a static > pulse collar. Bark triggered static pulse collars are extremely well > tolerated long term causing no long term drop in posture of stress or > pain. They are simply mildly unpleasant like any other style of bark > control collar except the static collar is more generically unpleasant > hence more effective in my experience. The dog quickly works out that > the unpleasant nibbling on their neck is associated with barking, so > when the collar goes on they find something else to do. It is important > to provide them with an alternate activity and plenty of exercise, and > treat concurrent conditions. It can not do any damage to any dog as it > sends .0018 joules (on high) across 1-2 cms of skin. It is innocuous > but > generically unpleasant. Please, if you must criticize the static pulse > collars, go ahead, but make meaningful criticism. Much of your > criticism > is rather fanciful. > Jackie Perkins > GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting > AUSTRALIA > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Beck [mailto:wheep@igrin.co.nz] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:39 PM > To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: RE: shock collar > > Hi Matthjis - thank you for notice of this work. It confirms what I had > thought would be the case following direct personal experiences of > repeat > electric shocks while working in the telecommunications industry some > years > ago. > Telephone exchange voltages are fairly low, 50v DC with 75v DC with AC > ripple ringing signal - strong enough to deliver a little 'bite' but > not > enough to leave a mark or do any real harm. Typically while running > 'jumper > cables' on the old type of main frames you might get a shock a couple > of > times per hour - and after a while I was aware of developing what I > would > best describe as a 'cringe' effect - lowered posture, rounded 'hunched' > shoulders and a light sweat each time I did main frame work. I recall > finding the cumulative effect quite unpleasant - and have no doubt that > there was an element of psychological trauma - even if only slight. How > much > worse it might have been if I had not understood what was happening or > the > cause I have no idea - but intuitively my guess is there would have > been > a > much greater impact. > > If there is evidence suggesting that this affects dogs or other animals > then > there is no doubt in my mind that these devices should not be in > general > use. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthijs Schilder [mailto:M.Schilder@las.vet.uu.nl] > Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:10 p.m. > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: shock collar > > Dear all, > > Quickly some data that bear on the discussion on the use of shock > collars > > A paper by myself and Joanne van der Borg on behavioural effects of > the > use > of a shock collar during police dog training will be published by > Applied > Anim. Behav. Sci. > In short, dogs react with lowering of the posture and with several > stress-related and also pain-related behaviours when being shocked. > Experienced dogs show also more often a lower posture and > stress-related > behaviours than dogs that were never shocked during training sessions > when > no shock was applied. Even stronger, experienced dogs showed a lower > posture and more stress-related behaviours when being walked by the > handler in a unknown park, meaning that the dog has learned to > associate > being walked or excersized by the owner with the reception of shocks. > This all means that the use of the shock collar ( even by people who > view > themselves as experienced) is likely to be harmful with respect to > the > > dog's welfare, even when applied by "experienced" dog handlers. > > regards, Matthijs > > dr M.B.H. Schilder > Utrecht University > WCDM > Yalelaan 17 > 3584CZ Utrecht, the Netherlands > tel +31 30 2534784 > fax +31 30 2539227 > > > > From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 12-AUG-2003 00:48:29.90 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar I might warn those of you, who like to have more scientific approach to th= e issue - the following is known to be driven emotional - please you might s= kip this one. As Laura wrote, beside our more theoretical discussion, the ecollar is use= d as a routine training tool for guarding and hunting dogs. Biggest advantag= e of the ecollar is to be used as an remote controll for the dog - people look = like remote toy car playing with their radio devices at hand while looking what= their dogs are doing in the field! call "more right" - dog goes left - "st= imulate" at level 4 - dog stops - call "more right" - it goes forward - "stimulate = level 4" - dog stops - call "back" - dog frownes - stim L 4 - dog dont move - call "b= ack" once more - if not move - stim level 6 - hand sign "back" - dog moves towards trainer - call "stop" - dog stops - praise dog - call " more right= " - dog moves right - praise dog ....... These are the training sequences i have seen several times at the GSD- police & guard dog training area, which is located 1500 m from my home and= which i pass allmost twice a day. And what is really upsetting - they want their dogs to be as fast in follo= wing any of their commands - its really not partnership but remote control for= hurrying obedience. Only limit is to not overturn the dogs "prey and aggressive instincts" because else it will fail at guard exams .... I know i should be less romantic about human-animal-relation - should i. Andreas Date sent: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:43:38 -0700 From: Laura Sanborn Subject: Re: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar To: Applied ethology > At 08:09 AM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: > > >Forgive my naivety of dog training practices, but does the paragraph be= low > >indicate > >that people are using these collars routinely to train dogs for trials,= > >i.e. NOT as > >a last-ditch effort for the elimination of aggressive behaviours, > >inappropriate > >behaviours, etc. > > Yes, many dog trainers, both in the advanced protection dog sports and i= n > protection work (e.g. police work) routinely incorporate e-collars into > their training regimen. Many police dogs routinely wear e-collars when > working. Correctly used, e-collars can be extremely effective. I > understand that e-collars are commonly used among many sporting and hunt= ing > dog trainers, but I have no experience with this. > > My impression of e-collars is that in the hands of a very good dog train= er, > they can be one of the more versatile training tools in > existence. Certainly they are not confined in actual application to "la= st > ditch efforts". People like myself who are not so experienced as dog > trainers often confine e-collars to a much narrower range of application= s. > > Laura Sanborn > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Beha= viour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments= !) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 12-AUG-2003 00:56:20.48 To: CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: electronic collars Having explained the situation with the dog case I saw involving shock collars I am still waiting for comment from Mr. Ancheta, who said in an email recently that he could not see how an 'e-collar' could cause a problem. Likewise I would appreciate a comment from the person who demanded that I send in the story. Jon From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 12-AUG-2003 01:48:50.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework/ Jon's reply and Jackie's criticism YES, I have experienced "static charge" from different tens and cervical (neck) spinal stimulators. It was not a "shock" that required a charge to make a ground with the earth, as in a lightening strike or contact with a live electrical wire by mistake as Jackie described. But I have felt the charge at a level that completely froze all my muscles except speech. I am quite aware of what this is like. It also, even at a low low charge, affects heart beat. Jackie, surely working at a Vet clinic, you know that all nerves conduct via electrical currents and that this collar and my tens/spinalstim. work by sending a stronger signal to the nerves than the dog/me would send ourselves? In other words, it is not something a dog in its evolution would naturally have adapted to in any sense -- this outside source of "shock". So, I would say, besides the person below who worked with telephone wires and got random shocks, I may have the most "first-hand" experience of what those dogs experience. ONLY *I* had control over it. Most of the time. I could turn it off. It did not run my life. I do not consider it "fanciful" to compare my experience with that of a dog experiencing the tingling and such of an electric collar, especially since the dog collar directs it to a sensitive portion of the neck (actually for human TENS you aren't allowed to attach the contacts to the sides or front of your neck -- considered too dangerous). The collar is a tool, just like the TENS and the spinal stimulator were -- sure. BUT it is not the best tool. It has drawbacks in that it is exactly what it is: discomfort from an unnatural source. It can be used in bad ways and in general it is probably not the kindest way to train or control a dog if you want a trusting loving relationship with that dog (the kind where you spend a lot of time with your dog and do activities with your dog). If it is the only way to save a dog from euthanasia, then a trainer should have that option. But I don't think that the manufacturer should encourage anyone to hand over a collar to an owner with simple instructions. The spector of remote controlled dogs is very sad. So, can we drop this thread (unless someone wants to post scientific papers or personal accounts of the use of an electronic collar). Let it be - because I don't think that the folks who like the collar can be persuaded of what harm it might actually be doing or they'd be aware already; and, everyone else is already aware and practicing the appropriate precautions/not using it if possible. From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 02:34:23.26 To: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar Message-ID: Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; CHARSET="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andreas, As one of those who might be considered to have a '...more scientific appro= ach' to=20 this issue, I thought you very eloquently summed up one possible overall im= pression of the ethics of using one of these devices - and certainly one which came = to my=20 mind when realising these devices are used routinely for trials. It reminds= me of a paper published in Nature last year in which researchers have implanted= =20 electrodes in the brains of rats and can use these to direct the movements = of the=20 rat via remote control, e.g. left, right, jump. Cameras can be attached to= the=20 rats and used in searching for victims of earthquakes, etc. Oh, and in cas= e people are wondering, the electrodes are attached to the 'pleasure centre' of the = brain,=20 so the animal is working for pleasure, not to avoid a negative stimulus. W= ould dog trainers consider this an ethical approach? Chris Sherwin On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:48:06 +0100 Andreas Briese wrote: > I might warn those of you, who like to have more scientific approach to t= he=20 > issue - the following is known to be driven emotional - please you might = skip=20 > this one. >=20 > As Laura wrote, beside our more theoretical discussion, the ecollar is us= ed=20 > as a routine training tool for guarding and hunting dogs. Biggest advanta= ge of=20 > the ecollar is to be used as an remote controll for the dog - people look= like=20 > remote toy car playing with their radio devices at hand while looking wha= t=20 > their dogs are doing in the field! call "more right" - dog goes left - "s= timulate"=20 > at level 4 - dog stops - call "more right" - it goes forward - "stimulate= level 4"=20 > -=20 > dog stops - call "back" - dog frownes - stim L 4 - dog dont move - call "= back"=20 > once more - if not move - stim level 6 - hand sign "back" - dog moves=20 > towards trainer - call "stop" - dog stops - praise dog - call " more righ= t" - dog=20 > moves right - praise dog ....... >=20 > These are the training sequences i have seen several times at the GSD-=20 > police & guard dog training area, which is located 1500 m from my home an= d=20 > which i pass allmost twice a day. > And what is really upsetting - they want their dogs to be as fast in foll= owing=20 > any of their commands - its really not partnership but remote control fo= r=20 > hurrying obedience. Only limit is to not overturn the dogs "prey and=20 > aggressive instincts" because else it will fail at guard exams .... >=20 > I know i should be less romantic about human-animal-relation - should i.= =20 >=20 > Andreas >=20 >=20 > Date sent: =09Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:43:38 -0700 > From: =09Laura Sanborn > Subject: =09Re: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar > To: =09Applied ethology >=20 > > At 08:09 AM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: > >=20 > > >Forgive my naivety of dog training practices, but does the paragraph b= elow=20 > > >indicate > > >that people are using these collars routinely to train dogs for trials,=20 > > >i.e. NOT as > > >a last-ditch effort for the elimination of aggressive behaviours,=20 > > >inappropriate > > >behaviours, etc. > >=20 > > Yes, many dog trainers, both in the advanced protection dog sports and = in=20 > > protection work (e.g. police work) routinely incorporate e-collars into= =20 > > their training regimen. Many police dogs routinely wear e-collars when= =20 > > working. Correctly used, e-collars can be extremely effective. I=20 > > understand that e-collars are commonly used among many sporting and hun= ting=20 > > dog trainers, but I have no experience with this. > >=20 > > My impression of e-collars is that in the hands of a very good dog trai= ner,=20 > > they can be one of the more versatile training tools in=20 > > existence. Certainly they are not confined in actual application to "l= ast=20 > > ditch efforts". People like myself who are not so experienced as dog= =20 > > trainers often confine e-collars to a much narrower range of applicatio= ns. > >=20 > > Laura Sanborn=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese >=20 > Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover > Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie > B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover > D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Beh= aviour of=20 > Farm Animals > Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 > Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 > E-Mail:=20 > andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachment= s!) > andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >=20 ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 =20 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 02:44:44.59 To: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "'applied-ethology'" Subj: RE: The Jolly routine Robin, ...actually, these high frequency vocalisations of rats during tickling and mating appear to be precisely the same as the vocalisations given during aggressive interactions. The jury is still out on whether these vocalisations indicate 'pleasure'. Regards, Chris Sherwin On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:23:05 +0100 Robin Walker wrote: > Jaak Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience, Chapter 15 rough-and > Tumble-Play, The Brain Sources of Joy Page 281 Conceptual Background for > the Neural Sources of Ludic Urges. > > Rat pups "chirrup" when tickled, and yes dogs "huff" when you look and > them and jig and huff at them. An I was keeping all this secret in case > the > family had me "Sectioned"! > > Bravely advanced Trisha. > > Robin > (Tourettian to a degee -Had'nt you guessed) > Ludic life is- Ludicrous it 'aint > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Trisha Simonet [mailto:PSimonet@PeTalk.org] > Sent: 11 August 2003 15:31 > To: Jon Bowen > Cc: applied-ethology > Subject: Re: The Jolly routine > > > On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 12:58 AM, Jon Bowen wrote: > > > So I use a play routine to teach dogs to become excited and calm > > [alternating] in response to signals from their owner. In the case of > > > play this involves a slap on the thighs and a mock play bow as well > > as a verbal signal. > > It usually only takes a few minutes to do, and when combined with a > > few other training routines it seems to make the dog more aware of the > > > owner's reaction to events. > > > > I agree that control of resources and interactions is a key element in > > > getting Jolly routines to work. > > > > Jon > > > Jon, > > I have found that if I imitate the forced breathy exhalation that dogs > produce during play (I call it a dog laugh), that I can effectively > interrupt the dog's state, whether it be a shelter dog fearfully > growling at me or an excitable puppy yapping at another dog passing by. > > Once I have the dog's attention, I too go into the mock play bow and > dog smile routine. > > For a recording of the forced breathy exhalation, go to: > > http://www.petalk.org/DogLaughSpect.html > > When conducting the research on vocalization of dogs during play, it > was a happy happenstance to discover that the sound when produced by > humans could elicit a predictable response from dogs - a play response > (either a playbow, a toy grab, or the forced breathy exhalation in > return). This is a discrete and powerful communication signal. One that > > I found was not misinterpreted. > > Trisha > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Patricia Simonet > Cognitive Ethologist & Animal Behavior Specialist > > P.O. Box 19429 > Spokane, WA 99219 > > www.petalk.org > psimonet@petalk.org > > (509) 456-8970 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > - > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 02:52:51.31 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Dear Simon, I wonder if you would please expand on your sentence 'I am not > suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats.' I'm really not sure what you are suggesting here. Should we treat laboratory rats differently to other species? Respectfully yours, Chris Sherwin On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:36 -0300 Simon Gadbois wrote: > Hi Jackie et al, > > This is a great question but I am not sure I have an answer that will > satisfy you. > > First, I am not sure that juvenile wolves or dogs actually "expect" to > be allowed social infractions. I think they are simply not necessarily > "ready" for punishment (certainly not yearling wolves in their first 8 > months or so) nor are they terribly sensitive to it (I am stopping > myself from saying that "they don't get it"; a very subjective comment > but made so many times during direct observations in the field). BUT > dogs are a special case, the result of a long process of domestication > that made them very responsive to human social reinforcement. I am not > suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats. But we > are not completely justified to treat them as wolves either. > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 03:10:23.10 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: electronic collars Dear All, In matters of animal welfare and ethics, the onus of responsibility to indicate acceptability if a novel method of scientific investigation or other procedure to be used upon an animal lies with the proposer of that method. In the absence of such evidence, most people will correctly give the benefit of the doubt to the animal. With respect to this, there are thousands upon thousands of studies using a wide variety of species indicating that electric shocks are highly aversive to animals and can often result in behaviours that highly inappropriate and or maladaptive, e.g. learned helplessness. I have not yet seen reference to any objective, scientific study indicating that these collars are not aversive and that they do not cause pain - please post a reference if it exists. The only scientific reference which has been posted during this discussion indicated that dogs with these collars had experienced something higly aversive and associated these experiences with the owners. But, this study was immediately criticised despite it not having even being published! Yours Chris Sherwin (No letters, no affiliation, not even associated with a training program with an axe to grind) > It's disconcerting to keep reading these sorts of comments on an email list > that purports to be one for those who take an objective, scientific > approach to animal behavior. The only difference I see between some of the > biased, non objective, and ill informed statements I have read on this > list, and the anti- e-collar rhetoric one can sometimes read on generic dog > breed lists, is the level of the vocabulary and the alphabet soup after the > posters' names. Scientific objectivity appears to be sadly lacking here at > times. > > Laura Sanborn > From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 12-AUG-2003 04:57:51.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: Freedom Fence-Serious Mishap I was tortured for a time! I instrument was my car. The punishment was a very unpleasant shock when touching the bodywork. Avoidance was my response. Shouting at my wife to open the "bloody car" was perhaps my displacement behaviour? My wife, who has "good adjustment", opened the car for me whenever I yelled at her. My wife shaped my behaviour by a firm program of "non-reward. She also divined that I was wearing the "wrong" underwear. Cotton pants (shorts to you Rebels) allowed me to "desensitize". In a sensitive subject, that amount of shock is enough. A dog in my care suffered a dreadful experience with a Freedom Collar. The Pointer had learned after a very few trials that approaching any of the estate gateways elicited a warning "click" from the collar box. I was called to the house when the dog destroyed the utility room and most of its contents. The washing machine door was torn off and the seals ripped out. An astonishing amount of damage had been inflected to doors and walls. The dog had been in a frenzy of attempts to escape for an entire night and was found in the morning utterly exhausted, lying in the large sink. I had no experience of the Freedom Fence so asked about the device. My questioning oddly disturbed the owner who was an electrical engineer and owned a business in an area of Cybernetics. I asked whether where might have been noises/sounds off stage/wildlife and so forth. The man was stricken with remorse. He confessed that he had just had a new Central heating boiler installed and yes, it "clicked". The boiler installation was modified. I prepared the client for some serious "post traumatic stress" complications. From that moment, the dog was fine. There was no aversive association with the room or wearing the collar box. The door of the utility room was left open and the dog still went in and slept there. The device was to be switched off or not worn indoors until it was established that nothing else could mimic the critical sound. Robin From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 05:18:56.15 To: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" Subj: RE: Freedom Fence-Serious Mishap No, not a displacement behaviour at all - more of an instruction and was therefore toally relevant to the context. On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:57:47 +0100 Robin Walker wrote: > Shouting at my wife to open the "bloody car" was perhaps my displacement > behaviour? > From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 12-AUG-2003 05:47:06.96 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: ecollars/ecolors I'm not sure I can agree with that - sorry. Francis From: IN%"FourPawsTB@aol.com" 12-AUG-2003 05:52:29.82 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf training technique On 8/11/03 8:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Geiger wrote: >>I really appreciate your input. From the perspective that dogs are permanently juvenile wolves expecting to be allowed social infractions, what is the best way to train them? Perhaps they lack the fundamental hardware to be trained using pack structure theory. Is that what you are saying? What can we draw from your insight? Jackie Perkins GOOD DOG Veterinary Behaviour Consulting AUSTRALIA << As a professional animal trainer who has been lurking on this list for many years, I can add some insight here. I have been friends with Erich Klinghammer at Wolf Park for many years. When I get the oportunity to visit and/or lecture there, I get the opportunity to train and work with several of their wolves. Over the years, I have had the privelege of training wolves from 8 week old pups to geriatric adults. The only method I have been able to get complete cooperation and quick learning of the desired behaviors is target training with a bridge. We have gotten the wolves to not only do "A to B" behaviors, but have been able to get a wolf with a severe back problem and partial hind leg paralysis to do the therapies necessary for increasing mobility and quality of life. Recently, my wife, a veterinarian, showed the staff a technique for blood draws that was less evasive than a front leg or neck draw, and using her advice and some operant training, got a older, blind wold to give up a sample without and physical or chemical restraint at all ( except that the wolf was in a very large enclosure). The wolf cooperated completely. I video taped the event and at slow speed replay, I saw no discomfort signs in the older female. As I work with dogs for my primary income and 14 other species for fun (and some profit), I totally agree with Dr. Simon Gadbois assessment of th neotnic nature of dogs. Anyone that would try some of the techniques some dog trainer use with dogs an any other species, especially a wolf, they would get an intense fear response that could be fatal to the relationship, if not the trainer. In 23 years of working with behavior problems with dogs, I have never needed to use an e collar. -- Ken McCort Four Paws Animal Behavior Services 320 Eastern Road Doylestown, OH 44230 From: IN%"robin@coape.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 12-AUG-2003 06:21:10.40 To: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "'Francis Burton'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: ecollars/ecolors You are too polite! I think it is libelous and action is required at law! Affronted of Worcester -----Original Message----- From: Francis Burton [mailto:F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk] Sent: 12 August 2003 12:47 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: ecollars/ecolors >@font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: >1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; >FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in >0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: >0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT->DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } >A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { > COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; >MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } LI.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: >10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } DIV.MsoPlainText { FONT->SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; >MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } SPAN.EmailStyle17 >{ FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: blue; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT->DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } >style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px >solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> I'm not sure I can agree with that - sorry. Francis From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 12-AUG-2003 06:39:05.74 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Jon wrote: Having explained the situation with the dog case I saw involving shock collars I am still waiting for comment from -->Mr. Ancheta, who said in an email recently that he could not see how an 'e-collar' could cause a problem.<-- Likewise I would appreciate a comment from the person who demanded that I send in the story. Tony asks: What are you talking about, Jon? Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 12-AUG-2003 06:45:19.13 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Hi Chris, No, we should not. But we both know that lab rats are the most "shocked" species of the past century (from operant conditioning research). My point was more that I don't think we should treat dogs (or rats) differently to other species... To other posters: I understand the need for scientific references; I don't add them systematically as I think they make the "discussion" a bit heavy but please do not hesitate to send me requests. Simon Gadbois > Dear Simon, > > I wonder if you would please expand on your sentence 'I am not >> suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats.' I'm >> really not > sure what you are suggesting here. Should we treat laboratory rats > differently > to other species? > > Respectfully yours, > > Chris Sherwin > > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:36 -0300 Simon Gadbois > wrote: > >> Hi Jackie et al, >> >> This is a great question but I am not sure I have an answer that will >> satisfy you. >> >> First, I am not sure that juvenile wolves or dogs actually "expect" to >> be allowed social infractions. I think they are simply not necessarily >> "ready" for punishment (certainly not yearling wolves in their first 8 >> months or so) nor are they terribly sensitive to it (I am stopping >> myself from saying that "they don't get it"; a very subjective comment >> but made so many times during direct observations in the field). BUT >> dogs are a special case, the result of a long process of domestication >> that made them very responsive to human social reinforcement. I am not >> suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats. But we >> are not completely justified to treat them as wolves either. >> > From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 12-AUG-2003 06:52:21.78 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar Andreas Briese: I might warn those of you, who like to have more scientific approach to the issue - the following is known to be driven emotional - please you might skip this one. // These are the training sequences i have seen several times at the GSD- police & guard dog training area, which is located 1500 m from my home and which i pass allmost twice a day. And what is really upsetting - they want their dogs to be as fast in following any of their commands - its really not partnership but remote control for hurrying obedience. Only limit is to not overturn the dogs "prey and aggressive instincts" because else it will fail at guard exams .... I know i should be less romantic about human-animal-relation - should i. margory wrote in: What stands out to me in this is more emotion, the same emotion that comes out in this discussion in the blasts against collar use that are not based on complete and accurate information. I keep returning to the concern that Academy judgment on any method or equipment passing as method for the training of any animals follows a slippery slope, especially in the current politics of The Relationship -- whether it's dog:owner or cow:farm or race horse:slaughterhouse. Francis Burton's had a lot of html text in it, and also I didn't know what post was disagreed with, but I echo that sentiment, to some posts specifically, and to the overall tone that is showing up here in this generally. I also repeat a concern that I think does make this kind of discussion relevant in this forum, because Science influences how we all live and work with the creatures we do. The condescention and >personal< attacks erode away at a chance for a real discussion about some of this stuff. Stuff being a non-scientific personal word for a range of opportunity. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 07:05:16.66 To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" CC: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: : Barking dogs, e-collars, and learning Simon, Thanks for this clarification - I can see now that you were talking about the historical treatment of rats, rather than a proposal to treat them in a lesser way to other animals. I'm glad to hear that you have adopted a non-speciest approach - something I agree with entirely. I too have now stopped adding references systematically, but because this bulletin board was set up for the scientific discussion of ethological topics, I would always be prepared to back-up any statement with peer-reviewed references (please note, I am not suggesting in any way that you would not be). Regards, Chris Sherwin On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:44:56 -0300 Simon Gadbois wrote: > Hi Chris, > No, we should not. But we both know that lab rats are the most > "shocked" species of the past century (from operant conditioning > research). My point was more that I don't think we should treat dogs > (or rats) differently to other species... > To other posters: I understand the need for scientific references; I > don't add them systematically as I think they make the "discussion" a > bit heavy but please do not hesitate to send me requests. > Simon Gadbois > > > > > Dear Simon, > > > > I wonder if you would please expand on your sentence 'I am not > >> suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats.' I'm > >> really not > > sure what you are suggesting here. Should we treat laboratory rats > > differently > > to other species? > > > > Respectfully yours, > > > > Chris Sherwin > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:36 -0300 Simon Gadbois > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Jackie et al, > >> > >> This is a great question but I am not sure I have an answer that will > >> satisfy you. > >> > >> First, I am not sure that juvenile wolves or dogs actually "expect" to > >> be allowed social infractions. I think they are simply not necessarily > >> "ready" for punishment (certainly not yearling wolves in their first 8 > >> months or so) nor are they terribly sensitive to it (I am stopping > >> myself from saying that "they don't get it"; a very subjective comment > >> but made so many times during direct observations in the field). BUT > >> dogs are a special case, the result of a long process of domestication > >> that made them very responsive to human social reinforcement. I am not > >> suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats. But we > >> are not completely justified to treat them as wolves either. > >> > > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 12-AUG-2003 07:14:57.07 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Chris wrote: With respect to this, there are thousands upon thousands of studies using a wide variety of species indicating that electric shocks are highly aversive to animals and can often result in behaviours that highly inappropriate and or maladaptive, e.g. learned helplessness. I have not yet seen reference to any objective, scientific study indicating that these collars are not aversive and that they do not cause pain - please post a reference if it exists. The only scientific reference which has been posted during this discussion indicated that dogs with these collars had experienced something higly aversive and associated these experiences with the owners. But, this study was immediately criticised despite it not having even being published! Tony comments: What you describe above is inappropriate use of the e-collar, Chris. As well, the inappropriate use of the harness, slip collar, halter, etc., can be "highly aversive to animals and can often result in behaviours that highly inappropriate and or maladaptive, e.g. learned helplessness;" IF in the hands of the inexperienced, the frustrated, the abusive ... all are handler faults which have nothing to do with the design of the equipment. You see, that's my problem with Jon's proposal. It does nothing to correct what's wrong with the big picture ... the human. No design change to the equipment can fix that. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"tony@koehlerdogtraining.com" "Tony Ancheta" 12-AUG-2003 07:36:45.90 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf training technique Ken wrote: In 23 years of working with behavior problems with dogs, I have never needed to use an e collar. Tony asks: Tell me, Ken ... You are working a double blind fall 250 yards out and across water. The dog you are training takes the second bird successfully but on the next send out, he sucks back to where the second duck fell. You yell, signal or whistle for a stop and turn (to take direction) but he continues on his merry way to where there is no duck. How will you correct him to recover the first bird downed? Or do you waste the bird? Like you, most of my work is No Batteries Required. Even in the above example I have a solution (NBR), but the fact is ... having the ability to correct the dog before it becomes impractical to (if possible - in the context of the exercise) is beneficial. Tony Ancheta, NBR www.koehlerdogtraining.com Westpoint, California Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 12-AUG-2003 07:52:24.27 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" Subj: More about wolves vs dogs Hi all, (and Jackie, a reference that you may enjoy, the last one) About references, I actually just suggested a few to some of you that e-mailed me: I suggest John Fentress' 1967 paper on taming his first wolf, Lupey. It is a fascinating read. The same year and issue, Woolpy and Ginsburg published a similar paper. They highlight quite well the differences between dogs and wolves. Both are "classic" papers. Fentress, J. C. (1967). Observations on the behavioural development of a hand-reared male timber wolf. American Zoologist, 7, 339-351. Woolpy, J.H. & Ginsburg, B.E. (1967). Wolf socialization: A study of temperament in a wild social species. American Zoologist, 7, 357-363. Both Fentress and Ginsburg contributed to the book "The inevitable bond" edited by Davis and Balfour (1992). A great look at the relationship between researchers and their research subjects. I should mention Mech (1999): this is a first step towards re-conceptualizing the "pack" concept. Mech actually joins the primatologists in suggesting that "families" is a more appropriate concept for the wolf pack. Primatologists have been using the distinction between immediate family units and extended family units for decades. Wolves (as well as dholes and African wild dogs) are typically an extended family unit (breeding unit, progeny and uncles and aunts). Coyotes are more typically an immediate family unit (breeding unit and progeny) although this is arguable here in this East with our wolf-coyote hybrids ("New England Canids" as they are often called) that sometimes form larger groups. Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77, 1196-1203. Simon Gadbois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Simon Gadbois, Ph.D. Behavioural endocrinology and ethology. Canids: wolves, coyotes and red foxes. http://www.Gadbois.org/ On Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003, at 10:03 Canada/Atlantic, Chris Sherwin wrote: > > Simon, > > Thanks for this clarification - I can see now that you were talking > about the > historical treatment of rats, rather than a proposal to treat them in > a lesser way > to other animals. I'm glad to hear that you have adopted a > non-speciest approach - > something I agree with entirely. I too have now stopped adding > references > systematically, but because this bulletin board was set up for the > scientific > discussion of ethological topics, I would always be prepared to > back-up any > statement with peer-reviewed references (please note, I am not > suggesting in any > way that you would not be). > > Regards, > > Chris Sherwin > > > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:44:56 -0300 Simon Gadbois > wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> No, we should not. But we both know that lab rats are the most >> "shocked" species of the past century (from operant conditioning >> research). My point was more that I don't think we should treat dogs >> (or rats) differently to other species... >> To other posters: I understand the need for scientific references; I >> don't add them systematically as I think they make the "discussion" a >> bit heavy but please do not hesitate to send me requests. >> Simon Gadbois >> >> >> >>> Dear Simon, >>> >>> I wonder if you would please expand on your sentence 'I am not >>>> suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats.' I'm >>>> really not >>> sure what you are suggesting here. Should we treat laboratory rats >>> differently >>> to other species? >>> >>> Respectfully yours, >>> >>> Chris Sherwin >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:36 -0300 Simon Gadbois >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jackie et al, >>>> >>>> This is a great question but I am not sure I have an answer that >>>> will >>>> satisfy you. >>>> >>>> First, I am not sure that juvenile wolves or dogs actually "expect" >>>> to >>>> be allowed social infractions. I think they are simply not >>>> necessarily >>>> "ready" for punishment (certainly not yearling wolves in their >>>> first 8 >>>> months or so) nor are they terribly sensitive to it (I am stopping >>>> myself from saying that "they don't get it"; a very subjective >>>> comment >>>> but made so many times during direct observations in the field). BUT >>>> dogs are a special case, the result of a long process of >>>> domestication >>>> that made them very responsive to human social reinforcement. I am >>>> not >>>> suggesting that we are justified to treat them like lab rats. But we >>>> are not completely justified to treat them as wolves either. >>>> >>> >> > > ............................................................. > Dr C.M. Sherwin > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > University of Bristol, > Langford House, > Langford, > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"pinheiro@cca.ufsc.br" "Luiz Carlos Pinheiro Machado Filho" 12-AUG-2003 08:02:10.58 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Wolf training technique Dear all, About the number of msgs we've receiving these days: Did you know that in the South Hemisphere we are not on vacations? Carlos. At 09:36 AM 8/12/2003 -0400, Tony Ancheta wrote: >Ken wrote: >In 23 years of working with behavior problems with dogs, I have never needed >to use an e collar. > >Tony asks: >Tell me, Ken ... >You are working a double blind fall 250 yards out and across water. The dog >you are training takes the second bird successfully but on the next send >out, he sucks back to where the second duck fell. You yell, signal or >whistle for a stop and turn (to take direction) but he continues on his >merry way to where there is no duck. How will you correct him to recover >the first bird downed? Or do you waste the bird? > >Like you, most of my work is No Batteries Required. Even in the above >example I have a solution (NBR), but the >fact is ... having the ability to correct the dog before it becomes >impractical to (if possible - in the context of the exercise) is beneficial. > > >Tony Ancheta, NBR >www.koehlerdogtraining.com >Westpoint, California >Action->Memory->Desire From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 12-AUG-2003 08:10:01.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! At 11:44 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: >To equate the shock from a shock collar with static electricity is utterly >wrong. The shock for a shock collar is much more powerful and of longer >duration. Hmmm... how about a little experimentation e-collar Dogtra 150NCP stim setting ranges 0 through 100, continuously variable put e-collar contacts on my hands Setting Sensation when Nick'd 0 undetectable 2 undetectable 5 undetectable 10 very mild tingle 15 mild tingle 20 tingle 30 irritating but not painful The Nick lasts a fraction of one second. None of these achieved a sensation that I would characterize as a "shock"; they are all much much less than that. I didn't go to any higher settings as I have no need for them. At some setting _considerably_higher_ than 30, it may reach the irritation level of a typical static electricity discharge The settings I have used with my dog to suppress nuisance barking are in the 15-20 range. At this level, the stimulation is no more painful than a light tap on the shoulder. It is less painful than a correction from a flat collar. I don't know what "shock collar" have been using that is creating a "shock" that is "much more powerful and of longer duration" than a static electricity discharge, but either it isn't designed correctly, or it isn't being used correctly, or it is be used on a very hard dog, or you are mistaken. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 12-AUG-2003 08:21:44.23 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar At 12:48 AM Tuesday 8/12/2003, you wrote: >As Laura wrote, beside our more theoretical discussion, the ecollar is used >as a routine training tool for guarding and hunting dogs. Biggest >advantage of >the ecollar is to be used as an remote controll for the dog - people look >like >remote toy car playing with their radio devices at hand while looking what >their dogs are doing in the field! call "more right" - dog goes left - >"stimulate" >at level 4 - dog stops - call "more right" - it goes forward - "stimulate >level 4" - >dog stops - call "back" - dog frownes - stim L 4 - dog dont move - call >"back" >once more - if not move - stim level 6 - hand sign "back" - dog moves >towards trainer - call "stop" - dog stops - praise dog - call " more >right" - dog >moves right - praise dog ....... I have never seen anything "remotely" of the sort of thing you are describing. That does not characterize at all what I described or have seen during police dog training... or have heard described numerous times by my friends and acquittances who are police K9 handlers/trainers... or have read numerous times on email lists where police dog training is described. . Police dog trainers have no need of dogs who move in tiny robotic increments like that. Sadly, the world has not yet entirely rid itself of bad dog training. Your experience is atypical. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 12-AUG-2003 08:24:33.39 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! Message-ID: Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Presumably this was a double-blind trial with adequate controls for temporal and emotional related changes in skin conductance, temporal changes in sensitivity to the stimulus (including circadian), and accounted for inter-individual differences. ....just some thoughts. Chris On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:15:43 -0700 Laura Sanborn wrote: > At 11:44 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: > > >To equate the shock from a shock collar with static electricity is utterly > >wrong. The shock for a shock collar is much more powerful and of longer > >duration. > > Hmmm... how about a little experimentation > > e-collar Dogtra 150NCP > stim setting ranges 0 through 100, continuously variable > put e-collar contacts on my hands > > Setting Sensation when Nick'd > 0 undetectable > 2 undetectable > 5 undetectable > 10 very mild tingle > 15 mild tingle > 20 tingle > 30 irritating but not painful > > The Nick lasts a fraction of one second. None of these achieved a > sensation that I would characterize as a "shock"; they are all much much > less than that. > > I didn't go to any higher settings as I have no need for them. At some > setting _considerably_higher_ than 30, it may reach the irritation level > of a typical static electricity discharge > > The settings I have used with my dog to suppress nuisance barking are in > the 15-20 range. At this level, the stimulation is no more painful than a > light tap on the shoulder. It is less painful than a correction from a > flat collar. > > I don't know what "shock collar" have been using that is creating a "shock" > that is "much more powerful and of longer duration" than a static > electricity discharge, but either it isn't designed correctly, or it isn't > being used correctly, or it is be used on a very hard dog, or you are mistaken. > > Laura Sanborn > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 12-AUG-2003 08:58:22.52 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fancifulcriticisms! <> I became interested in looking at ecollars after hearing report after report about the ecollar working wonderfully with two dog behaviors I would have thought antithetical to use of the ecollar, very aggressive dogs and very submissive/fearful dogs. Dogs who had to be muzzled to be out and were literally at the end of their ropes, yet within a relatively short session with the ecollar the muzzle can be removed. Dogs who are so afraid that they can not function, became friendly and inquisitive, playing with other dogs and greeting people. The results astonished me, and as they sounded too good to be true I was sceptical, till hearing the same story time after time, and from some trainers I knew well, convinced me something is really working there. Follow up indicates this is not a one time thing but that both types of dogs can live out their lives as part of the family, solely due to ecollar training. I am aware of some who feel the correct response is to kill the dogs with aggression and fear issues. It is not entirely clear to me how it is they see killing the dogs as the morally and ethically superior position to using a training tool they dislike. Here is another first hand account: http://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/remote_collar.html From: IN%"vickim@csmd.edu" "Vicki Magnus" 12-AUG-2003 09:04:14.14 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Important - please read!! Re: shock collar <> I will be interested to read how the dogs "associated these experiences with the owners". I would suspect that is the bias of the reporter rather than an objective observation. Vicki Magnus From: IN%"rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk" "R. Rodd" 12-AUG-2003 09:55:47.29 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: reward/punishment How common is it in nature for one animal to "punish" another to enforce some kind of positive activity? I'm thinking of the difference between one animal preventing another one from doing something (e.g. coming too close, taking the first animal's food, not giving up food when threatened etc) and making the second animal do something (e.g. carrying food to the first animal). Off-hand the only examples of the second sort of behaviour I can think of are all in chimpanzees. ---------------------------------------- Rosemary Rodd Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 12-AUG-2003 10:06:02.00 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / Laura Sanborn At 10:02 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: >I don't think that the statements I have read are necessary all biased, >unobjective and illformed; and, not scientific. I concur. I said *some* of them are, not all. >Training a dog to go through the schutzhund championship trials is indeed a >different task than forming a relationship with that dog, from what you say. >If the owner buys a dog to put it through a trial, they aren't looking for a >relationship with that dog. This is true of *some* of them, not all. >I would challenge you, Laura, to post references that ecollar use on dogs >develops a relationship, trust, intimacy with the family dog rather than a >pet that does what you want it to. I have already posted my personal experience with using an e-collar to suppress nuisance barking in a fear aggressive dog. The net result is a dog who no longer terrorizes the neighbors, and is a much happier and less stressed family companion. I don't view expectations that a dog display good manners as being diametrically opposed from "relationship, trust, and intimacy". I instead believe that these things go hand in hand. >I was criticized for noticing that ecollar use can be used to promote >aggression and noticing that ecollars are used for police dog training. I >understand that the collars are used for control, now; and, that I know >nothing about police dog training. But, I also know human beings - we all >do. If they need a more aggressive dog and it is wearing a device to >encourage it to attack, I think that chances are good that someone >somewhere in police dog training is quietly going to use it that way. Then let me try to explain. There was a time, decades ago, when police dog training often consisted of making dogs mean... making them aggressive... by abusing them into feeling that nearly everyone and anyone was a threat. There were no expectations that these dogs could be used for anything except viciously barking at anyone but their handlers, or biting the first person they were let loose on. AFAIK, the last time the US Military trained dogs as described above was during the Vietnam war. The "sentry dogs" patrolled the perimeter of US military camps. The program was discontinued because the sentry dogs injured more of our own troops than those of the adversary. Such is the result if the dog is merely trained to be mean. Police dogs are not trained that way today. I'll allow that such training may exist in isolated instances, but if it is in the USA where I live, it is only a matter of time before the police department that allows such things to go on will face lawsuits. Modern police dogs bite because they possess the genetic drive to fight with a fighting partner. IMO their enjoyment of fighting with an strong adversary is analogous to that which exists in many humans who enjoy participating in rough contact sports against similarly matched adversaries. It is NOT viciousness, or meanness, or a perceived threat, that provides the modern police dog's primary motivation to bite. Therefore, methods that would attempt to increase aggression through abuse would only decrease the dog's primary motivation to do bitework, and would be counterproductive. Because the bite motivation for modern police dogs derives from a positive motivation, they are "clear in the head", trainable, obedient and versatile in ways that police dogs of old could never be. They are also used for tracking, building searches, narcotics detection, explosives detection, etc.... depending on their training. Simple demonstrations of police dogs' versatility that I have seen include this. I was petting and playing with a police dog. The dog was happily playing along, rolling around on the ground for belly scratches. The dog's handler called the dog to her, pointed to a person the dog had never seen before, said one word, and the dog immediately ran to the person and flipped into aggressive barking at that person. With one more word from the dog's handler, the dog immediately ceased barking, returned to the handler's side, and was calm. She then released her dog, and he returned to me and resumed playing. You cannot do things like that with dogs of old who were trained to be mean, because they could not turn on and off so easily and quickly owing to their high stress levels, and they were nowhere near as well trained. Police dogs today are often treasured family companions when off work. Here's a picture of a K9 handler and his police dog, after returning home from a long night shift. http://internet.ggu.edu/~adaugher/playtime/napping.jpg In many cases, the close bond that is formed between K9 handler and his police dog partner goes well beyond that which nearly all pets and their pet owners achieve. And yet, many of these police dogs (including the dog in the photo) were trained in part with the aid of e-collars. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 12-AUG-2003 10:14:54.72 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! At 07:22 AM Tuesday 8/12/2003, you wrote: >Presumably this was a double-blind trial with adequate controls for >temporal and >emotional related changes in skin conductance, temporal changes in >sensitivity to >the stimulus (including circadian), and accounted for inter-individual >differences. >....just some thoughts. Not really. But it involves more objectivity, relevance, and actual data on the proper application of e-collars than has most of anti- e-collar rhetoric posted here of late. :-) Laura Sanborn From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 12-AUG-2003 10:42:41.89 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: K9 training http://k9center.policek9.com/html/trainers_digest.html This site has some in depth articles on k9 training. From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 12-AUG-2003 10:42:42.83 To: IN%"santa@kersur.net" "Gwenyth Santagate", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: reward/punishment A program on tigers showed a female's distress when a cub didn't come when she called it. I think she tracked it and swatted it on the way back to the den. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gwenyth Santagate" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:48 AM Subject: RE: reward/punishment > What about Mama lions, tigers, etc. who give their young'uns a good swat for > "misbehavin' " ??? *G* > > *S* Gwen > > Gwenyth Browning Jones Santagate > MA LIC Instructor; NHP, PPT,Equine Behavioral Specialist > PENZANCE (c) 1997-2003 > http://www.thepenzancehorse.com > http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/natural_horsemanship > > -----Original Message----- > From: R. Rodd [mailto:rr25@cus.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 11:56 AM > To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca > Subject: reward/punishment > > > How common is it in nature for one animal to "punish" another to enforce > some kind of positive activity? I'm thinking of the difference between one > animal preventing another one from doing something (e.g. coming too close, > taking the first animal's food, not giving up food when threatened etc) > and making the second animal do something (e.g. carrying food to the first > animal). Off-hand the only examples of the second sort of behaviour I can > think of are all in chimpanzees. > > ---------------------------------------- > Rosemary Rodd > Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre > Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA 01223 335029 > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 12-AUG-2003 12:09:56.96 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Laura's reply to Chris: do we have any physiological studies over a population? Laura, you should not be putting the collar contacts on your hands to get an idea of how it feels - a closer idea would be to put them on your wrist right above the carpal tunnel nerve bundle. Still, that has no comparison with having such a contact on your neck. I would not advise that. Humans are NEVER advised to put electrical contacts over their throats on the sides or front. I have had a Tens unit's contacts close to the sides and it becomes much more nasty than when situated over the muscles in the back of the neck OR near the carpal tunnel. Nothing like having it on your hands. I am a bit worried when trainers don't realize that the effect/change/sensation of electrical pulses can change drastically with the movement of those contacts -- even an inch can change the effect dramatically, depending on if the contacts come closer to a nerve, blood vessel or muscle bundle. Has Anyone anywhere taken physiological response measurements of a statistical sample of dogs' responses to the various stim. levels of ecollar to document the variability over population/breeds?? controlling for proper fit and contact of the ecollar. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Sherwin" > Presumably this was a double-blind trial with adequate controls for temporal and > emotional related changes in skin conductance, temporal changes in sensitivity to > the stimulus (including circadian), and accounted for inter-individual differences. > ....just some thoughts. > > Chris > > > >To equate the shock from a shock collar with static electricity is utterly > > >wrong. The shock for a shock collar is much more powerful and of longer > > >duration. > > > > Hmmm... how about a little experimentation > > > > e-collar Dogtra 150NCP > > stim setting ranges 0 through 100, continuously variable > > put e-collar contacts on my hands > > > > Setting Sensation when Nick'd > > 0 undetectable > > 2 undetectable > > 5 undetectable > > 10 very mild tingle > > 15 mild tingle > > 20 tingle > > 30 irritating but not painful > > > > The Nick lasts a fraction of one second. None of these achieved a > > sensation that I would characterize as a "shock"; they are all much much > > less than that. > > > > I didn't go to any higher settings as I have no need for them. At some > > setting _considerably_higher_ than 30, it may reach the irritation level > > of a typical static electricity discharge > > > > The settings I have used with my dog to suppress nuisance barking are in > > the 15-20 range. At this level, the stimulation is no more painful than a > > light tap on the shoulder. It is less painful than a correction from a > > flat collar. > > > > I don't know what "shock collar" have been using that is creating a "shock" > > that is "much more powerful and of longer duration" than a static > > electricity discharge, but either it isn't designed correctly, or it isn't > > being used correctly, or it is be used on a very hard dog, or you are mistaken. > > > > Laura Sanborn > > > > ............................................................. > Dr C.M. Sherwin > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > University of Bristol, > Langford House, > Langford, > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > > From: IN%"FourPawsTB@aol.com" 12-AUG-2003 12:13:56.91 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: >>Tony asks: Tell me, Ken ... You are working a double blind fall 250 yards out and across water.  The dog you are training takes the second bird successfully but on the next send out, he sucks back to where the second duck fell.  You yell, signal or whistle for a stop and turn (to take direction) but he continues on his merry way to where there is no duck.  How will you correct him to recover the first bird downed?  Or do you waste the bird?<< As a vegetarian, I would teach the duck to fear hunters! I don't train dogs to help hunters, I work with dogs that bite, soil the house, run away, jump on people, and make their keepers lives unhappy. -- Ken McCort Four Paws Animal Behavior Services 320 Eastern Road Doylestown, OH 44230 From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 12-AUG-2003 16:12:36.96 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Laura's reply to Chris: do we have any physiological studies over a population? At 11:09 AM Tuesday 8/12/2003, you wrote: >Laura, >you should not be putting the collar contacts on your hands to get an idea >of how it feels - a closer idea would be to put them on your wrist right >above the carpal tunnel nerve bundle. I tried that as well. For the most part, I didn't notice a significant difference compared to the palm of the hand. The tips of the fingers seem less sensitive... which surprises me. > Still, that has no comparison with >having such a contact on your neck. I would not advise that. I tried it on my neck before reading your warning. The sensation seemed much the same as the palm of the hand. >I am a bit worried when trainers don't realize that the >effect/change/sensation of electrical pulses can change drastically with the >movement of those contacts -- even an inch can change the effect >dramatically, depending on if the contacts come closer to a nerve, blood >vessel or muscle bundle. Yes, I've moved the thing around quite a bit and tried it that way. There was one particular spot I briefly found that seemed to strike a nerve and exaggerate the effect. Still, it was very very far from being "painful". Actually, I did a lot of this "testing" some time ago, before ever putting it on a dog. >Has Anyone anywhere taken physiological response measurements of a >statistical sample of dogs' responses to the various stim. levels of ecollar >to document the variability over population/breeds?? controlling for proper >fit and contact of the ecollar. I'm not aware of formal studies of this sort, but have certainly witnessed large variations in sensitivity between individual adult dogs of the same breed, GSDs. I've been told that some breeds (e.g. retrievers) generally tend to be harder than GSDs, with less sensitive necks, but I have no experience with this. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 12-AUG-2003 20:43:20.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear all, Within the seemingly endless dog-training debate that is currently raging, there has arisen a rather interesting (to me anyway) issue, that might be of relevance to subscribers concerned with animal welfare and ethics. It is this: several contributors have implied or stated that it is preferable to employ a number of rather extreme-sounding behaviour modification methods (e collars, debarking etc) in a situation where, due to the unwanted and antisocial behaviour of the dog in question, the only alternative is to put it down. As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed, is not a welfare issue. It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in question in the least. It is instead a moral and ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' method to control behaviour, be it mildly irritating or intensely painful, does compromise welfare however. What do others think? BTW, I should point out that I really, really am not interested in hearing anything about how e collars / shock collars / whatever either are or are not or may be painful / irritating / whatever in response to this question. I'm simply not that interested. Best wishes, - Moira Harris B.Sc. (Hons), Psychology M.Sc., Animal Behaviour / Welfare Ph.D., Animal Behaviour / Welfare Extensive experience in controlling the behaviour of pigs and children by a variety of means. ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 12-AUG-2003 20:55:55.94 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions This group is suffering a lot of unsubscriptions. I think the main reason is that there is no digest option on the server and many people including me hate getting bombarded by dozens of messages a day. If we move this group to yahoo, people can set their subscriptions to only send them single digests reducing the mail to at most one a day. I think everyone will be happier. From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 12-AUG-2003 21:14:04.88 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Moira Harris: > As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving no > unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part > of the animal being killed, is not a welfare issue. > It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in > question in the least. It is instead a moral and > ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' > method to control behaviour, be it mildly irritating > or intensely painful, does compromise welfare however. margory cohen: Reading yours, I have to say it: It occurs to me that this is where "better dead than trained" comes from. That a "humane" death is morally higher than a fair correction. How can putting to death for instance a dog NOT be a "welfare issue"? -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"johnwade@ethological.com" "John Wade" 12-AUG-2003 21:23:59.39 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions =93. . . I think the main reason is that there is no digest option on = the server . . . If we move this group . . .=94 =20 Think again. Move the discussion, leave the group alone. Moreover, who the heck is =93we=94? =20 Regards, =20 John Wade Canine Behaviourist johnwade@ethological.com http://www.ethological.com =20 6-113 Elmwood Avenue East London, Ontario CANADA N6C 1J4 519-871-0113 ------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately.=20 Ce courrier =E9lectronique est confidentiel et prot=E9g=E9. = L'exp=E9diteur ne renonce pas aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s) d=E9sign=E9(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier =E9lectronique = par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser imm=E9diatement, par retour de courrier =E9lectronique ou par un autre moyen. -----Original Message----- From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com]=20 Sent: August 12, 2003 10:56 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions =20 This group is suffering a lot of unsubscriptions. I think the main reason is that there is no digest option on the server and many people including me hate getting bombarded by dozens of messages a day. If we move this group to yahoo, people can set their subscriptions to only send them single digests reducing the mail to at most one a day. I think everyone will be happier. From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" "Bill Campbell" 12-AUG-2003 21:27:03.28 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Laura's reply to Chris: do we have any physiological studies overa population? Hi Laura, If you have access to EEG equipment, an interesting effect has been referred to somewhere in the literature regarding the uniqueness of an electrical stimulus VS any other stimulus on the skin. From my recollection, a tactile stimulus (pin prick) to the neck elicits a discreet sensory spike in the area of the cerebral cortex associated with that dermal area. When an electrical stimulus is applied to the same area, all areas show a response. The rationale for this effect is explained in "Memory Traces in the Brain" Daniel L. Alkon, M.D., Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp 36-37. It's worth a read. The Russian literature has studies involving electric shock and cns activities. However, I don't read Russian, but perhaps you have someone in the field who could take a look at a couple: Analysis of Functional Organisation of Avoidance Reactions, R.L. Gasanova, Lab. of Conditioned Reflexes, Inst. of Higher nervous activity and Neurophysiology, Russian Academy of sciences, Moscow, 1967. Cholinergic Mechanism of the Emotional Reaction of Fear, IL'Yuchenck, R. Yu/Eliseeva, A.G. Inst. of Cytology and Genetics, Novosibirsk, Russia Another I can't find, but did read years ago, was an experiment about visual form discrimination with some bright students at a university in Michigan or Wisconsin. Placed in a dark room with a screen in front of them, each was asked to identify the shape which would flash on the screen, immediately after which an electric shock was applied to the forearm. As I recall, one shape was a circle and the other a rectangle. The students nearly all failed to identify the correct form. However, the most dramatic example I recall was one involving myself. My neighbor had failed to cure his German Short Haired pointer from jumping his gate to fight with passing dogs or chase away the coyotes who weekly raided our street's garbage cans. The coyotes lived in the Verdugo Hills above Sun Valley, Calif. Their biological clocks were impeccably accurate, as they signaled their way down onto Wheatland Avenue with superb timing as the garbage truck approached. :-) But, I digress. I asked my neighbor if the collar actually was working properly. he suggested I try it on my neck as a test. He said his instructions stated the shock was "static." He said, like you feel when somebody touches you after they've been shuffling down the aisle at a movie theater. (We used to do this as a prank, until someone lost his front teeth when he surprised a guy who had extreme ADR, active defense reflexes. We stopped after that). So, he strapped it on my throat, saying it had to be tight, like on "Hunter," his dog. Then, he said, "Here's a cigarette. Light it." (I smoked then.) I reached for the lighter in my pocket and he pressed the remote control button. My hand went for my throat, not my pocket. I tried again, he pressed again. I tried to tell him "STOP!" My voice wouldn't function! I whispered, "Please don't do it again. I'm cured." He chuckled and put the control unit down. I unbuckled the the collar and whispered "Can I try it on you?" He shot back, "No way, I already tried it." Besides intense anger at him (whom I really liked before that) I noticed my saliva had turned to what felt likecotton, a condition aptly named stage-fright "cotton mouth" in the performing arts years ago. This is the reason I have since always advised dog owners who ask about using a shock collar on their dogs, "First, strap one on your neck, then get someone to stop you from doing something you really *want* to do. Then, let me know what you decided. "I've never had a lay dog owner call back to tell me they used one, but several called to abrade me with obscenities.. :-) Therefore, please forgive me if I make this my only contribution to the shock collar discussion. Too much PTS (post traumatic shock) for me. Kindest regards, Bill Campbell PS: I stopped smoking 20 years after the "treatment," when emphysema provided an aversive stimulus (inability to breath) I understood. :-) -0- Laura Sanborn wrote: > > At 11:09 AM Tuesday 8/12/2003, you wrote: > >Laura, > >you should not be putting the collar contacts on your hands to get an idea > >of how it feels - a closer idea would be to put them on your wrist right > >above the carpal tunnel nerve bundle. > > I tried that as well. For the most part, I didn't notice a significant > difference compared to the palm of the hand. The tips of the fingers seem > less sensitive... which surprises me. > > > Still, that has no comparison with > >having such a contact on your neck. I would not advise that. > > I tried it on my neck before reading your warning. The sensation seemed > much the same as the palm of the hand. > > >I am a bit worried when trainers don't realize that the > >effect/change/sensation of electrical pulses can change drastically with the > >movement of those contacts -- even an inch can change the effect > >dramatically, depending on if the contacts come closer to a nerve, blood > >vessel or muscle bundle. > > Yes, I've moved the thing around quite a bit and tried it that way. There > was one particular spot I briefly found that seemed to strike a nerve and > exaggerate the effect. Still, it was very very far from being > "painful". Actually, I did a lot of this "testing" some time ago, before > ever putting it on a dog. > > >Has Anyone anywhere taken physiological response measurements of a > >statistical sample of dogs' responses to the various stim. levels of ecollar > >to document the variability over population/breeds?? controlling for proper > >fit and contact of the ecollar. > > I'm not aware of formal studies of this sort, but have certainly witnessed > large variations in sensitivity between individual adult dogs of the same > breed, GSDs. I've been told that some breeds (e.g. retrievers) generally > tend to be harder than GSDs, with less sensitive necks, but I have no > experience with this. > > Laura Sanborn From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:36:19.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list", IN%"gcon49@hotmail.com" CC: IN%"jclavelle@lycos.com" Subj: RE: [Fwd: technical question/animal behaviour] "Joseph M. Stookey" wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > I received the following message from a graduate student in > neuroscience. Some of the mice pups are being killed by the mother > after surgury. I have sent the student a response, but I was only > speculating based on what I know about basic maternal behaviour that > might apply across a variety of mammalian nesting species, but I also > mentioned that someone on this list might have a better answer. If > anyone on the list has some experience in maternal behaviour of mice > perhaps you could provide this student with some insight? You could > send your response directly to the student's e-mail address, and to this > list if you like. > > Thanks, > > Joe > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: technical question/animal behaviour > Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:30:27 +0000 > From: gbbsea wedfaokd > To: joseph.stookey@usask.ca > CC: jclavelle@lycos.com > > Dear Dr. Joseph Stookey: > > I am a graduate student at LSU that is doing a work with mice. the problem > is that i am doing some surgery in cortex (injection of BDA LABELING with > hamilton syringe), then seal the wound with threat and return the pups (P5) > to the cage. > > the situation is that after many hours or days, some animals are killed. I > found mutilation. I am a neuroscientist (bach in Psychology) not > ethologist, but I think it could be a protective response of the mother > (Euthanasia??) for protect the pups of extremely pain. I did the surgery > and the procedures under normal conditions. > > I would appreciate if you could give me an explanation to that behaviour of > Killer, or if you can refer me to a person expert in mice. I am not > ethologist. If there is any solution to this, I would appreciate, because > the loose of animals represent less sample to my research I am not a "mouse expert" but did maintain for several years colonies of laboratory mice (primarily as snake food, but also with some interest in their genetics) and noted that it is rather common for female mice to kill, and usually also eat, any of their pups which is in any way abnormal, but especially ones that have any kind of injury. I think they begin by trying to clean the pup and if there is a wound will try to clean that off too, resulting in still further trauma and eventually the death of the pup. If you are closing the surgical wound with "thread" then that is a foreign object which the mother will certainly try to remove as part of her normal behavior of cleaning the pups. Biting on the thread will open the wound and quite likely she will continue to gnaw until she has killed and even partially eaten the pup. If the other pups are a bit older they will then finish the job and all you will find is a piece of skin. You might try closing the wound with tissue compatible cyanoacrylate adhesive instead of with thread. That would still be a foreign object but might be less conspicuous and elicit a less vigorous cleaning response than the thread. I think also that anything you could do to minimize foreign odors at the wound site might be helpful. There are also suturing techniques in which the sutures are entirely hidden below the skin surface, but applying those to something as small as a mouse pup might be a bit problematic. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:36:41.55 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Chris Sherwin wrote: > > CeAnn, > > Historically, this bulletin board was set up to be used as a communication forum > on the science of applied animal behaviour, hence it is called the 'applied > ethology network'. Ethologists have gone to great pains to carefully define > behaviours, phrases, etc. relating to their professional scientific research. On > several occasions in the discussion of 'e-collars/shock collars', 'punishment', > 'aversion learning' over the last few days, ethological terminology has been > incorrectly used in a way to apparently validate personal hypotheses, ideas, > perhaps even peoples' business interests. The misuse of such scientific terminology > leads to misinformation and generates confusion, rather than clarifying ideas or > hypotheses. So, my message was intended to suggest that if this discussion is to > remain in the realms of scientific discourse, we should attempt to be clear in our > use of terminology. I completely agree. In this particular case however I think we are looking at two different meanings of "displacement" - one current in ethology, the other in psychology - and a confusion between them. I am astounded and a bit appalled at the extent to which ideology and emotion has colored some of the postings on this theme ... it is IMO not only ethological terminology which has been abused here. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:37:14.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction heather mcmurray wrote: > Theoretically because breeds are not species you could over time get the > same breed of dog BACK after its "extinction". It is not gone/vanished just > because that dog is no longer being bred. It is not as easy to get a > passenger pigeon back as the creation of a species involves a great deal > more evolutionary time and mutations/characteristics not usually present in > the genome of closely related species. That's why species can't interbreed > viable offspring whereas dog breeds can. Hybrid sterility is neither a necessary consequence nor a valid criterion of species distinctness. It is more in the nature of an incidental result of increasing genetic divergence AFTER species separation has already taken place. That has been known for more than 50 years (anyway, I have known it for that long) but seems not yet to have penetrated the popular consciousness, nor indeed that of many animal breeders or even biologists who have not made a careful study of evolution. It is however genetically naive to think that re-creating an extinct dog breed would be easy, or even possible. Evolution, even below the species level, is a one-way, time-bound process in which you cannot recover the past. Not, anyway, until we are in a position to synthesize a complete genome ... and given the complexity of "epigenetics" even that might not be sufficient. Also, of course, a breed is a population of many genetically differing individuals, so you would have to synthesize not one but many genomes ... John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:37:59.18 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars heather mcmurray wrote: > > -- the water bottle does not involve PAIN. Rabbits dislike being wet > (although many can and like to swim) but water doesn't hurt them. > Electrical shock of any intensity, heat, the pulling of ears or any part of > the body, the holding of a rabbit by the scruff of its neck (sorry folks, I > know that many are trained to hold commercial rabbits this way) or its legs > upside down, some noises, substances/things in their eyes, bites -- these > are painful to a rabbit. They don't forget these things and if you adopt a > rabbit who has experienced them, it takes years for the rabbit to > trust/forget. > > The quadrant you are referring to is a MODEL or THEORY. Maybe it isn't > exactly the best one for house rabbits who live for over ten years and > interact closely with people. This raises the not uninteresting question of how rabbits manage their own social interactions. Domestic rabbits are all descended from the wild European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) which unlike many other lagomorphs lives in large societies which are, as I understand it, also quite highly structured. The rabbit is thus dog-like in being highly social; but on the other hand it is a "flight species" and not a "pursuit species" which entails I think profoundly different responses to actually or potentially noxious stimuli. I am not a "behaviorist" but AFAIK the "operant conditioning quadrants" are simply a descriptive paradigm ... they do seem to carry a good deal of theoretical baggage but I think the baggage is not an essential or necessary part of the paradigm. Comments? John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:38:29.92 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars/Motivation of behavior ceann lambert wrote: > > Vicky, > Displacement behavior and redirected behavior are two differen t and separate behaviors. I think that both of your examples are redirected behaviors. > Vicky, Here is my understanding of Displacement behavior: it is observed when two drives are in conflict. > Example: A rooster fighting with another who is too fearful to attack but too brave to retreat will peck on the ground as if eating, much as a person will scratch his head when he does not know what to do. Dispacement behavior may also occur when a specific activity is thwarted in some way. > > Redirected behavior: is behavior directed at an animal or object other than the one who triggered the bahvior in the first place, but which is not accessible for some reason. An example is a dog behind a fence trying to get at another, but instead bites the owner who is standing next to him. > Redirected behavior is something that I always have to be aware of when I am in with coyotes. Not that one might redirect on me, but because they know that they can't, they may redirect on to another coyote in the area. Then there could be a big confrontation with injuries. > If I have this wrong, someone please tell me. You have it exactly right. The confusion arises because psychologists use "displacement" in a different sense. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:41:32.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars Vicki Magnus wrote: > > << On another issue, I think Vicky made a reference to 'extinction'. The > domestic dog is a single species so removing a few breeds cannot be > extinction. Selectively breeding for traits ideal for pet ownership > would not be genocide, it would be another phase in the selection of > dogs for their working role. In the western world the domestic dog's > biggest working role is as pet and companion and yet very little effort > is made to adapt dogs to this and we keep trying to fit all sorts of > other working dogs into that role. I certainly don't agree with breed > specific legislation and there are people on this list, such as Rudy, > who have spent a lot of time and effort successfully fighting it. It > isn't fair to lump the two issues together because they are not > related.>> > > Didn't you just relate them in the above paragraph? I doubt you would > find many dog trainers who would tell you that every dog breed is the > best choice for every home; dogs are not fungible. There are > differences among breeds as well as differences between dogs within a > specific breed. "Removing" a few breeds would be the extinction of that > breed, while pigeons remain among us the carrier pigeon is gone and the > term used for that is extinct. Or are you arguing that the species > being "removed" from the earth by man should be an effort that is > supported by ethologists? I agree vehemently with Vicki that dog breeds are not interchangeable, and I am also strongly opposed to the "dumbing down" and denaturation of working dog breeds so as to make them (in an opinion with which I happen to disagree) into "better pets." There are plenty of suitable pet dogs out there for folks who just want an undemanding, unchallenging home companion. It is ignorance, illusion and ego-tripping which leads people to choose unsuitable animals as pets. People want the cachet associated with owning or being seen with X brand of dog ... Borzoi or Bull Terrier or Border Collie or whatever ... and are then perplexed (or worse) when that animal proves to be unsuitable and inconvenient in a small apartment, or develops behavior problems because it hasn't any work to do. Extinction of a breed is not extinction of the species, but on the other hand the loss of a specific gene pool resulting from thousands of years of selection for a specific range of functions is just as irrevocable as a species extinction. The Saluki for example (only because I happen to know something about them) appears to have existed in essentially unchanged form for at least 6000 years, or nearly half the total time span during which (according to Savolainen's latest mtDNA work) dogs have existed. If that gene pool should be lost, it would be effectively impossible to re-create it. You could probably produce something that looked like a Saluki, but it would not have the unique physiological and behavioral features which are what really matters to anyone using the animals for purposes other than decoration or ego extension. In the pigeon analogy, you are thinking of the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), a North American native species whose extinction is almost a synonym for reckless exploitation of a priceless natural resource. They were present in uncountable millions; and only a few decades later the last lonely individual died in the Cincinnati Zoo in, I think, 1911. Anyway the P.P. was a species, not a domestic breed. The Carrier Pigeon is however a domestic breed and AFAIK still in existence. It is a greatly modified, "show only" version of the pigeon breed used to carry messages ... later known as the Homing Pigeon (aka "Homer") which then underwent yet another split between "working" and "non-working" ... the "Homer" is now a show and eating bird, and the message-carrier is now called "Racing Homer" (I used to breed them, long ago ...). All breeds of domestic pigeon, like all breeds of dogs, belong to the same biological species - they are all derived from the Rock Dove (Columba livia) of the Mediterranean and southwestern Asia. Rock Dove populations continue to flourish in the wild. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:42:53.80 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Displacement behavior, etc. Vicki Magnus wrote: > >>> "ceann lambert" 08/07/03 17:39 PM >>> > Do you mean displacement behavior or are you talking about redirected > behavior in this instance? Can you differintiate the differanc for me? > > I was speaking of displacement behavior as redirected aggression. > Generally redirected aggression is when the animal can not reach the > object of his aggression, so directs the aggression toward something or > someone he can reach. The displacement behavior also occurs in another > context, the dog could reach the object of his displeasure but is > inhibited from a bite, so redirects the bite toward someone lower in > status. Case study example, a mother is preparing food, the dog jumps > up to the counter top, the mother pushes the dog down, the dog turns and > bites a child standing in the kitchen. I think the confusion here arises because "displacement" has different meanings in psychology and in ethology. Redirected aggression (or redirected anything else for that matter) is "displacement" behavior in the psychologist's sense, but usually not in the ethologist's (and yes, I do know there are some examples, like Black-Headed Gulls attacking grass tufts instead of one another, which may fit both usages ). A more typical "displacement" behavior, in the ethologist's sense, is something functionally unrelated to the context in which it occurs, such as feather preening during a tense, potentially aggressive encounter. Scratching is a common example in dogs. A concise formulation of the ethologist's version of "displacement behavior" (the original term was "displacement activity" or in German "Uebersprungbewegung" which expresses the idea more accurately, "sparking over" has been used in English language literature) might be "the release of tension by performing, often in an exaggerated or demonstrative manner, some activity functionally irrelevant to the context at hand." Such displacement activities often become "ritualized" in evolution, a process which sometimes even results in the development of special structures that make the activity more noticeable. A classical example is the special plume of male Mandarin ducks, a greatly enlarged feather which exaggerates the visual effectiveness of a ritualized displacement feather-preening movement which occurs, in species specific form, in the stereotyped courtship movement sequences of most ducks. The psychologist is really thinking of "object displacement" meaning the displacement (redirection) of an activity (e.g. aggression) from one "object" to another. The ethologist is thinking of "energy displacement" from one activity to a different, usually functionally unrelated one. Both those things occur, but they are rather different, and I think it's important not to confuse them. Both meanings are, however, hallowed by very long usage in the respective disciplines ... John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 12-AUG-2003 21:49:21.02 To: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "Moira Harris", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Moira I'm in total agreement with you; euthanasia is not a welfare issue, but an ethical one. The use of painful and/or aversive procedures is a welfare issue - and an ethical one. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: Moira Harris [mailto:moiraharris@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 12:43 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear all, Within the seemingly endless dog-training debate that is currently raging, there has arisen a rather interesting (to me anyway) issue, that might be of relevance to subscribers concerned with animal welfare and ethics. It is this: several contributors have implied or stated that it is preferable to employ a number of rather extreme-sounding behaviour modification methods (e collars, debarking etc) in a situation where, due to the unwanted and antisocial behaviour of the dog in question, the only alternative is to put it down. As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed, is not a welfare issue. It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in question in the least. It is instead a moral and ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' method to control behaviour, be it mildly irritating or intensely painful, does compromise welfare however. What do others think? BTW, I should point out that I really, really am not interested in hearing anything about how e collars / shock collars / whatever either are or are not or may be painful / irritating / whatever in response to this question. I'm simply not that interested. Best wishes, - Moira Harris B.Sc. (Hons), Psychology M.Sc., Animal Behaviour / Welfare Ph.D., Animal Behaviour / Welfare Extensive experience in controlling the behaviour of pigs and children by a variety of means. ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"saluqi@ix.netcom.com" "John Burchard" 12-AUG-2003 21:49:56.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology list" CC: Subj: Stress measurement Amanda Vizedom wrote: > This points quite directly to what is surely among the biggest problems in > animal welfare: the divergence in interpretations of animal responses and what > they mean with respect to the animal's state. IMHO, the difficulty of > establishing which interpretations are (more or less) correct feeds the > proliferation of Grand Theories of dog training, e.g., each based on a grain or > two of insight and heaps of speculation. > > I have read a brief description of research in which methods have been or are > being developed for making progress on this, by: > (a) measuring physiological stress indicators such as cortisol levels, heart > rate, perhaps even brain activity, etc., in animals of a particular kind, and > (b) establishing correlations between such measures and readily observed > behaviors (vocalizations, pacing, lip-licking, what have you) in animals of > that kind -- and thereby giving solid ground for observation-based testing of > the stress caused, or aleviated, by various ways of housing/training/etc. such > animals, and finally > (c) applying this to test, with some comparatively objective basis, claims > about what does or doesn't stresses the animals, and to what degree. Anyone who has participated in competitive sports like tennis, or in activities like hunting, skiing or mountain climbing, must realize after a moment's reflection that physiological parameters such as cortisol levels or heart rate, and even behavioral ones such as lip licking, can have entirely different emotional correlates depending on the situation. A prisoner expecting a beating will show elevated values of those parameters ... and so will a tennis player gearing up for a match point. Thus the status of such things as "objective measures of stress" is IMO more than questionable. "Stress" as measured physiologically can be painful or pleasurable, depending entirely on the context. Most of us spend a good deal of time and effort actively seeking out that kind of stimulation - "pleasurable stress" if you like. Animals are no different. When I take my hounds into the hunting field, I can assure you that their pulse rates go up, along with their cortisol levels. Hunting is what they live for, taking them into the field is perhaps the most compelling reward I can give them (for which reason I can use it to let them self-train themselves into long complex chains of learned behaviors which I find convenient ) and they will pester me literally for days on end to take them out. "Stress" measurement without conceptually adequate analysis of the behavioral and perceptual context is, I submit, worse than meaningless - "worse" because it provides an appearance of objectivity which is unjustified by the facts. John -- John Burchard Tepe Gawra Salukis http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ saluqi@ix.netcom.com From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 12-AUG-2003 22:00:46.90 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Margory With all due respect I wonder if you understand what welfare and euthanasia are all about. Welfare is about experiencing suffering (a continuum of very poor welfare to very good welfare dependent upon the degree of suffering experienced). Thus, euthanasia (which is humane killing - with no/minimal suffering involved) is not a welfare issue. Imposing painful and aversive procedures on animals, which invoke degrees of suffering is a welfare issue. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: margory cohen [mailto:margory@rcn.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 1:15 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Moira Harris: > As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving no > unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part > of the animal being killed, is not a welfare issue. > It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in > question in the least. It is instead a moral and > ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' > method to control behaviour, be it mildly irritating > or intensely painful, does compromise welfare however. margory cohen: Reading yours, I have to say it: It occurs to me that this is where "better dead than trained" comes from. That a "humane" death is morally higher than a fair correction. How can putting to death for instance a dog NOT be a "welfare issue"? -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 12-AUG-2003 22:06:38.09 To: IN%"johnwade@ethological.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions In a message dated 8/12/2003 8:26:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20 johnwade@ethological.com writes: > Think again. Move the discussion, leave the group alone. Moreover, who the= =20 > heck is =E2=80=9Cwe=E2=80=9D? >=20 >=20 Why should we move the discussion when it is on topic? Moving each individua= l=20 discussion that starts annoying someone is not practical and is a great way=20 to kill group activity. I have been in groups that have tried strategies lik= e=20 that an it is usually futile or fatal. We, I thought it was obvious, refers=20= to=20 the current members of the group who haven't yet left it. You come across as= =20 unnecessarily hostile; is there something wrong? From: IN%"johnwade@ethological.com" "John Wade" 12-AUG-2003 22:26:21.61 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions Why should we move the discussion when it is on topic? Moving each individual discussion that starts annoying someone is not practical and is a great way to kill group activity. I have been in groups that have tried strategies like that an it is usually futile or fatal. We, I thought it was obvious, refers to the current members of the group who haven't yet left it. You come across as unnecessarily hostile; is there something wrong? You win, Joseph, add me to the unsubscribe list as well or forward the unsubscribe information. - John "Unnecessary and Hostile" Wade :-) From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 12-AUG-2003 22:50:31.76 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Carol Petherick: > With all due respect I wonder if you understand what welfare and euthanasia are all about. Welfare is about experiencing suffering (a continuum of very poor welfare to very good welfare dependent upon the degree of suffering experienced). Thus, euthanasia (which is humane killing - with no/minimal suffering involved) is not a welfare issue. Imposing painful and aversive procedures on animals, which invoke degrees of suffering is a welfare issue. margory replied: Carol, with all respect back. I'm a very simple girl. To me, death, ending a life, especially, ending a life when it's a life that could be saved and well lived, is hardly "welfare" by any stretch of anybody's definition. And yours I think repeats what I gathered from Ms. Harris' -- "better dead than trained." And in the current environment, when for instance, hunting, fair chase is threatened and faces bans..... Fascinating to me. Not something I think I will adopt for my own positions and/or thoughts. But certainly expansive, and that's why I so appreciate this forum. And at the same time, feel myself some astonishment, as John Burchard mentioned in one of his posts. As always, nice to see you, John. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco From: IN%"Carol.Petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au" "Petherick, Carol" 12-AUG-2003 23:15:37.97 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Margory - no, not "better dead than trained" - you are reading too much into/misinterpreting what Moira and I said. It all comes down to the methods used during training; if the methods involve pain and suffering then the training has implications for welfare - as, of course, does hunting (perhaps this will get the discussions moved off shock-collars!!). Euthanasia does not have implications for welfare (given that it is conducted correctly) - what you are talking about ("ending a life when it's a life that could be saved and well lived") are the ethics of killing. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: margory cohen [mailto:margory@rcn.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 2:51 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Carol Petherick: > With all due respect I wonder if you understand what welfare and euthanasia are all about. Welfare is about experiencing suffering (a continuum of very poor welfare to very good welfare dependent upon the degree of suffering experienced). Thus, euthanasia (which is humane killing - with no/minimal suffering involved) is not a welfare issue. Imposing painful and aversive procedures on animals, which invoke degrees of suffering is a welfare issue. margory replied: Carol, with all respect back. I'm a very simple girl. To me, death, ending a life, especially, ending a life when it's a life that could be saved and well lived, is hardly "welfare" by any stretch of anybody's definition. And yours I think repeats what I gathered from Ms. Harris' -- "better dead than trained." And in the current environment, when for instance, hunting, fair chase is threatened and faces bans..... Fascinating to me. Not something I think I will adopt for my own positions and/or thoughts. But certainly expansive, and that's why I so appreciate this forum. And at the same time, feel myself some astonishment, as John Burchard mentioned in one of his posts. As always, nice to see you, John. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 01:33:14.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species 1. you have accused me of not making a careful study of evolution 2. and you have called me naive for my statement that a dog breed could be recreated. Now, WHO is name calling? The non-breeding between species is a tried and true definition of species' boundaries. If you claim it is not then cite a scientific paper. An example of the classic definition (50 years ago, from Mayer) can be viewed on page http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~mmb058/bi2002/species%20concept%20in%20bacteria_files/species%20concept/ppframe.htm. A species is reproductively isolated. And, for your information in an EVOLUTIONARY sense, 6000 years is NOT that long a period of time (the time that your breed of dog has been around). And, if you think that it is not possible to "reverse-engineer" a breed, then consider the present breeding programs in horses to regain the wild horse of Asia (help me here, I can't remember the name, but it is the horse on cave walls if I remember). H. McMurray ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Burchard" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:37 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction > heather mcmurray wrote: > > > Theoretically because breeds are not species you could over time get the > > same breed of dog BACK after its "extinction". It is not gone/vanished just > > because that dog is no longer being bred. It is not as easy to get a > > passenger pigeon back as the creation of a species involves a great deal > > more evolutionary time and mutations/characteristics not usually present in > > the genome of closely related species. That's why species can't interbreed > > viable offspring whereas dog breeds can. > > Hybrid sterility is neither a necessary consequence nor a valid criterion of > species distinctness. It is more in the nature of an incidental result of > increasing genetic divergence AFTER species separation has already taken place. > That has been known for more than 50 years (anyway, I have known it for that > long) but seems not yet to have penetrated the popular consciousness, nor indeed > that of many animal breeders or even biologists who have not made a careful > study of evolution. > > It is however genetically naive to think that re-creating an extinct dog breed > would be easy, or even possible. Evolution, even below the species level, is a > one-way, time-bound process in which you cannot recover the past. Not, anyway, > until we are in a position to synthesize a complete genome ... and given the > complexity of "epigenetics" even that might not be sufficient. Also, of course, > a breed is a population of many genetically differing individuals, so you would > have to synthesize not one but many genomes ... > > John > -- > John Burchard > Tepe Gawra Salukis > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 01:48:13.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: rabbit stuff (for John Burchard) "The rabbit is thus dog-like in being highly social; but on the other hand it is a "flight species" and not a "pursuit species" which entails I think profoundly different responses to actually or potentially noxious stimuli." That depends. In some situations the rabbit is a pursuit species. Rabbits kill snakes. Some rabbits have gone after stoats with great effect. Rabbits have been reported to eat legs of bird-hatchlings on islands and meat from animals caught in traps; some eat bugs. Rabbits will also chase you with the intent of maiming you. Companion rabbits have been known to ram dogs in mid-side; one pit-bull puppy was bowled over by such a determined rabbit. It is folklore in house rabbit circles that rabbits routinely terrorize the house cats (rabbits love to pounce on cats). But it is true that O.cuniculus is built for speed above ground and for observing the horizon for predators (visual retinal streak). The main predator that O.cuniculus evolved with on the Iberian Pennisula appears to have been the now endangered Iberian Lynx. This rabbit is more like a tiny horse, with digestion of hay, dependency on a fine balance of internal fauna to break down that fiber. The digestive process requires a different lifestyle than a carnivore. The entire day is spent (in warrens with access to enough food) underground redigesting the partly digested droppings (called cecals, highly nutritious but requiring repeated ingestion for breakdown of the foodstuffs) so that the rabbit can live by eating plantstuff. h.m. From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 13-AUG-2003 01:56:05.51 To: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! The collars I have [and I am not gong to name them because I don't want the hassle for the manufacturers] also produce different shocks. The worse of the two produces a shock that is of 0.5 to 2.0 seconds duration and each shock consists of a series of very rapid pulses. Voltage varies from 60 to above 1800 volts and painfulness is very high at the top settings. I have not found anyone who will volunteer to have maximum shock applied to them other than myself. The other collar is broadly the same but duration is about 0.25 seconds. Perhaps now you see my point? There is no standardisation and the products do vary a lot. Jon On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 03:15 pm, Laura Sanborn wrote: > At 11:44 PM Monday 8/11/2003, you wrote: > >> To equate the shock from a shock collar with static electricity is >> utterly wrong. The shock for a shock collar is much more powerful and >> of longer duration. > > Hmmm... how about a little experimentation > > e-collar Dogtra 150NCP > stim setting ranges 0 through 100, continuously variable > put e-collar contacts on my hands > > Setting Sensation when Nick'd > 0 undetectable > 2 undetectable > 5 undetectable > 10 very mild tingle > 15 mild tingle > 20 tingle > 30 irritating but not painful > > The Nick lasts a fraction of one second. None of these achieved a > sensation that I would characterize as a "shock"; they are all much > much less than that. > > I didn't go to any higher settings as I have no need for them. At > some setting _considerably_higher_ than 30, it may reach the > irritation level of a typical static electricity discharge > > The settings I have used with my dog to suppress nuisance barking are > in the 15-20 range. At this level, the stimulation is no more > painful than a light tap on the shoulder. It is less painful than a > correction from a flat collar. > > I don't know what "shock collar" have been using that is creating a > "shock" that is "much more powerful and of longer duration" than a > static electricity discharge, but either it isn't designed correctly, > or it isn't being used correctly, or it is be used on a very hard dog, > or you are mistaken. > > Laura Sanborn > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 01:58:52.93 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars/ideology and emotion Hi, John, I recently obtained a copy of Dr. Peter Klopfer's book about the Politics in Ethology (published in 1999 and again in 2000). It is unobtainable in the USA from any online booksource I have tried, including used bookstores (amazing). But, after many months and a 2nd attempt, AmazonUK came through and sent it to me. Dr. Klopfer's book is a recounting of his education etc. and a discussion about how ethologist's theories and science were very much a reflection of the personalities and emotions of the scientists who created the theories. It is a great book. It should be read by anyone who wants to study animal behavior and I despair that it is so hard to obtain. Hmcmurray p.s. the ONLY source of this book per www.bookfinder.com right now is: 1 Amazon.co.uk [United Kingdom] Hardcover, ISBN: 0838754058 1999 $45.04 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Burchard" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:37 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars > Chris Sherwin wrote: > > > > CeAnn, > > > > Historically, this bulletin board was set up to be used as a communication forum > > on the science of applied animal behaviour, hence it is called the 'applied > > ethology network'. Ethologists have gone to great pains to carefully define > > behaviours, phrases, etc. relating to their professional scientific research. On [text cut] > I am astounded and a bit appalled at the extent to which ideology and emotion > has colored some of the postings on this theme ... it is IMO not only > ethological terminology which has been abused here. > > John > -- > John Burchard > Tepe Gawra Salukis > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 02:05:39.34 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: rabbit stuff (for John Burchard) hmm, I didn't catch this, but I wonder if the rabbit's joy of pouncing on housecats has anything to do with the rabbit having had to put up with being predated by Lynx (not really, but it does seem kind of funny) hm ----- Original Message ----- From: "heather mcmurray" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:48 AM Subject: rabbit stuff (for John Burchard) > "The rabbit is thus dog-like in being highly social; but on the other hand > it is a > "flight species" and not a "pursuit species" which entails I think > profoundly > different responses to actually or potentially noxious stimuli." > > That depends. In some situations the rabbit is a pursuit species. Rabbits > kill snakes. Some rabbits have gone after stoats with great effect. > Rabbits have been reported to eat legs of bird-hatchlings on islands and > meat from animals caught in traps; some eat bugs. Rabbits will also chase > you with the intent of maiming you. Companion rabbits have been known to > ram dogs in mid-side; one pit-bull puppy was bowled over by such a > determined rabbit. It is folklore in house rabbit circles that rabbits > routinely terrorize the house cats (rabbits love to pounce on cats). > > But it is true that O.cuniculus is built for speed above ground and for > observing the horizon for predators (visual retinal streak). The main > predator that O.cuniculus evolved with on the Iberian Pennisula appears to > have been the now endangered Iberian Lynx. This rabbit is more like a tiny > horse, with digestion of hay, dependency on a fine balance of internal fauna > to break down that fiber. The digestive process requires a different > lifestyle than a carnivore. The entire day is spent (in warrens with access > to enough food) underground redigesting the partly digested droppings > (called cecals, highly nutritious but requiring repeated ingestion for > breakdown of the foodstuffs) so that the rabbit can live by eating > plantstuff. > > h.m. > > > From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 13-AUG-2003 02:06:22.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue >How can putting to death for instance a dog NOT be a "welfare issue"? Particularly in scientific circles, welfare has the same meaning as suffering -- hence if their is not suffering there is no problem. This ascribes little or no intrinsic value to the life of the animal. This p[osition is one of the biggest gaps between the science perspective and that of most other people (in my opinion). If welfare was thought to be more synonomous with 'harm' -- then it would be clear that death is the ultimate harm. Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 13-AUG-2003 02:08:14.31 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species I think the reference to an attempt to recreate Przewalskis is a little unsafe. As far as I am aware the 'recreation' of Equus Przewalski is viewed with suspicion by many - the consideration being that the 'recreated' examples can only be considered to be a hybrid rather than pure as there were no pure specimens left by the time the move to preserve the species began. Przwalskis were not in any case a breed of Equus Caballus but a separate species and had a different number of chromosomes from E.Caballus. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 7:33 p.m. To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species 1. you have accused me of not making a careful study of evolution 2. and you have called me naive for my statement that a dog breed could be recreated. Now, WHO is name calling? The non-breeding between species is a tried and true definition of species' boundaries. If you claim it is not then cite a scientific paper. An example of the classic definition (50 years ago, from Mayer) can be viewed on page http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~mmb058/bi2002/species%20concept%20in%20bacteria_files /species%20concept/ppframe.htm. A species is reproductively isolated. And, for your information in an EVOLUTIONARY sense, 6000 years is NOT that long a period of time (the time that your breed of dog has been around). And, if you think that it is not possible to "reverse-engineer" a breed, then consider the present breeding programs in horses to regain the wild horse of Asia (help me here, I can't remember the name, but it is the horse on cave walls if I remember). H. McMurray ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Burchard" To: "Applied ethology list" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:37 PM Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction > heather mcmurray wrote: > > > Theoretically because breeds are not species you could over time get the > > same breed of dog BACK after its "extinction". It is not gone/vanished just > > because that dog is no longer being bred. It is not as easy to get a > > passenger pigeon back as the creation of a species involves a great deal > > more evolutionary time and mutations/characteristics not usually present in > > the genome of closely related species. That's why species can't interbreed > > viable offspring whereas dog breeds can. > > Hybrid sterility is neither a necessary consequence nor a valid criterion of > species distinctness. It is more in the nature of an incidental result of > increasing genetic divergence AFTER species separation has already taken place. > That has been known for more than 50 years (anyway, I have known it for that > long) but seems not yet to have penetrated the popular consciousness, nor indeed > that of many animal breeders or even biologists who have not made a careful > study of evolution. > > It is however genetically naive to think that re-creating an extinct dog breed > would be easy, or even possible. Evolution, even below the species level, is a > one-way, time-bound process in which you cannot recover the past. Not, anyway, > until we are in a position to synthesize a complete genome ... and given the > complexity of "epigenetics" even that might not be sufficient. Also, of course, > a breed is a population of many genetically differing individuals, so you would > have to synthesize not one but many genomes ... > > John > -- > John Burchard > Tepe Gawra Salukis > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 02:08:43.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions//mail rules for redirecting msgs to folders hi, I use a mail sorter in outlook express - hotmail has one, too; maybe your mail server software has one you set up a "rule" that any message coming into the mailbox with a certain subject word/phrase gets sorted into a certain folder. Then, it doesn't fill the regular mailbox and you can browse at leisure. h.m. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michalchik@aol.com To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: Lets move this group, to stop unsubscriptions This group is suffering a lot of unsubscriptions. I think the main reason is that there is no digest option on the server and many people including me hate getting bombarded by dozens of messages a day. If we move this group to yahoo, people can set their subscriptions to only send them single digests reducing the mail to at most one a day. I think everyone will be happier. From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 13-AUG-2003 02:10:58.13 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Stress measurement >"Stress" measurement without conceptually adequate analysis of the >behavioral >and perceptual context is, I submit, worse than meaningless - "worse" >because it >provides an appearance of objectivity which is unjustified by the facts. However, is it really so difficult to provide this context using behavioural observations and qualitative assessments? Whenmever I mention my work with physiological reactions I get the same discussion about positve stress versus distress -- ethology iprovides methods for making these distinctions. Other measures of behaviour or health have equivalent problems... Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 02:30:09.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia ; and a comment on rabbits and the meat rabbit industry Hi, Moira, "humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed" I respectfully submit that this idea of euthanasia is theoretical and not often obtained. A dog taken to a vet for injection is not totally dumb to that something is going on. And dogs at shelters - well, they have fear of the process. Ihave seen the gassing chamber in a metropolitan city and the description of loading the animals, including rabbits. As someone who dearly loves rabbits (not to eat, although I know many do) I would wish for rabbits a humane euthanasia. I have read the USA veterinary guidelines for euthanasia for different animals and NONE are good for rabbits commercially, including electrical shock (write to me for citation, if you want info.) because not all are killed. Even cervical dislocation, a very common method used by people with strong wrists, has been shown to allow the rabbit to have consciousness for 15 seconds or more after the neck-break. Women in the USA who raise rabbits for food use the broomstick method to break the neck. They pin the rabbit to the ground by placing a broomstick across the back of its neck and stepping on one side of the stick. Then, they step on the other side until the rabbit dies. Their experience is that the broomstick often shifts so that the rabbit has it resting on the muscle in the shoulders; and the meat raisers complain that it discolors the meat. It is a great shame to the commerical rabbit industry that none of the experts publishing books in rabbit meat raising in the USA give any serious pages/time to this topic; and allow the export of literally millions of docile kind white new zealand rabbits to the third world without any stipulation that people be trained to humanely handle or humanely kill them. If you can come up with "humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed" for rabbits (other than carrying the rabbit out to a meadow in a box and shooting it, as one show-breeder does), please let me know. H.mcmurray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moira Harris" From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 13-AUG-2003 02:39:59.33 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species e.przewalski and e.caballus are able to interbreed - as are Zebra (I think all types) and Horse - and, of course e.asinus and e.caballus (although progeny are not sexually viable) Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 8:34 p.m. To: wheep@igrin.co.nz Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species if przwalskis are not e.caballus, the domestic horse, then what did they hybridize with? I will have to read more. (kick myself for using an example I didn't first read about recently, but I couldn't remember the horse's name) : ( heather ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Beck" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:07 AM Subject: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species > I think the reference to an attempt to recreate Przewalskis is a little > unsafe. As far as I am aware the 'recreation' of Equus Przewalski is viewed > with suspicion by many - the consideration being that the 'recreated' > examples can only be considered to be a hybrid rather than pure as there > were no pure specimens left by the time the move to preserve the species > began. Przwalskis were not in any case a breed of Equus Caballus but a > separate species and had a different number of chromosomes from E.Caballus. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > -----Original Message----- > From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 7:33 p.m. > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's > reply re: species > > 1. you have accused me of not making a careful study of evolution > > 2. and you have called me naive for my statement that a dog breed could be > recreated. > > Now, WHO is name calling? > > The non-breeding between species is a tried and true definition of species' > boundaries. If you claim it is not then cite a scientific paper. An > example of the classic definition (50 years ago, from Mayer) can be viewed > on page > http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~mmb058/bi2002/species%20concept%20in%20bacteria_files > /species%20concept/ppframe.htm. > A species is reproductively isolated. > > And, for your information in an EVOLUTIONARY sense, 6000 years is NOT that > long a period of time (the time that your breed of dog has been around). > And, if you think that it is not possible to "reverse-engineer" a breed, > then consider the present breeding programs in horses to regain the wild > horse of Asia (help me here, I can't remember the name, but it is the horse > on cave walls if I remember). > > H. McMurray > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Burchard" > To: "Applied ethology list" > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction > > > > heather mcmurray wrote: > > > > > Theoretically because breeds are not species you could over time get the > > > same breed of dog BACK after its "extinction". It is not gone/vanished > just > > > because that dog is no longer being bred. It is not as easy to get a > > > passenger pigeon back as the creation of a species involves a great deal > > > more evolutionary time and mutations/characteristics not usually present > in > > > the genome of closely related species. That's why species can't > interbreed > > > viable offspring whereas dog breeds can. > > > > Hybrid sterility is neither a necessary consequence nor a valid criterion > of > > species distinctness. It is more in the nature of an incidental result of > > increasing genetic divergence AFTER species separation has already taken > place. > > That has been known for more than 50 years (anyway, I have known it for > that > > long) but seems not yet to have penetrated the popular consciousness, nor > indeed > > that of many animal breeders or even biologists who have not made a > careful > > study of evolution. > > > > It is however genetically naive to think that re-creating an extinct dog > breed > > would be easy, or even possible. Evolution, even below the species level, > is a > > one-way, time-bound process in which you cannot recover the past. Not, > anyway, > > until we are in a position to synthesize a complete genome ... and given > the > > complexity of "epigenetics" even that might not be sufficient. Also, of > course, > > a breed is a population of many genetically differing individuals, so you > would > > have to synthesize not one but many genomes ... > > > > John > > -- > > John Burchard > > Tepe Gawra Salukis > > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > > > > From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 13-AUG-2003 03:23:39.19 To: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "'Moira Harris'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Moira - this has been my life. You are absolutely right. I have helped animals escape torment and people escape painful emotional blackmail. But you have just kicked yet another hornets' nest! The "Rescue Industry" exists to raise money to fund itself. The modus opererandi is emotional blackmail. It is protection racket run be some of the nicest people I have met. There! Run Moira! Try not to breath out! Robin -----Original Message----- From: Moira Harris [mailto:moiraharris@yahoo.com] Sent: 13 August 2003 03:43 To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear all, Within the seemingly endless dog-training debate that is currently raging, there has arisen a rather interesting (to me anyway) issue, that might be of relevance to subscribers concerned with animal welfare and ethics. It is this: several contributors have implied or stated that it is preferable to employ a number of rather extreme-sounding behaviour modification methods (e collars, debarking etc) in a situation where, due to the unwanted and antisocial behaviour of the dog in question, the only alternative is to put it down. As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed, is not a welfare issue. It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in question in the least. It is instead a moral and ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' method to control behaviour, be it mildly irritating or intensely painful, does compromise welfare however. What do others think? BTW, I should point out that I really, really am not interested in hearing anything about how e collars / shock collars / whatever either are or are not or may be painful / irritating / whatever in response to this question. I'm simply not that interested. Best wishes, - Moira Harris B.Sc. (Hons), Psychology M.Sc., Animal Behaviour / Welfare Ph.D., Animal Behaviour / Welfare Extensive experience in controlling the behaviour of pigs and children by a variety of means. ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-AUG-2003 03:26:53.04 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear All, I agree totally with Moira and Carol that euthanasia is not a welfare problem. This depends, however, on how one defines or interprets 'welfare'. I can not speak for Moira and Carol, but for me, welfare is about subjective states. It is the animal's perception of it's internal and external environment. There is no welfare problem when a vet deliberately breaks the leg of an anaesthetised dog because the dog has no perception of that pain. However, if the dog is not given analgesics, when it awakes it will experience pain and its welfare will be compromised. It is the subjective appraisal of it's own condition and the surrounding environment that give rise to the behavioural and physiological indicators of welfare. So, because a dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue. Regards, Chris On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:51:02 -0700 margory cohen wrote: > Carol Petherick: > > > With all due respect I wonder if you understand what welfare and > euthanasia are all about. Welfare is about experiencing suffering (a > continuum of very poor welfare to very good welfare dependent upon the > degree of suffering experienced). Thus, euthanasia (which is humane > killing - with no/minimal suffering involved) is not a welfare issue. > Imposing painful and aversive procedures on animals, which invoke degrees of > suffering is a welfare issue. > > margory replied: > > Carol, with all respect back. > I'm a very simple girl. > To me, death, ending a life, especially, ending a life when it's a life that > could be saved and well lived, is hardly "welfare" by any stretch of > anybody's definition. > > And yours I think repeats what I gathered from Ms. Harris' -- > "better dead than trained." > > And in the current environment, when for instance, hunting, fair chase is > threatened and faces bans..... > > Fascinating to me. > Not something I think I will adopt for my own positions and/or thoughts. > But certainly expansive, and that's why I so appreciate this forum. > And at the same time, feel myself some astonishment, as John Burchard > mentioned in one of his posts. > As always, nice to see you, John. > -margory cohen > Scottish Deerhounds > San Francisco > > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"sbc@kvl.dk" "Stine B Christiansen" 13-AUG-2003 04:05:30.30 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Vedr.: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Hi all, From a philosophical point of view, one could argue for both approaches presented in this discussion: From a hedonistic approach, what counts is the animal's experience of eg suffering and happiness and thus the consequenses of training methods, killing methods etc. are of relevance to assessing welfare. From a perfectionistic approach, what counts is to live life, so that you realise your potentials, and thus being killed "prematurely" can be of relevance to your welfare (as you do not get to live for as long as you potentially could have). Coming back to the scientific community, I agree with Carol and others that the distinction made between welfare questions (eg is the animal suffering) and ethics (eg should the animal be killed) is traditionally how the terms are used and that in many contexts this distinction is useful. I think, however, that quite often (as judged by media attention) outside the scientifc community, welfare is seen as more than just a matter of suffering (or maybe that just make better headlines and stories.....). Even within the scientific community other aspects than suffering (or other subjective experiences) can be considered relevant for welfare. Take for example, parameters such as growth rate and reproduction. If an animal's growth rate or reproduction is reduced due to stress, given that the stress is not severe enough to cause other - experienced - problems, is the welfare of the animal reduced? According to the hedonist probably not, but the perfectionist may see it differently. (Please take the example for what it is - an attempt to show a point - and spare me the discussion (references included or not) of whether such a situation is possible). My point is, that at least I'll keep in mind when reading contributions to this discussion that those who claim that "euthanasia or not?" is a welfare issue (and thus disagree with those who claim that it is an entirely ethical one) may not necessarily have confused "welfare" and "ethics", but may in fact have a different understanding of the concept of welfare. Stine Stine B. Christiansen cand.med.vet. (DVM), MSc, PhD-stud. Det Dyreetiske Råd/The Danish Animal Ethics Council Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering/Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment Den Kgl. Veterinær- og Landbohøjskole/The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Bioetik/Bioethics Grønnegårdsvej 8 1870 Frederiksberg C Copenhagen Denmark tlf./ph.: +45 3528 3075 fax: +45 3528 3022 e-mail: sbc@kvl.dk >>> "Petherick, Carol" 13-08-03 07:14 >>> Margory - no, not "better dead than trained" - you are reading too much into/misinterpreting what Moira and I said. It all comes down to the methods used during training; if the methods involve pain and suffering then the training has implications for welfare - as, of course, does hunting (perhaps this will get the discussions moved off shock-collars!!). Euthanasia does not have implications for welfare (given that it is conducted correctly) - what you are talking about ("ending a life when it's a life that could be saved and well lived") are the ethics of killing. Carol Carol Petherick Principal Scientist (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences Department of Primary Industries Telephone +61 (0)7 4936 0331; Fax +61 (0)7 4936 0390 Email carol.petherick@dpi.qld.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: margory cohen [mailto:margory@rcn.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 2:51 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Carol Petherick: > With all due respect I wonder if you understand what welfare and euthanasia are all about. Welfare is about experiencing suffering (a continuum of very poor welfare to very good welfare dependent upon the degree of suffering experienced). Thus, euthanasia (which is humane killing - with no/minimal suffering involved) is not a welfare issue. Imposing painful and aversive procedures on animals, which invoke degrees of suffering is a welfare issue. margory replied: Carol, with all respect back. I'm a very simple girl. To me, death, ending a life, especially, ending a life when it's a life that could be saved and well lived, is hardly "welfare" by any stretch of anybody's definition. And yours I think repeats what I gathered from Ms. Harris' -- "better dead than trained." And in the current environment, when for instance, hunting, fair chase is threatened and faces bans..... Fascinating to me. Not something I think I will adopt for my own positions and/or thoughts. But certainly expansive, and that's why I so appreciate this forum. And at the same time, feel myself some astonishment, as John Burchard mentioned in one of his posts. As always, nice to see you, John. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco ********************************DISCLAIMER**************************** The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-AUG-2003 04:16:45.42 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue (I send a jpeg for your info.) Heather, I am referring to euthanasia - a dictionary definition is 'the act of causing death painlessly'. I do not know the precise method by which the 'owner of the ears' was killed, but looking at the picture one can only imagine this was NOT euthanasia and I suspect there were (past tense) horrendous compromises of animal welfare. But, these cease to be an issue for the rabbit once it has lost consciousness (please do not interpret this as condoning inappropriate methods of killing animals). As for the rabbits at the front of the picture, their posture does indeed suggest that they are apprehensive, fearful, and distressed, i.e. their welfare is (present tense) compromised. However, we need to be careful about attributing the context to these indicators of welfare. There is evidence with stags that they are not disturbed by the sight of their herd members being shot to death in their immediate vicinity. I also recall work indicating that although cows are reluctant to enter places where others have been slaughtered (often attributed to 'the smell of death'), this is a fear of novelty, not blood per se...it is sometime since I read this paper so I could stand corrected on this. Regards. Chris On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:56:31 -0600 heather mcmurray wrote: > from Chris: > "I agree totally with Moira and Carol that euthanasia is not a welfare > problem. > This depends, however, on how one defines or interprets 'welfare'. I can > not speak > for Moira and Carol, but for me, welfare is about subjective states. It is > the > animal's perception of it's internal and external environment. [text cut] It > is > the subjective appraisal of it's own condition and the surrounding > environment that > give rise to the behavioural and physiological indicators of welfare. So, > because a > dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue. > Regards, Chris" > > So in this picture, the rabbits whose ears we see in the background have no > welfare issue. Maybe the ones in the foreground who witnessed the dealths of > their littermates, do have a welfare problem still. If you are familiar > with rabbit postures, and expressions, the rabbits in this picture can tear > your heart out. > > Robin, I have witnessed the industry you described, that rescue industry > with companion rabbits. Only, it is not as you describe because until there > exists a humane euthanasia for rabbits enmass, there will always be a > welfare issue. These animals are smart, they understand dangers and they > respond to their environment. They anticipate something bad is about to > happen. The picture may seem an extreme example, but it is a place to start. > How do you deal with humane euthanasia, with rabbits? > > Heather ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"Andreas.Briese@tiho-hannover.de" "Andreas Briese" 13-AUG-2003 04:19:08.35 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear all, i might say that animal welfare and the form and intention in which i understand it, is a question of ethics - though the rout is ethics and bra= nches might be animal welfare assessment or a killing / non killing policy. Ethical considerations may lead to animal welfare assessment on base of scientientism, anthropocentrism, holism a.s.o. enbedded into a utilitarian= , deontological or even religios structure of philosphical reasoning (Yes, certainly there are many others: cultural relativivism, subjectivism ....)= . Ethical consideration may also lead to a non killing policy. But it seems dificult to do so with not considerating all forms of killing animals to b= e consequential unethical (including slaughter, pest controll ....). sensation Only to give you a hint: let's set ethically 'wrong' to give an animal pain or suffering. And pain = and suffering to be subjective to an animal and bound on activ higher brain activity. This may lead us to the most common, brought framework of the rejection of= cruelty against animals in western laws considering mammals to be under it's protection measures. But it is not objecting a painless killing, gene= tical modification without leading to pain (i.e. breeding for sensory deficience= s (blind, deaf ...) or missing abilities to fly, run ....) and so on in mamm= als, if no pain is into the game. There is a number of nice short (and less short) publications on market (i= n english):(which i like it for beeing an easy form to come into the philoso= phical stuff without using a philosphical dictionary). - JAmes Rachels: The elements of moral philosophy, 3rd edition 1999 ISBN 0-07-052560-9 or - Gary Comstock (Ed.): Life science ethics, 1st ed. 2002 ISBN 0-8138-2835-x greetings andreas Date sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:25:32 +0100 From: Chris Sherwin Subject: Re: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue To: margory cohen Copies to: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Priority: NORMAL > > Dear All, > > I agree totally with Moira and Carol that euthanasia is not a welfare pr= oblem. > This depends, however, on how one defines or interprets 'welfare'. I ca= n not speak > for Moira and Carol, but for me, welfare is about subjective states. It= is the > animal's perception of it's internal and external environment. There is= no welfare > problem when a vet deliberately breaks the leg of an anaesthetised dog b= ecause the > dog has no perception of that pain. However, if the dog is not given an= algesics, > when it awakes it will experience pain and its welfare will be compromi= sed. It is > the subjective appraisal of it's own condition and the surrounding envir= onment that > give rise to the behavioural and physiological indicators of welfare. So= , because a > dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue. > > Regards, > > Chris > > > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:51:02 -0700 margory cohen wrote= : > > > Carol Petherick: > > > > > With all due respect I wonder if you understand what welfare and > > euthanasia are all about. Welfare is about experiencing suffering (a > > continuum of very poor welfare to very good welfare dependent upon the > > degree of suffering experienced). Thus, euthanasia (which is humane > > killing - with no/minimal suffering involved) is not a welfare issue. > > Imposing painful and aversive procedures on animals, which invoke degr= ees of > > suffering is a welfare issue. > > > > margory replied: > > > > Carol, with all respect back. > > I'm a very simple girl. > > To me, death, ending a life, especially, ending a life when it's a lif= e that > > could be saved and well lived, is hardly "welfare" by any stretch of > > anybody's definition. > > > > And yours I think repeats what I gathered from Ms. Harris' -- > > "better dead than trained." > > > > And in the current environment, when for instance, hunting, fair chase= is > > threatened and faces bans..... > > > > Fascinating to me. > > Not something I think I will adopt for my own positions and/or thought= s. > > But certainly expansive, and that's why I so appreciate this forum. > > And at the same time, feel myself some astonishment, as John Burchard > > mentioned in one of his posts. > > As always, nice to see you, John. > > -margory cohen > > Scottish Deerhounds > > San Francisco > > > > > > ............................................................. > Dr C.M. Sherwin > UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) > Centre for Behavioural Biology, > Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, > University of Bristol, > Langford House, > Langford, > BS40 5DU, U.K. > > > Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 > Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 > email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. med. vet. Andreas Briese Tier=E4rztliche Hochschule Hannover Institut f=FCr Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie B=FCnteweg 17 p | School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover D- 30559 Hannover | Institute of Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Beha= viour of Farm Animals Tel.: (+49) 511 953-8837 Fax.: (+49) 511 953-8588 E-Mail: andreas_briese@animcare-sci.de (PLEASE use this one if sending attachments= !) andreas.briese@tiho-hannover.de +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 05:08:25.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species here is an interesting post on this: " Re: Przewalski horse ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Hi judge, Although schraf is the horse expert here, I am aware that they have produced fertile hybrids from crosses between 2n=64 domestic horses (Equus caballos) and 2n=66 Przewalski's horse (E. przewalski). The hybrids do show the 2n=65 haplotype. However, this does not contradict the species concept. Remember, post-zygotic barriers that differentiate true "species" may not appear in the first hybrid generation (I posted this in some other thread which I've now lost track of). The fact is that the hybrid line doesn't breed true: the hybrids breed back to 2n=64 the next generation. Apparently, the modern haplotype is dominant. This makes a bit more sense if the people who study equids are right and Przewalski's represents an ancestral (if not direct ancestor) to caballos. Hope this answers your question. (edited to add: And besides, the biological species concept has the caveat "in the wild". Since Przewalski's has been extinct in the wild for quite a while, any hybrid produced as part of a captive breeding program with modern horsese doesn't invalidate the concept.) " http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000214-2.html ( i am not sure why this is in a creation vs evolution area, but it is where www.google.com took me...) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Beck" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:07 AM Subject: RE: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's reply re: species > I think the reference to an attempt to recreate Przewalskis is a little > unsafe. As far as I am aware the 'recreation' of Equus Przewalski is viewed > with suspicion by many - the consideration being that the 'recreated' > examples can only be considered to be a hybrid rather than pure as there > were no pure specimens left by the time the move to preserve the species > began. Przwalskis were not in any case a breed of Equus Caballus but a > separate species and had a different number of chromosomes from E.Caballus. > > Regards > Andy Beck > White Horse Equine Ethology Project > 433 Wharepunga Rd > RD3 Kaikohe > Northland > Aotearoa - New Zealand > http://www.equine-behavior.com > http://www.equine-social-behavior.org > http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz > > > -----Original Message----- > From: heather mcmurray [mailto:hmcmurra@elp.rr.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 7:33 p.m. > To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction: John Burchard's > reply re: species > > 1. you have accused me of not making a careful study of evolution > > 2. and you have called me naive for my statement that a dog breed could be > recreated. > > Now, WHO is name calling? > > The non-breeding between species is a tried and true definition of species' > boundaries. If you claim it is not then cite a scientific paper. An > example of the classic definition (50 years ago, from Mayer) can be viewed > on page > http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~mmb058/bi2002/species%20concept%20in%20bacteria_files > /species%20concept/ppframe.htm. > A species is reproductively isolated. > > And, for your information in an EVOLUTIONARY sense, 6000 years is NOT that > long a period of time (the time that your breed of dog has been around). > And, if you think that it is not possible to "reverse-engineer" a breed, > then consider the present breeding programs in horses to regain the wild > horse of Asia (help me here, I can't remember the name, but it is the horse > on cave walls if I remember). > > H. McMurray > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Burchard" > To: "Applied ethology list" > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: electronic collars / breeds and extinction > > > > heather mcmurray wrote: > > > > > Theoretically because breeds are not species you could over time get the > > > same breed of dog BACK after its "extinction". It is not gone/vanished > just > > > because that dog is no longer being bred. It is not as easy to get a > > > passenger pigeon back as the creation of a species involves a great deal > > > more evolutionary time and mutations/characteristics not usually present > in > > > the genome of closely related species. That's why species can't > interbreed > > > viable offspring whereas dog breeds can. > > > > Hybrid sterility is neither a necessary consequence nor a valid criterion > of > > species distinctness. It is more in the nature of an incidental result of > > increasing genetic divergence AFTER species separation has already taken > place. > > That has been known for more than 50 years (anyway, I have known it for > that > > long) but seems not yet to have penetrated the popular consciousness, nor > indeed > > that of many animal breeders or even biologists who have not made a > careful > > study of evolution. > > > > It is however genetically naive to think that re-creating an extinct dog > breed > > would be easy, or even possible. Evolution, even below the species level, > is a > > one-way, time-bound process in which you cannot recover the past. Not, > anyway, > > until we are in a position to synthesize a complete genome ... and given > the > > complexity of "epigenetics" even that might not be sufficient. Also, of > course, > > a breed is a population of many genetically differing individuals, so you > would > > have to synthesize not one but many genomes ... > > > > John > > -- > > John Burchard > > Tepe Gawra Salukis > > http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/ > > saluqi@ix.netcom.com > > > > From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-AUG-2003 05:16:46.06 To: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" CC: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue (I send a jpeg for your info.) Heather, > the rabbits killed in this picture were killed in a China market by throat > slitting. this is a legal means of killing rabbits in FL last I read. I don't deny that exanguination is a legal method. It is legal here in the UK for killing cattle and sheep by some religious groups. However, you seem to think that I am suggesting this is 'euthanasia'. I am not. Exanguination by cutting the carotid arteries leads to loss of consciousness in approximately 9 seconds. This means that for those 9 seconds, the animal is almost certainly suffering from the pain of the cut. Therefore it is not painless, therefore it is not euthanasia. > > I challenge you to read the American Veterinarian committee on euthanasia > guidelines and then tell me that there is a way to euthanize a rabbit > painlessly, without that rabbit knowing something is going to happen to it. The problem is that the animal has to handled or exposed to a novel stimulus for euthanasia to occur. This will almost always make the animal apprehensive and giving the appearance that it knows something is going to happen. I'm not sure which version of the guidelines you refer to, certainly, earlier ones were a little confusing in places. I would have thought that overdose with a suitable gaseous anaesthetic would be an appropriate method of euthanasia. > > As for context, it is amazing to me to review the literature on rabbits as > laboratory animals and field experiments and realize that none of the > literature (I am gathering quite a bit) measures or describes the behaviors > you are viewing in that China market photo of the rabbits in the basket. > There is no literature which looks at rabbit expressions (facial/ear); > rabbit vocalizations (they have many); types of grooming ... and the list > goes on. This is not true. I offer one example - I'm sure there are more out there in the scientific literature. INVENTORY OF THE BEHAVIOR OF NEW-ZEALAND WHITE-RABBITS IN LABORATORY CAGES GUNN D, MORTON DB APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE 45 (3-4): 277-292 NOV 1995 Reagrds, Chris From: IN%"coape@nildram.co.uk" "Robin Walker" 13-AUG-2003 05:27:03.20 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology Network" CC: Subj: Taking a Holiday I have enjoyed all of this. You have contributed to my cognitive recovery. I must break away to read and meditate. In descending order I love Woman,Dog,Cow,Horse,Man and rabbit pie. Have a good summer Robin Walker (I will return in the Fall) From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 13-AUG-2003 05:49:39.47 To: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk", IN%"margory@rcn.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue >So, because a >dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue. > >Regards, > >Chris Rendering an animal dead takes it from having a welfare state -- to having no welfare state. Maybe, by the suffering definition it is not a welfare issue it is not welfare-neutral either as the act deprives the animal of future enjoyment and/or saves it from future suffering. Personally, I would not consider that giving animals in poor environments drugs to make them feel happy would be good for their welfare. I think like many people my definition of welfare also includes health and the opportunity to carry out functional behaviours. I think that if by welfare you mean only suffering, it would be easier to say 'suffering' -- welfare, to me, implies a concept that is more global. Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-AUG-2003 06:08:36.27 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Hi Emily > Rendering an animal dead takes it from having a welfare state -- to having > no welfare state. Maybe, by the suffering definition it is not a welfare > issue it is not welfare-neutral either as the act deprives the animal of > future enjoyment and/or saves it from future suffering. But if welfare is a conscious subjective appraisal of the internal and external state, once the animal is dead, it is no longer able to make this appraisal. Welfare relates to the animal's feelings, not what might happen in the future. I would dearly love to own a Ferrari. If you told me I will never own a Ferrari, I might suffer because I am still able to have conscious thought and become distressed at not beaing able to own the car. If I died however, I would still not own a Ferrari, but I would not be suffering from never having owned one. > Personally, I would not consider that giving animals in poor environments > drugs to make them feel happy would be good for their welfare. Perhaps we should tell this to the thousands of humans who are on medication because of their poor environments? For animals, it improves their welfare, but might be a morally dubious solution. I think like > many people my definition of welfare also includes health and the > opportunity to carry out functional behaviours. I think that if by welfare > you mean only suffering, it would be easier to say 'suffering' -- welfare, > to me, implies a concept that is more global. Yes, I am aware that many people include health in a definition and opportunity for behaviours in the definition of welfare. I would argue these only become a welfare issue when the animal perceives the consequences. For example, a highly motivated behaviour is frustrated, or, a sheep with a minor worm burden could be said to be in poor health, but, it only becomes a welfare issue when the number of worms increase to cause stomach distension, chronic hunger, etc. Regards, Chris From: IN%"wheep@igrin.co.nz" 13-AUG-2003 06:19:52.45 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue The oxford dictionary defines Welfare as: the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person (why not also animal?) or group. I think I can see what Emily is suggesting - if we allow that the act of euthanasia deprives the individual of happiness and terminally curtails health and fortunes then it seems logical to view it as welfare-negative - in fact it would be difficult to be in poorer health than dead - so in that sense euthanasia might reasonably be viewed as contrary to good welfare. Regards Andy Beck White Horse Equine Ethology Project 433 Wharepunga Rd RD3 Kaikohe Northland Aotearoa - New Zealand http://www.equine-behavior.com http://www.equine-social-behavior.org http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: emily patterson [mailto:rattitude2@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August 2003 11:50 p.m. To: chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk; margory@rcn.com Cc: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue >So, because a >dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue. > >Regards, > >Chris Rendering an animal dead takes it from having a welfare state -- to having no welfare state. Maybe, by the suffering definition it is not a welfare issue it is not welfare-neutral either as the act deprives the animal of future enjoyment and/or saves it from future suffering. Personally, I would not consider that giving animals in poor environments drugs to make them feel happy would be good for their welfare. I think like many people my definition of welfare also includes health and the opportunity to carry out functional behaviours. I think that if by welfare you mean only suffering, it would be easier to say 'suffering' -- welfare, to me, implies a concept that is more global. Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 13-AUG-2003 06:31:56.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear all, Thanks for your interesting and varied responses so far to my question about euthanasia as an animal welfare issue. I've remembered why I love this list ... and most in North America are not even awake yet! My conception (as an ethologist) of animal welfare lacks the subtle and complex beauty of others' perspectives (e.g. Stine and Andreas) but as a way of starting to think about humans' obligations to and treatment of non-human animals it works for me, so I might just expand it a little in light of some of the comments that have been made. My understanding of welfare is that it is a state of an individual (human, any other kind of animal) that varies along a continuum of very good to very bad. The continuum encompasses all things that input on quality of life. Anything that happens during a life can affect an individual's welfare, either positively, negatively or a combination of both. But welfare is applicable only to an animal during its life. Humane euthanasia (or as pointed out by Chris, simply 'euthanasia', which is by its definition humane and painless) stops life, at which point quality of life cannot be altered because an animal is dead. Things that people often refer to as humane euthanasia (e.g. Heather's rabbits, or the killing of pigs, chickens etc for food) generally aren't: they are just killing. Things leading up to the killing ... like transport, mixing, handling, improper stunning, all reduce the welfare of animals. Some of these procedures are horrific. But they are quite separate from euthanasia. What I had in mind when envisaging humane euthanasia was this: I am sitting in a state of perfect happiness and tranquility ... in a hammock on a sunny day, say, or on my couch reading a magazine and eating chocolates ... and am approached by somebody who neither surprises me nor frightens me, who administers a painless injection that renders me rapidly unconscious, and then dead. Everything that precedes my death (sun too hot, chocolates not my favourite kind) affect my quality of life (welfare). But once the injection takes effect I have no quality of life. I can't. I am dead. And therefore my death was not a welfare issue. It was, of course, a moral and ethical issue for society, just as decisions to kill any animal, humanely or otherwise, always are. Best, - Moira ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com" 13-AUG-2003 07:01:29.91 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue >Yes, I am aware that many people include health in a definition and >opportunity >for behaviours in the definition of welfare. I would argue these only >become a >welfare issue when the animal perceives the consequences. For example, a >highly >motivated behaviour is frustrated, or, a sheep with a minor worm burden >could be >said to be in poor health, but, it only becomes a welfare issue when the >number of >worms increase to cause stomach distension, chronic hunger, etc. I have encountered this fundamental division before. I tend to think of the subjective suffering only definition as the 'oxford' definition of welfare ;) as it can often be traced back to that institution -- whilst the broader definition is, I think, most clearly espoused by David Fraser at UBC who wrote of the three themes of health, behaviour and subjective state. I believe Dawkins is currently aspousing a dualistic health and wants definition. It just goes to show that it is useful to define a word before we started throwing it around with any certainty about the 'correct' definition. I think any of these approachs work well so long the user is explicit about their definition. I think that the broader definitions are more intuitive for non-scientists. Emily SAC _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" 13-AUG-2003 07:31:58.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: breeds and extinction Andy Beck wrote: If I may suggest, we are a bit confused here. The Przewalski was never an extinct breed and it does not exist today as a recreated breed. Przewalski horses existed in zoos and parks until WWII in sufficient numbers. In 1976 it was determined that the captive population was actually based on 13 founder animals and the Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski Horse was organized to coordinate the preservation of this rare wild animal. International cooperation between zoos and scientific breeding efforts have increased the population to about 1500 horses. A joint Mongolian and foundation project has created a reserve on the Hustain Nuruu Steppe where small groups have been released after acclimatization. Information on the Foundation and the project is available on their websites. The Przewalski is probably a surviving offshoot of domestic Equus but not its ancestor in a clear sense. It may or may not be the horse pictured on cave art. Horse evolution has moved beyond the conception of a simple progression we learned in our science textbooks as children (from Dawn Horse to Seabiscuit) towards a complex tree with many branches who dead end. The tarpan is the recreated horse, whose validity I also question. The Polish zoologist Tadeus Ventulani began his work on this recreation after WWI, mainly using the Polish horse breed the Konik, selecting those that he felt most closely represented the extinct tarpan. I agree completely with John Burchard in his opinion. Even in a breed, it would impossible to recreate all the pressures on artificial selection which occurred in the past - environmental, dietary, disease, working need, and human preference, etc - which created any older breed of domestic animal. I am often mystified that some wildlife conservationists so easily dismiss domestic animal conservation. Every scrap of biodiversity is indeed priceless and to discard it just because it is domestic in nature is extremely narrow-minded. The opinion that we can dispense with the founder breeds of our hybrid food production animals has truly lost favor in the domestic animal world, including the mega international food corporation who are quietly stockpiling and preserving their founder breed genes against future disease or production needs. Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Yale University Press, 2002 From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 13-AUG-2003 08:39:22.22 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Carol Petherick: > Margory - no, not "better dead than trained" - you are reading too much into/misinterpreting what Moira and I said. It all comes down to the methods used during training; if the methods involve pain and suffering then the training has implications for welfare - as, of course, does hunting (perhaps this will get the discussions moved off shock-collars!!). Euthanasia does not have implications for welfare (given that it is conducted correctly) - what you are talking about ("ending a life when it's a life that could be saved and well lived") are the ethics of killing. > margory replied: Carol, I am not confused and I am not misreading, yours nor any of the others that are coming in to my mailbox right now to this topic. I appreciate Stine Christeiansen writing in a way that acknowledges varied interpretation within and without the scientific community but even that does not shift my view or reaction. No dictionary, no interpretation as to the individual's state of mind, consciousness, none of that -- and not even the rescuers Robin referred to who use this as well -- none of that I think changes the impression. I caught I think in Chris Sherwin -- " So, because a dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue." -- How can one say a dog doesn't know? Rhetorical, that. Which is actually how some of the comment to this appears. It's a line of thought that's disturbing. It's all well and good in university or at the coffee bar or over brandy at a dinner party, but frankly in every day living and life, this causes me great concern. You make me remember Miss Johnson's in the New York Times. I don't know if the link is still open. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco Last year NY Times Magazine carried an essay: February 19, 2003: Unspeakable Conversations February 16, 2003 By HARRIET McBRYDE JOHNSON He insists he doesn't want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child. It has nothing to do with me. I should not feel threatened. Whenever I try to wrap my head around his tight string of syllogisms, my brain gets so fried it's . . . almost fun. Mercy! It's like ''Alice in Wonderland.'' // Harriet McBryde Johnson is a lawyer in solo practice in Charleston, S.C. She has been a disability rights activist and advocate for more than 25 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16DISABLED.html?ex=1046678655&ei=1&en=9b5feb22ba499dd1 From: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" 13-AUG-2003 08:39:34.04 To: IN%"rattitude@angelfire.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Stress measurement John Burchard wrote: [. . . ] >"Stress" measurement without conceptually adequate analysis of the >behavioral >and perceptual context is, I submit, worse than meaningless - "worse" >because it >provides an appearance of objectivity which is unjustified by the facts. Yes, Chris Sherwin responded similarly, and I agree with what you've said. My original post gave the misimpression that I was asking for physiological evidence only. I think that I emphasized the physiological as a source of objectivity because I was making the comment in the context of a forum focused on behavioral observation. Were the forum a physiology-focused one, I would likely have made the opposite error, and sounded like I wanted behavioral observation only! I do agree that the multifactoral approach, as Chris termed it, is better. But here is the point I was trying to make: Aren't there points in the current type of discussion where physiological evidence could be helpful to settling otherwise dead-ended questions? In particular, there has been lots of argument about how, and to what extent, dogs perceive the shocks (of whatever type) delivered by various collars. To my eye, part of this debate is fruitless, because extrapolating from how the collar feels to me or you to how it feels to dogs -- or worse, to any particular dog -- is too much of a jump. For example, physiological study (including fMRI) of humans has made some good progress lately in providing evidence that individual humans experience pain quite differently (as they've often claimed, though largely dismissed by the medical community). The activity in pain centers when various stimuli are applied can be measured and compared. Now, in humans, this research is made useful in part by working in what the humans say about what they are experiencing, and even medical histories, so it isn't *purely* physiological, but it is the sort of thing I think is useful. In the dogs-and-shocks debate, it seems to me that it would be immensely useful to have some research available on stress-related physiological responses (be they chemical, fMRI, or something other) to collar-delivered shocks, and variations in those responses across collar types, strength of stimuli, collar positioning?, breeds, and individual dogs of same breed. *Of course*, this would not answer the questions by itself. But under the right circumstances, one can provide the observation and context to conclude, with reasonable certainty, that the stress in question is not positive. And with fMRI and maybe other things (I don't know enough about this), you could even be reasonable certain that the response is a pain response. Combine with observation, stir, get some progress perhaps? *Or*, might there indeed be observable behaviors -- or, more likely, combinations of behaviors -- that can be established, via similar study techniques, to be signatures of negative stress only? Or even of pain only? That's the sort of thing I was hoping for when I sent my original unclear message. The impetus was frustration about heated exchanges that seemed mostly to hinge on differing interpretation of the animals' experience of the stimulus. My hope was that someone might now of research of the sort described above that could help address that portion of the debate. I'm still hoping for that, and/or for research that correlates either with learning success / failure, as a help for those who don't have too much stake in either wholesale viewpoint, but are trying to determine how to have the best success, without doing further damage, at teaching an animal. -Amanda ===== ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." -Pema Chodron --------------------------------------------------------------- From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 13-AUG-2003 08:53:40.92 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! At 12:55 AM Wednesday 8/13/2003, you wrote: >The collars I have [and I am not gong to name them because I don't want >the hassle for the manufacturers] also produce different shocks. >The worse of the two produces a shock that is of 0.5 to 2.0 seconds >duration and each shock consists of a series of very rapid pulses. >Voltage varies from 60 to above 1800 volts and painfulness is very high at >the top settings. >I have not found anyone who will volunteer to have maximum shock applied >to them other than myself. > >The other collar is broadly the same but duration is about 0.25 seconds. > >Perhaps now you see my point? There is no standardisation and the products >do vary a lot. I don't think there has ever been any dispute that at their highest setting, e-collars produce a stimulation that would be very unpleasant to most of us on this forum. My point has always been, that individual dogs vary tremendously in how (or even whether) they perceive the stimulation from an e-collar. I have observed a GSD receive a full power stimulation from a top of the line Dogtra e-collar, when he was in "drive", and the only reaction was an ear flick. That is a HARD dog. At least when he is in drive, he does not experience an e-collar stimulation the same way most other GSDs would in that situation. His resistance to pain is part of what makes him a good police patrol dog. Getting kicked and hit by violent felony suspects hurts a lot more than an e-collar stim... and yet this same dog willingly and enthusiastically engages in apprehensions that lead to such altercations. That same level of e-collar stimulation applied to most GSDs would likely be excessive, and might create the types of reactions that some of this list seem to believe is the norm for e-collar use, rather than the exception from misuse. I have observed another GSD receive a full power stimulation from a high end Tritronics e-collar... also while in "drive"... and not react at all... nothing. This same GSD was immune to hard pinch collar corrections while in "drive" as well. Dogs become hardened to pain when in drive... they don't perceive it the same way they would when not in drive. Those who only work with pet dogs may not appreciate the extent to which "drive" will harden a dog, as it is an aspect of (some) working dog genetics. Independent of their drive state, some dogs are just a lot less sensitive to pain than are other dogs. IMO there is no need for further "standardization" of the e-collar products that I've observed in use, which are high end products. The range of settings exist because in the real world, dogs vary tremendously in what the "correct" e-collar stimulation should be. I have repeatedly described on this forum that the proper setting for an e-collar for most dog training purposes is the one that causes a barely noticeable reaction on the part of the dog. It is not such and such voltage... it is judged by how the dog reacts. If the dog jumps, yelps, screams, cringes, or makes any other highly stressful reaction, the collar stimulation was TOO HIGH. Some here have shared stories of dogs who were damaged by e-collars, and have made statements implying that this is what a correct application of an e-collar would achieve. And yet, even their own descriptions of the how the dog(s) reacted during the events prove that the e-collar setting was too high. I have no doubt that excessively high e-collar stimulations can in some cases cause problems of the types described in this thread. These stories should warn us about the potentials of the _improper_application_ of e-collars... they are NOT indicative of the effects of e-collars when used properly. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk" "Chris Sherwin" 13-AUG-2003 08:58:35.45 To: IN%"liesdownwithdogs@yahoo.com" "Amanda Vizedom" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Stress measurement Amanda, I briefly eluded in a previous message as to how behavioural measures could easily be used to objectively determine the aversiveness of these devices and the manner in which dogs perceive them (which could be combined with the physiological measures), i.e. not extrapolating from humans. However, within a flurry of postings it appeared that someone wished to use 'sarcasm' to denounce my suggestions (this person actually attributed my posting to a 'Dr Sherman'). Sarcasm is a taunting or sneering remark (dictionary definition), and not one which I think should be used on this forum. I do not wish to spend my time explaining these sorts of procedures only to be subject to attempted ridicule. If you wish, I can discuss these methods with you privately. ...and yes...I do know who the person was! Chris On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Amanda Vizedom wrote: > John Burchard wrote: > > [. . . ] > >"Stress" measurement without conceptually adequate analysis of the > >behavioral > >and perceptual context is, I submit, worse than meaningless - "worse" > >because it > >provides an appearance of objectivity which is unjustified by the facts. > > Yes, Chris Sherwin responded similarly, and I agree with what you've said. My > original post gave the misimpression that I was asking for physiological > evidence only. I think that I emphasized the physiological as a source of > objectivity because I was making the comment in the context of a forum focused > on behavioral observation. Were the forum a physiology-focused one, I would > likely have made the opposite error, and sounded like I wanted behavioral > observation only! I do agree that the multifactoral approach, as Chris termed > it, is better. > > But here is the point I was trying to make: Aren't there points in the current > type of discussion where physiological evidence could be helpful to settling > otherwise dead-ended questions? In particular, there has been lots of argument > about how, and to what extent, dogs perceive the shocks (of whatever type) > delivered by various collars. To my eye, part of this debate is fruitless, > because extrapolating from how the collar feels to me or you to how it feels to > dogs -- or worse, to any particular dog -- is too much of a jump. > > For example, physiological study (including fMRI) of humans has made some good > progress lately in providing evidence that individual humans experience pain > quite differently (as they've often claimed, though largely dismissed by the > medical community). The activity in pain centers when various stimuli are > applied can be measured and compared. Now, in humans, this research is made > useful in part by working in what the humans say about what they are > experiencing, and even medical histories, so it isn't *purely* physiological, > but it is the sort of thing I think is useful. > > In the dogs-and-shocks debate, it seems to me that it would be immensely useful > to have some research available on stress-related physiological responses (be > they chemical, fMRI, or something other) to collar-delivered shocks, and > variations in those responses across collar types, strength of stimuli, collar > positioning?, breeds, and individual dogs of same breed. *Of course*, this > would not answer the questions by itself. But under the right circumstances, > one can provide the observation and context to conclude, with reasonable > certainty, that the stress in question is not positive. And with fMRI and > maybe other things (I don't know enough about this), you could even be > reasonable certain that the response is a pain response. Combine with > observation, stir, get some progress perhaps? > > *Or*, might there indeed be observable behaviors -- or, more likely, > combinations of behaviors -- that can be established, via similar study > techniques, to be signatures of negative stress only? Or even of pain only? > > That's the sort of thing I was hoping for when I sent my original unclear > message. The impetus was frustration about heated exchanges that seemed mostly > to hinge on differing interpretation of the animals' experience of the > stimulus. My hope was that someone might now of research of the sort described > above that could help address that portion of the debate. I'm still hoping for > that, and/or for research that correlates either with learning success / > failure, as a help for those who don't have too much stake in either wholesale > viewpoint, but are trying to determine how to have the best success, without > doing further damage, at teaching an animal. > > -Amanda > > > ===== > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Chaos is part of our home ground. Instead of looking for > something higher or purer, work with it just as it is." > -Pema Chodron > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ............................................................. Dr C.M. Sherwin UFAW Research Fellow (Animal Behaviour and Welfare) Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, U.K. Tel: [44] (0)117 928 9486 Fax: [44] (0)117 928 9582 email: Chris.Sherwin@bristol.ac.uk From: IN%"da13y@hotmail.com" "daisy berthoud" 13-AUG-2003 09:23:58.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue dear all, i am following this discussion with interest and would like to add a bit to it. the word euthanasia actually means good (eu, gr.) and death (thanasia, also greek). this means that the state of the organism after induced death should be better than while it is living. it means relieving the animal from physiological or psychological pain. regards, daisy anglia polytechnic university, cambridge, uk >From: margory cohen >To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca >Subject: Re: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue >Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:39:41 -0700 > >Carol Petherick: > > > Margory - no, not "better dead than trained" - you are reading too much >into/misinterpreting what Moira and I said. It all comes down to the >methods used during training; if the methods involve pain and suffering >then >the training has implications for welfare - as, of course, does hunting >(perhaps this will get the discussions moved off shock-collars!!). >Euthanasia does not have implications for welfare (given that it is >conducted correctly) - what you are talking about ("ending a life when it's >a life that could be saved and well lived") are the ethics of killing. > > > >margory replied: > >Carol, I am not confused and I am not misreading, yours nor any of the >others that are coming in to my mailbox right now to this topic. I >appreciate Stine Christeiansen writing in a way that acknowledges varied >interpretation within and without the scientific community but even that >does not shift my view or reaction. >No dictionary, no interpretation as to the individual's state of mind, >consciousness, none of that -- and not even the rescuers Robin referred to >who use this as well -- none of that I think changes the impression. >I caught I think in Chris Sherwin -- " So, because a dog does not know when >it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue." -- >How can one say a dog doesn't know? >Rhetorical, that. Which is actually how some of the comment to this >appears. >It's a line of thought that's disturbing. >It's all well and good in university or at the coffee bar or over brandy at >a dinner party, but frankly in every day living and life, this causes me >great concern. >You make me remember Miss Johnson's in the New York Times. I don't know if >the link is still open. >-margory cohen >Scottish Deerhounds >San Francisco > > >Last year NY Times Magazine carried an essay: February 19, 2003: >Unspeakable Conversations >February 16, 2003 >By HARRIET McBRYDE JOHNSON > >He insists he doesn't want to kill me. He simply thinks it >would have been better, all things considered, to have >given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, >and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come >along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives >like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents >for a different kind of child. It has nothing to do with >me. I should not feel threatened. > >Whenever I try to wrap my head around his tight string of >syllogisms, my brain gets so fried it's . . . almost fun. >Mercy! It's like ''Alice in Wonderland.'' > >// > >Harriet McBryde Johnson is a lawyer in solo practice in >Charleston, S.C. She has been a disability rights activist >and advocate for more than 25 years. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16DISABLED.html?ex=1046678655&ei=1&en=9b5feb22ba499dd1 > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 13-AUG-2003 09:33:41.21 To: IN%"laura@xul.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! In a message dated 8/13/2003 7:59:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, laura@xul.com writes: > Dogs become hardened to pain when in drive... they don't perceive it the > same way they would when not in drive. Those who only work with pet dogs > may not appreciate the extent to which "drive" will harden a dog, as it is > an aspect of (some) working dog genetics. Independent of their drive > state, some dogs are just a lot less sensitive to pain than are other dogs. > So how about a licensing requirement like is needed for mace in most states? Basically you need to read a booklet and correctly answer 20 questions about the correct, legal use of the device before you can buy it. Does everybody here agree that there are legitimate uses for e-collars? From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 13-AUG-2003 11:05:24.51 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare I was stunned to hear that someone advocates killing an animal instead of having it experience some temporary pain or mental upset as a step in achieving coping skills and behaviors to allow it to live its natural lifespan cohabiting with humans. I've heard this before and it is usually from someone also advocating early spay/neuter and recommending routine vaccinations. And at least twice such a person has recommended that dogs like husky types who are bred to run, not be trained with aversives when purely positive methods fail and recommend permanent close confinement for the dog. This is highly incongruent to me. In our pasture is a gelding given to us. He had foundered moderately and his hooves had overgrown several inches in the toes. He was uncomfortable standing while a leg was raised to trim the toes gradually. After discussing this with a farrier, a one time extreme method was applied. If we had not done this the horse would have experienced more pain and the other option was killing him. The extreme measures taken were to bring him to a soft spot, and with hobbles and soft rope, tie up the leg whose hoof was the most tender and as gently as possible, drop him to the ground so all hooves could be quickly trimmed. While it did cause him some stress, sweating, trembling, wide eyed, he did not fight it and when released immediately was able to walk better. Since then, we've been able to trim small amounts once a week while he stands. He may not recover but we'll give him at least 6 months longer before deciding to kill him or not. In the meantime his quality of life is improved. Should we have simply shot him before trying such a method? A woman I've discussed breeding and training with has a top working dog. Certified in all 8 areas of search and rescue, trained for drug and bomb detection, certified K9--her husband is a police officer and the dog sometimes does patrol work, and also her mobility assistance dog. This bitch developed a severe case of pyometra with complications as the infection had spread internally. She spent 3 weeks in intensive care, usually with her owner sleeping at the vet's office with her. The dog has pulled through. The dog did exhibit some temporary dog aggression--side effect of the stress perhaps? As this was not allowable for the work the dog does, the owner applied some aversives, strong chewing out, mild physical ones. She fully understands the reasons to dog reacted but chose to prevent the behavior from becoming too practiced. Was the extreme veterinary care in the dog's best interest or since she was in pain and discomfort for weeks should she have been killed to spare her? I believe the dog is 4, and comes from lines that have lived to 16 in good health. Should the aversives not have been delivered even though not applying them might compromise the dog's work--which she clearly loves to do. This trainer uses almost all reward based training. And she's worked some very tough dogs. She will use strong aversives if need be to stop dangerous behaviors cold. She has re-trained several dogs that were headed for death. While using social and food restriction as a start and carefully working step by step with rewards and time outs, each dog has still at some time, challenged her--read attempted to bite and received immediate physical corrections that stopped the behavior cold. Not angry outbursts, but a single abrupt blow to the bridge of the nose and then continued on. Had each of these dogs been raised by her the challenges either would not have come or been mild puppy challenges--such as puppy playing deaf when called under distraction. All these dogs were trained to become either search and rescue or law enforcement K9's. I wonder how many hard/tough dogs those who recommend killing over temporary use of aversives have trained. There are many Dobermans that are soft. Genetically castrated and useless for what they were bred for--defending humans from other humans. The useful ones are quite different to train. And quite different from the typical pet dogs. The tough minded bull and molosser breeds are becoming more popular. Argentine Dogos, Bandogs, Neapolitan mastiffs, Presa Canarios, American Bulldogs and others. The well bred, well trained ones are fine dogs capable of doing therapy work, behaving in public and making fine family dogs when matched with the correct owners. And they do not train the same way that the European descended sporting and herding dogs do. These and the top working dogs of many breeds for any purpose will not make good pets for a typical owner. Horses are routinely described as anyone can ride, for intermediate rider or for experienced rider only. Dogs are not as commonly thought of this way. Preferably these more challenging dogs will be sold only to appropriate owners who can be educated by the breeders and trainers familiar with them. But will those people on this list who get paid to help owners with their dogs leave themselves uneducated of these harder dogs and continue to recommend death for the sad times such a dog is in the hands of others who are uneducated or will they choose to educate themselves about the dogs genetic tendencies so they can educate the owners and save the dogs lives? From what we've seen the dogs that are highly anxious, thunderphobic and stressed most by living with humans are either the very soft but easy to train dogs or the ones with such a high need for exercise like sled dogs or Australian Cattle dogs. The tougher breeds are not sound sensitive and can tolerate situations that would make a soft dog a nervous wreck. These are some reasons these breeds are becoming popular. So is it better to coddle easily stressed but easy to train dogs or kill them? What if they can't be trained to have coping skills? Is it better to use some aversives on tough dogs that won't need coddling but do need some tough love, or kill them too? Is it better to put a young dog with a broken leg through surgery and recovery or simply kill it? I ask those who recommend killing over temporary use of aversives to re-examine their beliefs and choose educating themselves in what works in day to day life with the dogs that differ from their personal experience. There are times aversives will not work and like an exotic animal must either be managed or killed. And there are times that -+ R and -P are not enough. But to choose to kill before trying aversives seems like hypocrisy in one who claims to be interested in the animal's best interests. Julie Alexander From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 13-AUG-2003 12:11:26.99 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare Dear all, I'm stunned as well. I think I might have missed that message ... there have been so many in the last few days. Could some kind person (Julie?) re-post it if they have kept it please? Thanks, - Moira --- Julie Alexander wrote: > I was stunned to hear that someone advocates killing > an animal instead > of having it experience some temporary pain or > mental upset as a step in > achieving coping skills and behaviors to allow it to > live its natural > lifespan cohabiting with humans. I've heard this > before and it is > usually from someone also advocating early > spay/neuter and recommending > routine vaccinations. And at least twice such a > person has recommended > that dogs like husky types who are bred to run, not > be trained with > aversives when purely positive methods fail and > recommend permanent > close confinement for the dog. This is highly > incongruent to me. > > In our pasture is a gelding given to us. He had > foundered moderately and > his hooves had overgrown several inches in the toes. > He was > uncomfortable standing while a leg was raised to > trim the toes > gradually. After discussing this with a farrier, a > one time extreme > method was applied. If we had not done this the > horse would have > experienced more pain and the other option was > killing him. > > The extreme measures taken were to bring him to a > soft spot, and with > hobbles and soft rope, tie up the leg whose hoof was > the most tender and > as gently as possible, drop him to the ground so all > hooves could be > quickly trimmed. While it did cause him some stress, > sweating, > trembling, wide eyed, he did not fight it and when > released immediately > was able to walk better. Since then, we've been able > to trim small > amounts once a week while he stands. He may not > recover but we'll give > him at least 6 months longer before deciding to kill > him or not. In the > meantime his quality of life is improved. Should we > have simply shot him > before trying such a method? > > A woman I've discussed breeding and training with > has a top working > dog. Certified in all 8 areas of search and rescue, > trained for drug and > bomb detection, certified K9--her husband is a > police officer and the > dog sometimes does patrol work, and also her > mobility assistance dog. > This bitch developed a severe case of pyometra with > complications as the > infection had spread internally. She spent 3 weeks > in intensive care, > usually with her owner sleeping at the vet's office > with her. The dog > has pulled through. The dog did exhibit some > temporary dog > aggression--side effect of the stress perhaps? As > this was not allowable > for the work the dog does, the owner applied some > aversives, strong > chewing out, mild physical ones. She fully > understands the reasons to > dog reacted but chose to prevent the behavior from > becoming too > practiced. > > Was the extreme veterinary care in the dog's best > interest or since she > was in pain and discomfort for weeks should she have > been killed to > spare her? I believe the dog is 4, and comes from > lines that have lived > to 16 in good health. Should the aversives not have > been delivered even > though not applying them might compromise the dog's > work--which she > clearly loves to do. > > This trainer uses almost all reward based training. > And she's worked > some very tough dogs. She will use strong aversives > if need be to stop > dangerous behaviors cold. She has re-trained several > dogs that were > headed for death. While using social and food > restriction as a start and > carefully working step by step with rewards and time > outs, each dog has > still at some time, challenged her--read attempted > to bite and received > immediate physical corrections that stopped the > behavior cold. Not angry > outbursts, but a single abrupt blow to the bridge of > the nose and then > continued on. > > Had each of these dogs been raised by her the > challenges either would > not have come or been mild puppy challenges--such as > puppy playing deaf > when called under distraction. All these dogs were > trained to become > either search and rescue or law enforcement K9's. > > I wonder how many hard/tough dogs those who > recommend killing over > temporary use of aversives have trained. There are > many Dobermans that > are soft. Genetically castrated and useless for what > they were bred > for--defending humans from other humans. The useful > ones are quite > different to train. And quite different from the > typical pet dogs. > > The tough minded bull and molosser breeds are > becoming more popular. > Argentine Dogos, Bandogs, Neapolitan mastiffs, Presa > Canarios, American > Bulldogs and others. The well bred, well trained > ones are fine dogs > capable of doing therapy work, behaving in public > and making fine family > dogs when matched with the correct owners. And they > do not train the > same way that the European descended sporting and > herding dogs do. > > These and the top working dogs of many breeds for > any purpose will not > make good pets for a typical owner. Horses are > routinely described as > anyone can ride, for intermediate rider or for > experienced rider only. > Dogs are not as commonly thought of this way. > > Preferably these more challenging dogs will be sold > only to appropriate > owners who can be educated by the breeders and > trainers familiar with > them. But will those people on this list who get > paid to help owners > with their dogs leave themselves uneducated of these > harder dogs and > continue to recommend death for the sad times such a > dog is in the hands > of others who are uneducated or will they choose to > educate themselves > about the dogs genetic tendencies so they can > educate the owners and > save the dogs lives? > > From what we've seen the dogs that are highly > anxious, thunderphobic and > stressed most by living with humans are either the > very soft but easy to > train dogs or the ones with such a high need for > exercise like sled dogs > or Australian Cattle dogs. The tougher breeds are > not sound sensitive > and can tolerate situations that would make a soft > dog a nervous wreck. > These are some reasons these breeds are becoming > popular. > > So is it better to coddle easily stressed but easy > to train dogs or kill > them? What if they can't be trained to have coping > skills? Is it better > to use some aversives on tough dogs that won't need > coddling but do need > some tough love, or kill them too? > > Is it better to put a young dog with a broken leg > through surgery and > recovery or simply kill it? > > I ask those who recommend killing over temporary use > of aversives to > re-examine their beliefs and choose educating > themselves in what works > in day to day life with the dogs that differ from > their personal > experience. There are times aversives will not work > and like an exotic > animal must either be managed or killed. And there > are times that -+ R > and -P are not enough. But to choose to kill before > trying aversives > seems like hypocrisy in one who claims to be > interested in the animal's > best interests. > > Julie Alexander > > ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander" 13-AUG-2003 12:58:46.31 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Fw: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Perhaps I misinterpreted this post? It came across to me that the writer believes any physical correction is against the animal's best interest and that euthanasia is preferable to trying physical corrections. Having just come from a list where someone did advocate euthanizing a dog rather than trying a method she considered overly harsh although it involved no physical pain or damage, I may be jumping to conclusions. The dog in question was successfully retrained and placed in an appropriate home. He lived out his natural lifespan as a useful and appreciated dog. Julie Alexander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moira Harris" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:43 PM Subject: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue > Dear all, > Within the seemingly endless dog-training debate that > is currently raging, there has arisen a rather > interesting (to me anyway) issue, that might be of > relevance to subscribers concerned with animal welfare > and ethics. It is this: several contributors have > implied or stated that it is preferable to employ a > number of rather extreme-sounding behaviour > modification methods (e collars, debarking etc) in a > situation where, due to the unwanted and antisocial > behaviour of the dog in question, the only alternative > is to put it down. > As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving no > unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the part > of the animal being killed, is not a welfare issue. > It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in > question in the least. It is instead a moral and > ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' > method to control behaviour, be it mildly irritating > or intensely painful, does compromise welfare however. > > What do others think? > > BTW, I should point out that I really, really am not > interested in hearing anything about how e collars / > shock collars / whatever either are or are not or may > be painful / irritating / whatever in response to this > question. I'm simply not that interested. > > Best wishes, > - Moira Harris > > B.Sc. (Hons), Psychology > M.Sc., Animal Behaviour / Welfare > Ph.D., Animal Behaviour / Welfare > Extensive experience in controlling the behaviour of > pigs and children by a variety of means. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"F.L.Burton@udcf.gla.ac.uk" "Francis Burton" 13-AUG-2003 14:17:56.44 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia ; and a comment on rabbits and the meat rabbit industry At 02:30 13/08/03 -0600, heather mcmurray wrote: >If you can come up with "humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant >anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed" for >rabbits (other than carrying the rabbit out to a meadow in a box and >shooting it, as one show-breeder does), please let me know. What about overdose of injectable anaesthetic (e.g. pentobarbitone)? Francis From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 15:14:02.36 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: euthanasia ; and a comment on rabbits and the meat rabbit industry Any healthy rabbit being carried to a room where this type of drug is administered is fearful, even happy pets. So, you can't tell me that giving this drug involves no "unpleasant anticipation" on the part of the animal being killed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis Burton" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:17 PM Subject: Re: euthanasia ; and a comment on rabbits and the meat rabbit industry > At 02:30 13/08/03 -0600, heather mcmurray wrote: > >If you can come up with "humane euthanasia, involving no unpleasant > >anticipation, pain or suffering on the part of the animal being killed" for > >rabbits (other than carrying the rabbit out to a meadow in a box and > >shooting it, as one show-breeder does), please let me know. > > What about overdose of injectable anaesthetic (e.g. pentobarbitone)? > > Francis > > From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 15:25:10.78 To: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! yes, actually I do think that if correctly used it has it's place in training. I just think that most are describing a mass manufactured and marketed device for home use, with minimal to no instruction on its use; and, that many on the list aren't aware of how that electrical pulsing is felt along the neck. This is interesting, that some dogs become hardened to pain when in drive; and would appreciate an additional reference or citation. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michalchik@aol.com To: laura@xul.com ; Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:33 AM Subject: Re: shock collar; do some homework first before making fanciful criticisms! In a message dated 8/13/2003 7:59:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, laura@xul.com writes: Dogs become hardened to pain when in drive... they don't perceive it the same way they would when not in drive. Those who only work with pet dogs may not appreciate the extent to which "drive" will harden a dog, as it is an aspect of (some) working dog genetics. Independent of their drive state, some dogs are just a lot less sensitive to pain than are other dogs. So how about a licensing requirement like is needed for mace in most states? Basically you need to read a booklet and correctly answer 20 questions about the correct, legal use of the device before you can buy it. Does everybody here agree that there are legitimate uses for e-collars? From: IN%"hmcmurra@elp.rr.com" "heather mcmurray" 13-AUG-2003 15:53:42.04 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: breeds and extinction I stand corrected on several points, but I still maintain that 6000 years is a drop in the bucket evolutionarily and to compare the removal of a domestic breed is nothing compared to the removal of a species - Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: JDohner@aol.com To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:31 AM Subject: Re: breeds and extinction Andy Beck wrote: If I may suggest, we are a bit confused here. The Przewalski was never an extinct breed and it does not exist today as a recreated breed. Przewalski horses existed in zoos and parks until WWII in sufficient numbers. In 1976 it was determined that the captive population was actually based on 13 founder animals and the Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski Horse was organized to coordinate the preservation of this rare wild animal. International cooperation between zoos and scientific breeding efforts have increased the population to about 1500 horses. A joint Mongolian and foundation project has created a reserve on the Hustain Nuruu Steppe where small groups have been released after acclimatization. Information on the Foundation and the project is available on their websites. The Przewalski is probably a surviving offshoot of domestic Equus but not its ancestor in a clear sense. It may or may not be the horse pictured on cave art. Horse evolution has moved beyond the conception of a simple progression we learned in our science textbooks as children (from Dawn Horse to Seabiscuit) towards a complex tree with many branches who dead end. The tarpan is the recreated horse, whose validity I also question. The Polish zoologist Tadeus Ventulani began his work on this recreation after WWI, mainly using the Polish horse breed the Konik, selecting those that he felt most closely represented the extinct tarpan. I agree completely with John Burchard in his opinion. Even in a breed, it would impossible to recreate all the pressures on artificial selection which occurred in the past - environmental, dietary, disease, working need, and human preference, etc - which created any older breed of domestic animal. I am often mystified that some wildlife conservationists so easily dismiss domestic animal conservation. Every scrap of biodiversity is indeed priceless and to discard it just because it is domestic in nature is extremely narrow-minded. The opinion that we can dispense with the founder breeds of our hybrid food production animals has truly lost favor in the domestic animal world, including the mega international food corporation who are quietly stockpiling and preserving their founder breed genes against future disease or production needs. Jan Dohner The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Yale University Press, 2002 From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 13-AUG-2003 16:01:09.54 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Fw: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear Julie and all, Thank you, Julie, for re-posting the message in question. I was interested (and in my own way stunned) to find that it was my message on the differences between animal welfare issues and ethical / moral issues that had prompted your response. Thanks for drawing specific attention to the message to which you were responding. I think it does help people reading this forum if we can cite (wherever possible and practical) messages or parts of messages to which we are referring, just so that we can all keep track of the rather wide-ranging threads which are running, often simultaneously. Now that you have perhaps re-read my original message, and possibly also my follow-up message in which I gave a little more detail to help illustrate the direction in which I was thinking (I can send you another copy of it if you missed it ... as I said earlier, there have been a lot of posts to A-E in the last few days and I, for one, have deleted some of them unread) I would be interested to hear your further thoughts. Particularly since I have re-read them both quite carefully, and can find nowhere in either of them any suggestion that I advocate (or am against) euthanasing an animal rather than using physical correction, or that any physical correction is against the animal's best interest. Could I also just point to Marjory and others that, while I am perfectly capable of going off on long, rambling, outraged and a-logical rants about anything that takes my fancy, I do this in the bar after work, or at weekends. During the week I am paid to practice (and occasionally teach) as an animal welfare and animal behaviour scientist. I have been trained to do this over several years (during which I often wanted to be doing something else), and at great expense, in time and in finance and emotional investment, to myself and others. At present, for example, I am being paid by a branch of the UK government to help investigate a specific farm animal welfare-related problem. I have found that, in trying to learn from others and share my knowledge (for example during my research, teaching and in participation in electronic discussion lists) it usually is more helpful to be reasoned than to rant, even though I might sometimes want to rant. Marjory, I hope you will forgive me -- given what I said earlier in this message -- for failing to reproduce below your post in which you implied -- or at least that was my impression, please correct me if I am wrong -- that the philosophical approach of some people who earn their living in universities was interesting at the bar or over coffee, but not very useful in real life. With the greatest respect, I have to disagree. It is the logical framework that we use to underpin the real-life (and extremely useful) work that we do. Best wishes, - Moira --- Julie Alexander wrote: > Perhaps I misinterpreted this post? It came across > to me that the writer > believes any physical correction is against the > animal's best interest > and that euthanasia is preferable to trying physical > corrections. > > Having just come from a list where someone did > advocate euthanizing a > dog rather than trying a method she considered > overly harsh although it > involved no physical pain or damage, I may be > jumping to conclusions. > The dog in question was successfully retrained and > placed in an > appropriate home. He lived out his natural lifespan > as a useful and > appreciated dog. > > Julie Alexander > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Moira Harris" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:43 PM > Subject: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue > > > > Dear all, > > Within the seemingly endless dog-training debate > that > > is currently raging, there has arisen a rather > > interesting (to me anyway) issue, that might be of > > relevance to subscribers concerned with animal > welfare > > and ethics. It is this: several contributors have > > implied or stated that it is preferable to employ > a > > number of rather extreme-sounding behaviour > > modification methods (e collars, debarking etc) in > a > > situation where, due to the unwanted and > antisocial > > behaviour of the dog in question, the only > alternative > > is to put it down. > > As far as I can see, humane euthanasia, involving > no > > unpleasant anticipation, pain or suffering on the > part > > of the animal being killed, is not a welfare > issue. > > It does not reduce the well-being of the animal in > > question in the least. It is instead a moral and > > ethical judgement. Using any kind of 'correction' > > method to control behaviour, be it mildly > irritating > > or intensely painful, does compromise welfare > however. > > > > What do others think? > > > > BTW, I should point out that I really, really am > not > > interested in hearing anything about how e collars > / > > shock collars / whatever either are or are not or > may > > be painful / irritating / whatever in response to > this > > question. I'm simply not that interested. > > > > Best wishes, > > - Moira Harris > > > > B.Sc. (Hons), Psychology > > M.Sc., Animal Behaviour / Welfare > > Ph.D., Animal Behaviour / Welfare > > Extensive experience in controlling the behaviour > of > > pigs and children by a variety of means. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? > Get the FREE Yahoo! > > Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ > > ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"moiraharris@yahoo.com" "=?iso-8859-1?q?Moira=20Harris?=" 13-AUG-2003 16:11:38.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: euthanasia as an animal welfare issue Dear all, I have found, in the depths of my in-box, Margory's post to which I was referring. Margory, I apologise for mis-spelling your name in my post just before this one: it was an unintentional error. And to all A-Ers, I also apologise for taking up your valuable time by posting twice on the same subject within the space of as many minutes. Best wishes, - Moira Margory wrote: Carol, I am not confused and I am not misreading, yours nor any of the others that are coming in to my mailbox right now to this topic. I appreciate Stine Christeiansen writing in a way that acknowledges varied interpretation within and without the scientific community but even that does not shift my view or reaction. No dictionary, no interpretation as to the individual's state of mind, consciousness, none of that -- and not even the rescuers Robin referred to who use this as well -- none of that I think changes the impression. I caught I think in Chris Sherwin -- " So, because a dog does not know when it is dead, there can not be a welfare issue." -- How can one say a dog doesn't know? Rhetorical, that. Which is actually how some of the comment to this appears. It's a line of thought that's disturbing. It's all well and good in university or at the coffee bar or over brandy at a dinner party, but frankly in every day living and life, this causes me great concern. -margory cohen Scottish Deerhounds San Francisco ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From: IN%"rondog@btinternet.com" "Jon Bowen" 13-AUG-2003 16:19:40.16 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Shock collar case I sent a posting on a case of a behavioural 'problem' created by misuse of shock collars and I think this went astray somewhere. I would be interested to know how this situation fits in with the contention that shock collars do no harm. This is a case that went to court and is a matter of public record in the UK... > Two GSDs with a recall problem. No aggression, no history of social > problems with other dogs but had moved from a rural location to a town > one, and owner needed more control over them. > Owner contacted a local trainer who supplied her with a shock collar. > He made no attempt to use any non-aversive method of training recall. > About a week later these two dogs are walked through a relatively > unfamiliar location...a narrowing of a pathway going past the end of > several gardens. > A small dog runs out and barks at the fence. As the dogs go to > investigate it they are shocked. Both dogs leap into the air and > scream. The owner had been advised to shock the dogs whenever they do > anything that she did not want them to do [that was sum-total of advice > given] > The dogs had previously been shocked 2-3 times but had never shown this > level of response. > Owner never uses collar again. > > Each day the dogs walk back past this location and show avoidance of > the side of the path where the small dog ran from. They cower and > cringe. > About 7 days later they are walking back past this spot [on leash], > again cowering and cringing, when a similar small dog comes into the > end of the pathway right in front of them and barks. They immediately > launch at the small dog and attack it. They kill the dog. > > I saw the dog about 14 days later, and made a video tape of the dogs > reaction to this location. They were still showing [milder] avoidance > and would try to pull away from the fence where the small dog had been. > ON a walk in that area they were generally avoidant of other dogs and > might bark at them, whereas in other nearby streets they were fine. > > That is the general summary. > The history and circumstances of the shock response and attack > indicated to me that this had to be related to the use of the shock > collar. > Any comments from anyone else? From: IN%"noofies@tir.com" "Nancy" 13-AUG-2003 16:27:27.56 To: IN%"reddragn@bossig.com" "Julie Alexander", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: when is tempory pain or discomfort in the animal's welfare At 10:03 AM 8/13/03 -0700, Julie Alexander wrote: >The tough minded bull and molosser breeds are becoming more popular. >Argentine Dogos, Bandogs, Neapolitan mastiffs, Presa Canarios, American >Bulldogs and others. The well bred, well trained ones are fine dogs >capable of doing therapy work, behaving in public and making fine family >dogs when matched with the correct owners. And they do not train the >same way that the European descended sporting and herding dogs do. > >These and the top working dogs of many breeds for any purpose will not >make good pets for a typical owner. Horses are routinely described as >anyone can ride, for intermediate rider or for experienced rider only. >Dogs are not as commonly thought of this way. > >Preferably these more challenging dogs will be sold only to appropriate >owners who can be educated by the breeders and trainers familiar with >them. But will those people on this list who get paid to help owners >with their dogs leave themselves uneducated of these harder dogs and >continue to recommend death for the sad times such a dog is in the hands >of others who are uneducated or will they choose to educate themselves >about the dogs genetic tendencies so they can educate the owners and >save the dogs lives? Julie, I work with Dogo Argentinos, American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, etc. and they're usually not well-bred dogs. In fact, they're not only hard, badly-bred specimens of these breeds, they're hard, badly-bred, and DEAF. I, too, have "re-trained several dogs that were headed for death", and done it without using aversives*. (I also rehabilitate "puppymill" breeding stock given up to rescue when they're no longer making money for their owners. And every once in a while I get a nice, "normal" dog who just needs a little more time to find the right home than the county animal control shelter allows.) Back when I began training dogs I used a combination of training methods - mostly reward-based but I also used corrections and training collars, including an electronic collar - but my training methods have evolved over the years and today I use R+ and P- almost exclusively. I can assure you that a combination of R+, P- training not only works with the hard, badly-bred molosser-type dogs, in my experience it works far better with them than the use of any aversive including, but not limited to, an electronic collar, a slip (choke) collar (or "training" collar of any kind), a "single abrupt blow to the bridge of the nose" or any other physical correction. It may take a little more creativity, effort, and time to train this way, but I have consistently good results doing so. In addition to my own deaf dogs, my current foster load includes a 21-month old deaf male Dogo Argentino who, when he came to me, was a runner - if he got out of a fenced yard/enclosure, he was gone. Without using aversives of ANY sort whatsoever, this dog is now trained to the point where he simply will not run. In an unfenced area, he will not stray further than 6' from me and the one time he got out of the yard (meter reader left the gate unlatched, I didn't know it when I let him out the back door) he ran around to the front door and waited on the porch for me to let him in. I taught him not to run using only a 15' cotton lead attached to his regular collar. I also have an 11-week old (25-pound) deaf female Dogo Argentino puppy; even at this young age she's a tough customer. Again, without using any aversives she is housetrained (and rings a bell at the back door when she needs to go out), no longer mouths/bites humans, knows "sit", "down", "come", she's 90% reliable on "stay" as long as I don't go out of sight, and she walks on a loose lead. I've never even so much as scolded her. (*It's not quite true that I don't use any aversives whatsoever. With the rescue dogs I use very mild aversives for P+ in remote-correction set-ups - Snappy Trainers on countertops to help break countersurfing habits, pepper sprinkled in the garbage pail to help break a garbage-digging habit, etc. I also use a squirt bottle to get their attention when an unwanted behavior is occurring across the room from me and I can't get over there fast enough to touch the dog to interrupt the behavior while it's occurring. If the dogs could hear, I would shout instead of squirt.) My point is that even "challenging" breeds of dog can be trained without the use of aversives; citing breed as an excuse for using harsh training methods is, IMO, a cop out. I will continue to educate owners of these breeds in the use of R+, P- to solve their dogs' behavior problems. Nancy NeufVies' Penny From Heaven, deaf English Setter - CGC, TT, Therapy Dog NeufVies' The Blizzard, deaf Dogo Argentino - CGC, TT, therapy dog NeufVies' Graceful Glenys, deaf English Setter - CGC, therapy dog NeufVies' Lumi Spot, deaf American Bulldog - CGC, therapy dog, local TV star and the fosters at Miss Noofies' Charm School and Home for Wayward Doggies http://catatonic.freeservers.com/penny/thedogs.html From: IN%"laura@xul.com" "Laura Sanborn" 13-AUG-2003 16:34:04.35 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied ethology" CC: Subj: RE: Shock collar case At 03:19 PM Wednesday 8/13/2003, you wrote: > I sent a posting on a case of a behavioural 'problem' created by misuse > of shock collars and I think this went astray somewhere. > >I would be interested to know how this situation fits in with the >contention that shock collars do no harm. >This is a case that went to court and is a matter of public record in the >UK... I don't believe anyone here has claimed that e-collars can never do harm under any circumstance. Any training tool or method, even +R methods, can do harm if misapplied. As far as the case described, I have no idea if cause and effect were correctly ascribed. I'll assume for discussion purposes that they are. That being the case, an answer is contained in the text: "As the dogs go to investigate it they are shocked. Both dogs leap into the air and scream." Based on the reactions of the dogs ("dogs leap into the air and scream"), the e-collars were set way too high. This is an example of the potential problems that can occur if an e-collar is misused. Laura Sanborn From: IN%"JDohner@aol.com" 13-AUG-20